ChesshireCat

Oh Wow! I've been inside a lot of plants over the years. Some were impressive and many were crude. Lima Ohio was pretty neat (M1 Tank) and I got the tour that the regular tour never do. Actually been in there three times. Was treated very well in there. Warren Tech was the neatest place I've been in. I saw race cars, production cars and even NASCAR cars that were two years out. I was building the world's largest robotic cell, and really was lost half the time. They sent me up there every Tuesday morning on the corporate jet to learn what I could about artificial intelligence. They were also le

while the other cool jets just keep plugging away. The F15 will do another twenty years while the Tomcat now carries a PBR label. Even the F16 and A10 are still rolling right along like gang busters. Face it, it was just another piece of aluminum lost in time. Even the F18 started out in that same time frame, and is still moving right along. gary

you are quite correct in the power comment. With the current wing system the 4600 hp seems almost an over kill. Just hard to believe that the grand old design just keeps going on and on! Way back in the early eighties Allison did a good bit of experimenting with ten and twelve bladed props, but never saw any on a C130 type of airframe. The idea was to increase fuel range and reduce harmonics. This tells me they rotated at a slower speed while moving more air. The only serious difference between the 3300 horse power engine and the 5800 horse power engine was the fuel delivery system and two or

Oh man I'm gonna see me missing a lot of meals in the future. That $99 price tag is not all that bad. Spru Brothers gets $118 for the B17G, and I got mine on the deal of the day for $83. Down side is that the landing gear are too long, but Eduard has a set for $44. Let hope they redesigned the landing gear for this kit. Never like the SAC legs, and keep hoping that SOW does a set. I'm good for two of the F model for sure. Now lets hope for an E model!! gary

Turbo prop engines are rated in shaft horse power for engineering reason. Think the Airforce uses the 3300 SHP engine right now. They've had 5800 SHP engines in the test cells for at least fifteen years now, and with a major transmission redesign could probably get 7500 SHP. I can't see them ever going past 4500 horse power, but can see them adding two or four ram jets like the C123 did. Still kind of amazing in this day and age that a 1954 airframe design is still in production, when we see them gone in 25 years. I wonder is the C130J is new manufacture or rebuilt older airframes? Plus you kn

The C130's all use an Allison T56 turbo prop engine in one form or another. Very little external difference from the first to whatever is current. I might add that Rolls Royce owns the Allison Engine Company now (well a little more than 70% of it). They own it all but a small foundry and for some reason G.M. owns whatever is left. The foundry is actually Defense Department Property, and takes a seriously high top secret classification just to get in there. The actual C130 airframe has had very little redesign done to it, but a constant stream of upgrades. Seems like there are two lengths now.

the Chipmunks are for shows only, and are not used regularly like the DC-3 airframe. Even the Stearman is for shows and recreational use. Of course there is the DeHavland Beaver and some others out there. I've really been surprised that the C130 has not been thru a major redesign to seriously upgrade the wings and engines. They are capable of nearly twice the horse power they now use. Still it's a well known and proven design that has few if any bugs left in it. The Boeing 707 has been re-engined a couple times, and just keeps going and going. The one that surprised me as to how short lived it

I actually thought they used them in WWII, but also found I was wrong. What about the Polish crop duster (identity escapes me)? The C123 was used for quite awhile, but nowhere the length of the airframes posted here. Even the original TU95 Bear and TU142 are long in the tooth, but still not in this league. Most all C123's are scraped and melted down due two Agent Orange contamination. I honestly figured the C141 and C5 would have had a life span close to the B52. I see Russian and U.S. airframes, but surely there are some French and British airframes to toss in to the group.

the first commercial flight for the DC-3 was in 1936, and the Piper J2 may be slightly older, but on the other hand does anybody use one daily? I have a Beechcraft Bonanza fly out of the airport near me regularly, but never thought of it being anything that old (but it is). I also have a Stearman close by, but once again it is just flown about one time every six or eight weeks. The guy who sells Mazdas in my area owns a P51, and flies it regularly, and at least he uses it for his business travel (Roush). There are actually quite a few Piper J3's out there and in use regularly, and these would

looks like Canada is bound and determined to get their money's worth out of those airframes. gary

most correct Sir. I also forgot the Mig's! The Mig21 is still in use in a lot of places as well as the Mig23 and Mig27. I don't know of anybody flying the Douglas A4 anymore, but it seemed to have a long life span. Also; one must never forget the Boeing 707 / KC135 / EC135, and many other variants still flying. Guess that list could really be long when you start to really think about it. gary

was thinking this morning about a few prop engined airframes that have really stood the test of time. * the good old DC-3 or C47. First flown in commercial use in 1936! There was an extended fuselage version known as the Super DC-3. Also turbo prop conversions from several re-manufacturers. They are still flying a few here and there, and I calculate 85 years young. Russia built about 6,000 on license, and Japan simply copied it and used it till 1945. May well have been the single most successful design ever when you look at airframes like the F14 that are now made into beer cans.

I never realized the canopy frame was out of wack! Your right about the tail being sorta wierd looking, but never quite put my fingers on what the issue was gary

I thought the nose area just looked wrong as well as the blanked off intake. The wings look OK, but then again they don't. I can't understand how that kit can suck so badly when their F86d's were so nice. Yet to be honest with you, I have not looked inside the box for at least twenty four months. I just wanted to do two of those Sabers, and then move on. Jonnie Johnson's and Eric Hartman's were what I wanted to do. This is a subject that ZM or Tamiya needs to visit (even GWH or Kittyhawk). gary

you don't even have tape the old Monogram kit together to know it's no where near to being close! gary

sounds like it's no better than the ancient Monogram kit I've managed to hang onto way too long gary

I have the HB, and something just does not look right from the canopy to the tail area. Looks anemic to me, but I could also be wrong gary

we had this guy come out once or twice a week with armed guards and a manila envelope full of photos in an Air America plane. He's kinda famous in the covert world these days. He had ZZY-Flash photos for folks to look at and plan on. They were the "for your eyes only type". You guys probably got to look at them as well. Turned out they were from U-2's and SR71's so they claimed. Then there were the senor graphs from the otherside of the fence. I remember seeing spent shell cases and small boxes laying around. They were a good look see to what was going to happen in a week or two. We'd have map

war is a mental trauma. Nothing much more to it than that once you step back and look at it. Tony Herbert once said that the reason you use 18 and 19 year old kids instead young men in their mid twenties was because a 19 year old will do what you tell him to do with out asking why? In other words a 19 year old with a full auto rifles is a very dangerous thing on the battlefield. I was the old man in my group at 22. Fred was three or four years my senior, and remembers the Russian tanks marching thru Germany very well, Yet Vietnam was just a rehash for him in many ways. Fred was the absolute b

she does make a very nice target to work on. At My old VFW post there was a score card on the wall above her. If you missed you had to start all over. I led the pack with 202 hits in her right eyeball. No love lost here! I lost my section (squad) twice, so kinda know the feelings. I told some Marine friends a couple years back about what the worst job in the world was (and you know). Going thru and sorting out the guy's personal belongings and then filtering it so as not to cause any more anguish back home. Every unit is different, yet it's all similar. Must have the OIC present an

The marine airframe is what I want gary

to tell you the truth, we knew very little about that slut. The only thing we knew about her was from FNG's that were up on the latest news in the states. Besides they probably didn't want you to know anything going on. I was just not good Army material to be truthful. Yet I never minded it all that much, as it was just a new adventure. I wouldn't trade my adventures for a million dollars, but also would not ever do it again. And trust me, it wasn't all blood and guts like the movies. Some of it was as funny if not funnier than MASH. Speaking of Fonda. I actually got three dea

Dave, you might well know the answer to this question. The Naval version is a little different from the Airforce version so they told us at work. Is this kit a Navy or Airforce version? Or does it come with all the parts to build either version? gary

officially, I've never been in Cambodia, but Top has photographic proof of me taking a leak on the concrete marker between Laos and Cambodia with Vietnam on the otherside. Give a lot for that picture. I've been in Laos officially once, plus two other times (just a few hundred feet). The other time I help blow up a certain very classified airplane. I lived near the fence for nine months, and it still is home. Ventured as far north as a couple klicks south of the Ashau Valley and as far south as the Two Corp border, but that was purely a stroke of bad luck. Most of the time I was a Que Son Valle

can't say I ever heard the call on the fire push, but have heard everything else!! The base camp we used was really an SF camp (A102) and it came under siege about the end of January 69. It looked like a parking lot overhead 24/7. The real issue was they got so close that an air strike was virtually impossible. That's when you learn to shoot a second on the time fuse and the lowest powder charge in a 155 mm howitzer. I've shot WP inside the wire several times as well as HE. There was an AC47 overhead all the time. I managed to get outta there around the first of March, and anybody else was stu