Warbird Information Exchange

Crack on then mate.

Well spoken, sir.

_________________
remember the Oogahonk!
old school enthusiast of Civiltary Warbirds and Air Racers

Oh here we go: yer mate's arrived.

For what it's worth, I completely agree with quemerford.

When it was suggested on the FP forum that perhaps thanks or even an acknowledgement would be polite, the response was basically why on earth would you expect thanks? Or perhaps it was why should I thank you?

Either way, I agree as I said.

I will definitely keep your offer in mind.


Don't worry, it wasn't taken that way.

Thanks for the kind words both of you! It means a lot! I never meant for my initial response to be critical of Stephan or anyone else, so I hope it wasn't taken that way. Looking back, I have received thanks in response to my threads before. So, if anything, my worries have more to do with my own self-doubt and unconscious inability to believe it than anyone else's reaction.

But that's enough about me and my sob story. We're on a forum to talk about aviation history, so let's do that! If the P-80 was the first airplane to use tip tanks, what was the first civilian aircraft to have them? I saw Connies mentioned in another thread and it appears the first civilian variant that employed them was the L-1049G, which first flew in late 1954.[1] On the general aviation front, it appears as though tip tanks were available on Bonanzas as aftermarket parts at least as early as 1959.[2]

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

It reminds me of the "propeller" they put on the XP-59:

(Source: NMUSAF)

_________________
Tri-State Warbird Museum Collections Manager & Museum Attendant

Warbird Philosophy Webmaster

Sorry to do this, but I want to address the meta-topic here: I see absolutely nothing wrong with the original poster's question, and I'm put off by the fact that he was responded to so antagonistically for asking what IMHO was a sincere and interesting question.

I'm a relative newcomer here, but this seems like the right forum to ask questions like "I can't find an earlier instance of <XXX>, does anyone else know of one?" And it was wonderful to see such a thorough response. Let me say that, as a reader, I enjoyed and appreciated both the question and the answer, and I thank both of you for those.

There was no need for a snide response to the original poster. If that's the culture here, that's a problem.

I really appreciated Mark Allen M's recent post that encouraged everyone (himself included) to keep this a positive place, and reminded us that we all come here because of "our passion for the old airplanes." I'd much rather someone feel welcome to ask any aviation-related question, and not worry whether they're going to get flamed for asking it. The more topics the better - they often branch off in unexpected directions. The last thing I want is to discourage posting.

If a topic dies of disinterest, so be it. If you feel you've done too much "legwork" in the past, then don't answer it. But don't attack someone for asking a question. As far as I'm concerned, only Scott has the right to do that.

Again, I'm a relative newbie here (and just *love* the incredible archive of communication this represents), but if this thread is an example, I guess I'm confused about the culture here. I hope it's the supportive and welcoming forum I thought it was.

@hardlanding; the issue isn't about asking questions - the more the merrier and we all crave knowledge after all.

It's about serial posters who ask questions in order to complete their latest assignment, which they get paid for. Most importantly, the answers rarely (if ever) even get a cursory thankyou. As another poster said, it's not restricted to this forum either.

So I hope you're not put off by a solitary reaction to a solitary poster, it's just that it really grinds my gears to see good people unwittingly exploited in this way.

Meantime I shall continue to post positive comments to the many knowledgeable posters here, and try to avoid posts which are blatantly aimed at making a buck.

Except in this thread, the original poster asked a question - and then answered it himself. And then others added more detail. Seems perfectly reasonable - and collaborative - to me.

IMHO, any anger you're carrying over what you perceive as others having being exploited in the past does not justify your own inhospitable behavior. But I'll defer to whatever culture of aggression that Scott wants to have, since it's his forum.

Hardly aggression. Stick around and see how long it goes on before you see a different point of view.

Dude, that's me. And the only reason you know all that about me is that I use my full name and almost always point out that I am posting a question because I am working on a magazine article. Yes, I get paid--which I think is the core gripe for you--but if you think I do this work for the money, you are wrong. (In fact, if my making money off your information gets your knickers in a twist, please let me know the going rate for your answer, and I will send you a check. Probably cost you more to convert U. S. dollars to Australian when you deposit it, but that's your problem.)

Payment for a full-length cover story from a magazine such as Aviation History, with a print circulation of maybe 50,000, is equal to the amount that my investments earn in about eight hours, day after day, week after week, month after month. At age 85, do this work to stay alive, not to refuel my car.

And as I said earlier, if you don't want to answer my questions, don't. Or send a bill. Simple.