Oldbaldguy

Damn. Now there’s no reason to check Works In Progress three or four times a day anymore. I think I have this post partum thing going on.

He was on runway 27, not that that matters - it’s just that it’s pretty built up off the end. What’s that old saying - there are those who have and those who will? I wonder if this guy was cool enough to fly the pattern with his left elbow out on the cockpit sill?

Interesting marketing decision. Might be the most unappealing airplane ever conceived and built in the US.

Whenever one of us talks about the possibility of yet another LSP kit, the discussion often turns to the number of real world operators and variety of paint schemes for a particular aircraft. Whilst watching coverage last night of aircraft departing RIAT 2023, it occurred to me that one could model 1/32 C-130s for an entire lifetime and still not come close to covering all the many variants and paint schemes. While it is not likely anyone will ever kit an LSP Herc - it’s hard enough to find room to display one in 1/48 - it seems to me it is the only airplane extant that has ever offered so many modeling options and can truly be all things to all people. They could be built in their thousands, but I don’t think the modeling world is quite ready for that.

“Jumpin’ Jehosiphat?” You somehow related to Grandpaw Pettibone?

They also lost a T-6 with both crew the same day. Appeared from ADS-B data that it was over Lake Winnebago when airspeed started falling off and it eventually rolled over and went straight in. EAA over the years has become masters at minimizing coverage of accidents/incidents during the show with some years being better than others. For those who might be interested, seems Russian hardware dominated the warbird scene this year, with three MiG-17s, a MiG-29 and a MiG-23 flying in for demos. Everything else seemed to be a repeat for previous years. Both Thunderbird and Bonnie flew demos - Bonnie’s was maybe a little more hardcore than I would have liked for an airframe that rare.

Indeed. I would say you are 100% correct. It was hiding in plain sight.

While we were nerding out over this, I spotted a photo somewhere of a restored -4 or -5 airplane with its flaps down. It was very apparent that the infamous gap had been covered with sheet metal, but this was a restored airplane without guns, so I don’t know if the patch was a factory thing or something somebody did later. Not that it matters, just saying all things are possible. Are we painting yet?

Considering the configuration, the likely question put to the guys who would fly the thing in combat was: “You all want six .50s and 85 knots over the ramp or four .50s and 80 knots over the ramp? You can’t have both.” Being good Naval Aviators and fighter pilots, most probably said they wanted eight .50s and 100 knots over the ramp but nobody would let them do that so they went with six. Anybody know if the Corsairs with four 20mm had that flap interference issue? Looks like the only reason the cutout is there is to accommodate that outboard gun and the only reason that gun is where it is, is to make room for the feed trays for the other guns. There was only so much room inside the wing and something had to give, so they put the guns where they needed to, cut a hole in the flap to make everything fit and hoped no one would notice. And nobody much did until Jay pointed it out!

Didn’t somebody a while back try to resurrect a Dornier seaplane from WW2 with turbo props and such? Seems like that was a flop. I also know of at least one attempt to build new P-51s but that also failed. Market just isn’t there.

Look at a plan view of the airplane. All the heavy items - guns, ammo, gas - are on the CG, causing the airplane to feel/fly the same whether you are at gross or are landing on fumes - the pilot does not have to continuously fiddle with the trim. The guns are staggered in order to get everything - guns, feed troughs, etc - to fit inside the relatively thin outer wing panels. The notch in the flap is probably less of an issue than you estimate. It is there to accommodate the aft end of the offending .50 that protrudes into the flap well. The notch, while appearing large, is sealed at the leading edge and therefor produces less drag than an open hole and still produces lift. Airflow behind it may be a little turbulent, but I doubt there was a complete loss of lift aft of the notch. These are simple hinged flaps with gap seals all around. They do not increase wing area; all they do is change the camber of the airfoil to make it more efficient at low speeds. The notch isn’t much exposed to the airflow until the flaps are fully down, at which point they are producing more drag than lift anyway. With six gaping gun ports located right on the leading edge, and two whopping big oil cooler vents essentially flattening the leading edge of the wing root section, a relatively small notch in the leading edge of one flap is small potatoes. At least that is how it looks to me.

Too much trouble to try to post the photos right now. All the carrier cruise books from that era are available on line. All the tugs in the photos on the Ranger in 64/65 were MD-3s.

Just went thru my dad’s 64-65 WESTPAC cruise book from USS Ranger. None of the tugs in your photos showed up on the flight deck in any of the photos in the book. All were the flatter version.

Ask Aires. They made the kits so they ought to know. If that doesn’t work, google united tractor/Clarke - they built the big ones so they ought to know when they built which ones. If that doesn’t work start combing the internet for period photos. You include photos of five tugs. If you are trying to model a flight deck scenario, then you don’t want the ones with the attached roof. If you’re looking for a Navy tug, it will be yellow. These things were pretty universal.

As tedious as the Corsair must have been to build, I cannot imagine the time (and overspray) required to paint all its many parts several times in so many different colors!

And just think, the guys at Boeing laid out the originals on paper using a T-square, triangles, a compass and a box full of French curves. Probably in about the same amount of time that it is taking you. Of course there was a gazillion of them swarming boards like ants and only one of you but, still, it was quite a feat.

Not wishing to appear stuck on a previous topic, but I wonder: I am under the impression that you made a relief tube for only the pilot. Hopefully, I am mistaken because, to my knowledge, the enlisted guys in the back were not issued larger than standard bladders with their other flight gear and while it might be possible to stand up and pee over the side, it would take extraordinary skill to overcome the slipstream. Okay. I’m done with this.

Dang. Beat me to it. Very nice.

Rope fenders! Anybody besides me remember old school harbor tugs with gigantic bulbous rope fenders on the bow? Are they even a thing any more?

Very nice. Love the realistic way the rotor blades droop. Did you encounter any issues during the build? I ask, because I’m about to get cranked up with mine. After poking and prodding the parts, the kit seems pretty straightforward.

Don’t overthink this. This is the US Navy we’re talking about here. The only constant in Naval Aviation is that there are no constants. I just went through my dad’s 1964-1965 cruise book from the Ranger (CV-61). That was a WESTPAC (Vietnam) cruise. Photos show some of the long universal tow bars with red tips where it hooks up to the wheel(s) and some without. There is even a photo with tow bars that appear to have ZC primered tips - maybe they were out of red or were just too busy to finish painting them. Who knows? Bottom line is that you will be historically correct whether you paint the thing red and yellow or just plain yellow. Pretty much up to you.

Hunh. Strap-on eyes. I’ve been avoiding these things for as long as I can remember, but it think it’s finally time.

My dad was a Chief. He had “finding things” down to a fine art.

Yep. Yellow. Hence the Navy term: yellow gear. Pretty much all the flight deck equipment and support gear was yellow for a very long time. The changeover to white came later.

The surgery itself is quick and easy - really just a matter of minutes from start to finish. Recovery and healing take about a month, with eye patches at night, eye drops throughout the day and weird wobbly images at the edge of your vision, etc. But colors and light in general are vivid and clear once again. In my case, whites are white again and not sort of murky yellow. The new cornea implants change your vision, however. I need to change the strength of my old reader glasses, but I don’t yet know to what and there is no point in doing that until both eyes are healed, so I haven’t found a temporary sweet spot for near vision and probably won’t for several more weeks. This causes a problem when building and painting. I painted a kit yesterday without realizing until later that I had missed most of the small parts entirely, spraying expensive MRP into space and not on the model. Frustrating, to say the least. Bald I can live with; it’s the getting old part that sucks.