GW8345

Some key points to keep in mind; 1) The ship was in the "yards" so there was no ship's company nucleus fire team (ie fire department) on board. 2) The ship was turned over to the contractor, the Sailors on board were more for security and no fire watches, that was the contractor's responsibility. 3) The boiler's were off line so there as no fire main pressure (ie, no water to fight the fire), basically she was in "cold steel" status. 4) While the ship's hull and frames are steel, non-structural bulkheads are aluminum. 5) As stated previously, the repair work on the ship prevented the setting of fire boundaries, thus allowing the fire to spread more easily. 6) All large compartments above the water line have overboard drains to help prevent water build up when fighting fires so there is little chance of the ship capsizing. 7) There was something fueling this fire in order for it to get that intense that quickly, and it wasn't fuel (there was no ordnance aboard). If this ship was at sea with a normal complement of crew, the fire would not have gotten as large as it has. Fire boundaries would have been set, plenty of fire main pressure would be available and the crew (all trained to fight fires) would have been able to fight the fire effectively. Just my $0.02

The AERO 1D did not have a constant curve like you keep saying, it did have a straight center section. https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4287%2F35638698652_e49b9cb3e7_o.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tapatalk.com%2Fgroups%2Fairfixtributeforum%2Fairfix-1-72-douglas-a4b-4p-skyhawk-a03029-t47356-s25.html&tbnid=d2nyFgHl0ypWsM&vet=12ahUKEwizmYqMxsvqAhUPNd8KHRsQDBMQMyg7egQIARA9..i&docid=8ZypyabsFtPpaM&w=800&h=500&q=AERO 1D external fuel tank&ved=2ahUKEwizmYqMxsvqAhUPNd8KHRsQDBMQMyg7egQIARA9 http://tailspintopics.blogspot.com/2011/07/douglas-low-drag-external-fuel-tanks.html The USAF tanks just had a strengthening strip added. BTW, you are aware that there are different part number's for the AERO 1D, such as 75A550002-1001, 225–48000–96 and 225–48000–97. So what you are claiming is not an AERO 1D is in fact an AERO 1D, just a different part number. And as far as the curve, take a look at MIL-T-81838(AS), NAVAIR 03–10JL–7 and ASIM AOP-12 Vol 2, there is not constant curve. Just out of curiosity, have you ever handled an AERO 1D?

Yes, the standard A-7E tanker configuration was an D704 on station 1 and an AERO 1D on station 6 and 8.

The pod goes on station 5R, which is the exact same station that the right aft weapons rail goes on. The mounting location for the pod should be the same mounting location for the right aft rail. hth

I never said they were the only tanks authorized. BTW, the pic you post is a museum bird, there are photos of operational A-7D's with AERO-1D's.

Yes but I rarely saw tanks on USAF Corsair's.

The Douglas 300 gallon tank was the Aero 1D.

I think the real question now is what is considered a serious modeler? Is someone who has a stash that takes up a whole room, builds about one model per month, has bookcases full of reference books and decals and has enough spare paint to last 20 years considered a serious modeler? or Is someone who has won numerous awards, takes years to build one model and writes articles for modeling rags considered a serious modeler. Being a serious modeler has nothing to do with skill, how many kits they have, how much they know about a particular subject or how many articles they've pen. (Personally) Being a serious modeler has everything to do with a mind set, such as going into any kind of store and looking for stuff that they can use for model building. Going on a family vacation and mapping out local hobby stores in the area to visit during said vacation. Looking forward to days off so they can sit at their table and sniff glue and spill paint, that is a serious modeler to me.

Yes, just the fin configuration would be different. Also, there was two different fin configuration for the A-7, the configuration depended on which station (inboard/outboard) the tank was loaded on. I'll see if I can find/remember the exact configurations in a little bit. For the A-7, the drop tanks on the inboard station will have fins at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock position. For tanks loaded on the outboard stations the tanks would only have fins on the 3 and 9 o'clock position. Here's a photo of a tanker with tanks on both the inboard and outboard stations (midboard stations were dry stations so no tank are authorized) https://nara.getarchive.net/media/right-front-view-of-an-a-7-corsair-ii-aircraft-coming-to-a-stop-after-making-0566f7?zoom=true

And here I thought 2020 couldn't get any worse, way to go Darren.

Remember, an aircraft is just a series of nuts and bolts flying in loose formation around a fuel leak. And it will always get you to the scene of the crash.

This Is No S...

I just dug them out of the box I threw them in and now I feel like an idiot. They are the CMK GBU-12's that are actually GBU-12F/B's and not the Eduard GBU-12's. My apologies to Eduard for me accusing them of screwing up their GBU-12. (However, they did screw me over on the AIM-54A Phoenix's I ordered.)

I don't know what the differences are between Eduard's GBU-12 and a real GBU-12 are, I never got the Eduard's GBU-12's I ordered, I got GBU-12F/B DMLGB's which are very different from a regular GBU-12. The package said they were regular GBU-12's but when I opened it up I had two GBU-12F/B DMLGB's which were totally unusable to me.

If I'm paying $15 for two bombs I expect both quality and accuracy. I was doing a build for a friend who wanted a specific weapons load, getting something totally different than what I ordered cost me that $15. Think of it this way, you order a F-14D from Tamiya for $75, you get the kit, the box says it's a F-14D but inside are parts for a F-14A. If Eduard was so good they would at least know the difference between their products to ensure they labeled their packaging correctly.