Re: Merlin
Thu May 29, 2008 12:21 am
Bill Greenwood wrote:To be accurate there are a lot of pilots that preferred an Allison over a Merlin, even for a Mustang or Spitfire or Hurricane or Lancaster or Mosquito. But those pilots were German.
ZING! What a great punchline.. Genuine LOL moment
As for any aero's with Jay in the 51, I'll probably see him on Sunday so I'll ask
Thu May 29, 2008 5:27 am
Sorry I even spoke.
Gary
Gary
Thu May 29, 2008 7:55 am
RickH wrote:For what it's worth, I'm disappointed. I posted the link because I thought you guys would get excited that a warbird was getting it's due in a pretty significant arena. Instead ya'll chose to focus on one line that was spoken in a video that lasted over 14 minutes. Jay's Garage gets about 25,000,000 hits a year and he mentions the videos every night on the Tonite Show. That is bigtime exposure for a passion we all supposedly feed with our WIX Fixes.
This thread has been used to abuse and malign for 3 pages, over one remark. As for the comment by Jack regarding the aircraft being referred to as the original Betty Jane, no one has tried to pass it off as anything other than what it is. Hardly any posting has commented on the overall positive aspects of Jay's interest in the aircraft or his flight in it.
Some of you guys apparently can't see the forest for the trees !
Rick,
I'll step up and say what needs to be said...
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THE LINK! WHILE NOT ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS EXCHANGED BETWEEN ROB AND JAY WAS 100% HISTORICALLY CORRECT, IT WAS STILL A VERY ENJOYABLE VIDEO AND I LIKED IT. IT WAS GREAT PUBLICITY FOR THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION AND THE WARBIRD COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. THE VIDEO WASN'T AIMED AT WARBIRD PEOPLE LIKE US. IT WAS MADE TO IMPRESS AND ENTERTAIN THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND I THINK IT DID A MIGHTY FINE JOB OF ACHIEVING ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. REGARDING THE LITTLE BITS OF INCORRECTNESS, THE PUBLIC WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, AND IN REALITY, THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T CARE. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
So... can we knock off with the arguing now, please?
Thu May 29, 2008 8:17 am
No, we can appreciate the great video and also argue. Although I think the arguments are about tapped out ... ? Until next time.
Honestly, we are not children. We are enthusiasts who can appreciate a nice video and also discuss the finer points of what an airplane is. We can even call people out on misleading statements they make. We do not need to be told to stop arguing by self-appointed hall prefects.
You can always make a post and say "Please no arguing in this thread, just express delight and admiration of this picture/video/aircraft." But we don't have to listen. Perhaps people on more adolescent forums like Airshowbuzz or Fencecheck would be more inclined to obey.
August
Honestly, we are not children. We are enthusiasts who can appreciate a nice video and also discuss the finer points of what an airplane is. We can even call people out on misleading statements they make. We do not need to be told to stop arguing by self-appointed hall prefects.
You can always make a post and say "Please no arguing in this thread, just express delight and admiration of this picture/video/aircraft." But we don't have to listen. Perhaps people on more adolescent forums like Airshowbuzz or Fencecheck would be more inclined to obey.
August
Thu May 29, 2008 8:29 am
k5dh wrote:. . . THANK YOU FOR POSTING THE LINK! WHILE NOT ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WAS EXCHANGED BETWEEN ROB AND JAY WAS 100% HISTORICALLY CORRECT, IT WAS STILL A VERY ENJOYABLE VIDEO AND I LIKED IT. IT WAS GREAT PUBLICITY FOR THE COLLINGS FOUNDATION AND THE WARBIRD COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. THE VIDEO WASN'T AIMED AT WARBIRD PEOPLE LIKE US. IT WAS MADE TO IMPRESS AND ENTERTAIN THE GENERAL PUBLIC. AND I THINK IT DID A MIGHTY FINE JOB OF ACHIEVING ITS INTENDED PURPOSE. REGARDING THE LITTLE BITS OF INCORRECTNESS, THE PUBLIC WILL NEVER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE, AND IN REALITY, THEY PROBABLY WOULDN'T CARE. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Ah, someone who knows how to step back and appreciate the beautiful forest and rolling hills . . . thanks.
As for Merlins or Allisons - give me cubic inches every time!
Wade
Thu May 29, 2008 9:05 am
K5dh,
Mission accomplished???
I think you are basically correct. The vidio, indeed Collins foundation DOES have an agenda and it wasn't aimed at "us" and there is a certain net benefit to the interview. However, that does not negate what I see as a fundamentntal problem. The very idea that it's ok to promote aviation (or anything for that matter~!!)in a manner that is less than truthfull from the outset and has the appearance of self service BEFORE basic honesty. As someone earlier said, it is "marketing".
The very fact that this Jay Leno/Collins foundation "sound bite" exists and is being shown widely puts Mr. collins in the position of an authority on the subject of Mustangs and WWII aircraft, which may or may not be true. What is true is that most of all the unknowing people viewing the tape now believe he is and are influenced by his less than historical views and predudices.
Kind of a interesting hypocritical conundrum for a foundation ostensibly dedicated to preserving memory/history of the men and machines isn't it?
No one forced Mr. Collins to say what he did. Now, he has no responsiblity to back up his claims because we can "understand" it is only marketing??
Mission accomplished???
I think you are basically correct. The vidio, indeed Collins foundation DOES have an agenda and it wasn't aimed at "us" and there is a certain net benefit to the interview. However, that does not negate what I see as a fundamentntal problem. The very idea that it's ok to promote aviation (or anything for that matter~!!)in a manner that is less than truthfull from the outset and has the appearance of self service BEFORE basic honesty. As someone earlier said, it is "marketing".
The very fact that this Jay Leno/Collins foundation "sound bite" exists and is being shown widely puts Mr. collins in the position of an authority on the subject of Mustangs and WWII aircraft, which may or may not be true. What is true is that most of all the unknowing people viewing the tape now believe he is and are influenced by his less than historical views and predudices.
Kind of a interesting hypocritical conundrum for a foundation ostensibly dedicated to preserving memory/history of the men and machines isn't it?
No one forced Mr. Collins to say what he did. Now, he has no responsiblity to back up his claims because we can "understand" it is only marketing??
Video
Thu May 29, 2008 9:06 am
The Leno story is good pr for Warbirds. I think he's nuts not to have a headset, maybe he had ear plugs, but the noise in a Mustang or most planes can seriously damage your hearing.
I don't know if an LB-30 is a B-24, or not. My J-3 Cub is not an L-4, and it would not be even if I put in the military equipment and paint, because the factory built it as a J-3.. A 707 is not a KC-135. To make things a little more grey, is a DC-3 a C-47? I guess it is only if converted to C-47 by the factory or the military. MY Spit is a MkIX, it was factory built as such and factory converted to a MK IXTr.. What if we took out all the 2 seat stuff? Does this really matter? NOT TO ME.. I think the job done by Gary and crew is great, and the plane either is, or at least closely represents a B-24. The CAF has always been factual about it's lineage in their literature, and they don't need to gild the lily now. It seems it was built on the B-24 assembly line, same airframe, just not the combat model. No vet sitting in the pilot seat or getting a ride like Sen, McGovern seems to care. In my contact with Collings, I think they do a first class job, also.
The banter about a Merlin vs an Allison is mostly in good humor. If any engine doesn't need to further prove its worth in combat, or racing it is a Merlin. It would be like looking back at Ferrari or MB in GP racing or Offy at Indy and saying they were too complex. Thanks GOD we had them and not the other side. I'd love to fly a Merlin engined P-40, course I'd also love to fly any P-40. The classic early war, Army Air Corp look, with the Allison is great.
I don't know if an LB-30 is a B-24, or not. My J-3 Cub is not an L-4, and it would not be even if I put in the military equipment and paint, because the factory built it as a J-3.. A 707 is not a KC-135. To make things a little more grey, is a DC-3 a C-47? I guess it is only if converted to C-47 by the factory or the military. MY Spit is a MkIX, it was factory built as such and factory converted to a MK IXTr.. What if we took out all the 2 seat stuff? Does this really matter? NOT TO ME.. I think the job done by Gary and crew is great, and the plane either is, or at least closely represents a B-24. The CAF has always been factual about it's lineage in their literature, and they don't need to gild the lily now. It seems it was built on the B-24 assembly line, same airframe, just not the combat model. No vet sitting in the pilot seat or getting a ride like Sen, McGovern seems to care. In my contact with Collings, I think they do a first class job, also.
The banter about a Merlin vs an Allison is mostly in good humor. If any engine doesn't need to further prove its worth in combat, or racing it is a Merlin. It would be like looking back at Ferrari or MB in GP racing or Offy at Indy and saying they were too complex. Thanks GOD we had them and not the other side. I'd love to fly a Merlin engined P-40, course I'd also love to fly any P-40. The classic early war, Army Air Corp look, with the Allison is great.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Thu May 29, 2008 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Video
Thu May 29, 2008 9:35 am
Bill Greenwood wrote:The Leno story is good pr for Warbirds. I think he's nuts not to have a headset, maybe he had ear plugs, but the noise in a Mustang or most planes can seriously damage your hearing.
Having heard some of his bikes & cars being given a workout I know the P51 is somewhat quieter.
???
Thu May 29, 2008 9:44 am
However, that does not negate what I see as a fundamentntal problem. The very idea that it's ok to promote aviation (or anything for that matter~!!)in a manner that is less than truthfull from the outset and has the appearance of self service BEFORE basic honesty
We had a ship here in Baltimore
Thu May 29, 2008 9:55 am
There is this ship here in Baltimore. It is called the USS Constellation. It is a very historic ship. Years ago, some con-man with good and bad intentions, declared that the Constellation was an original War of 1812 ship. It was patently untrue, but carried for a long time because the well-educated Baltimoreans (pronounced Baltimorons) are very interested in the Star Spangled Banner history, and having on hand a ship that sailed during the second war of independence (the war of 1812) was titillating to everybody who chose to believe it. The claim raised lots of academic hackles, and tremendous amounts of money which went toward a complete overhaul and preservation of the ship, which is definitely a veteran of the US Civil War. Over time, the displays on the ship have changed to reflect it's true history, not the invented one (which actually had some basis in fact- when it was built, congress didn't build new ships, they overhauled the old ones, but overhauling meant building new) and it is still a great draw to the invented waterfront in Baltimore. The con-man who started it all eventually was hounded out of his position due to financial irregularities in his organization. And there are still people out there who believe with their whole hearts that the Constellation is a War of 1812 Brig.
I don't excuse people who get in front of the public for purposes other than maintaining historical integrity. But that is not the purpose of the CAF, the Collings Foundation, or me and the L-5 I fly to represent the 14th Liaison Squadron. Our overall responsibility is to take things which should have been scrapped and continue to fly them in order to educate people about them. If there is a little bit of showmanship there to do this (akin to vaudeville or snake oil sales), then fine; the airplanes are still flying. That is what counts. You can't cram the history down the throats of the public- they are always going to believe what they want or are trained to believe. But you can spoon feed it to them with a little sugar on it.
Another example of this. On the record card of my L-5, there is a notation that it was crated and delivered to SOXO, which was a landing in England. So it made it overseas. I have the original post-WWII form 4106B's for the airplane. In the 1946 4106B with reconstructed time from the 1945 book, there were approximately 400 hours of time on the airplane and engine, plus an engine change. I don't know where that time occurred, but it was certainly during 1945. I have the delivery sheet from when the airplane was ferried to Fort Bragg in September 1945. The time on the airplane is close to 350 hours. I haven't found a photo of 44-17543 overseas and I haven't found any other evidence that it did its flying stateside. By the record card, it was flown to radio installation, then flown to crating.
So what do I tell people? At this point, I state that the airplane went overseas, but that we don't know if it flew in combat. If somebody asks me what I believe, I say I wish I knew. I am hoping to find some photo of 543 sitting on a field somewhere in Germany, but I know that chance is remote. Since none of you guys make the same efforts with L-birds that you do with the heavies and little friends, I probably will never know the history of my airplane. If I wanted to be deceptive, I could just say, "It went to Europe during WWII." That would be a correct statement. But it would be misleading. The airplane actually has an interesting history from after WWII- it was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, and then to the 4th Signal Battalion, which was part of the 82nd. But with all the band of brothers hype, I don't even go there, because I know some fat 82nd re-enactor is going to tell me that the 82nd didn't have L-5's during WWII.
What it comes down to is the fact that you need to reduce your spiel on your airplane to a 3 minute sound byte. In the process, you wind up cooking out some of the interesting details. The important thing is that you have but a few minutes to educate John and Jane public. The information distillation process can cause misunderstandings. But then again, that's why WIX exists and we do what we do, isn't it?
Ohh, and Ol' 927 is an LB-30, in fact the most beautiful LB-30 in the world. But only because I choose to believe that and the fact that Collings has the only flying B-24J. I saw it here on WIX so it must be true.
I don't excuse people who get in front of the public for purposes other than maintaining historical integrity. But that is not the purpose of the CAF, the Collings Foundation, or me and the L-5 I fly to represent the 14th Liaison Squadron. Our overall responsibility is to take things which should have been scrapped and continue to fly them in order to educate people about them. If there is a little bit of showmanship there to do this (akin to vaudeville or snake oil sales), then fine; the airplanes are still flying. That is what counts. You can't cram the history down the throats of the public- they are always going to believe what they want or are trained to believe. But you can spoon feed it to them with a little sugar on it.
Another example of this. On the record card of my L-5, there is a notation that it was crated and delivered to SOXO, which was a landing in England. So it made it overseas. I have the original post-WWII form 4106B's for the airplane. In the 1946 4106B with reconstructed time from the 1945 book, there were approximately 400 hours of time on the airplane and engine, plus an engine change. I don't know where that time occurred, but it was certainly during 1945. I have the delivery sheet from when the airplane was ferried to Fort Bragg in September 1945. The time on the airplane is close to 350 hours. I haven't found a photo of 44-17543 overseas and I haven't found any other evidence that it did its flying stateside. By the record card, it was flown to radio installation, then flown to crating.
So what do I tell people? At this point, I state that the airplane went overseas, but that we don't know if it flew in combat. If somebody asks me what I believe, I say I wish I knew. I am hoping to find some photo of 543 sitting on a field somewhere in Germany, but I know that chance is remote. Since none of you guys make the same efforts with L-birds that you do with the heavies and little friends, I probably will never know the history of my airplane. If I wanted to be deceptive, I could just say, "It went to Europe during WWII." That would be a correct statement. But it would be misleading. The airplane actually has an interesting history from after WWII- it was assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, and then to the 4th Signal Battalion, which was part of the 82nd. But with all the band of brothers hype, I don't even go there, because I know some fat 82nd re-enactor is going to tell me that the 82nd didn't have L-5's during WWII.
What it comes down to is the fact that you need to reduce your spiel on your airplane to a 3 minute sound byte. In the process, you wind up cooking out some of the interesting details. The important thing is that you have but a few minutes to educate John and Jane public. The information distillation process can cause misunderstandings. But then again, that's why WIX exists and we do what we do, isn't it?
Ohh, and Ol' 927 is an LB-30, in fact the most beautiful LB-30 in the world. But only because I choose to believe that and the fact that Collings has the only flying B-24J. I saw it here on WIX so it must be true.
Re: We had a ship here in Baltimore
Thu May 29, 2008 10:15 am
Forgotten Field wrote:Ohh, and Ol' 927 is an LB-30, in fact the most beautiful LB-30 in the world.
Thats becuase its the ONLY LB-30 left in the world (if it really is an "LB-30", that is).
If it quacks like a Duck... More on it later.
Thu May 29, 2008 10:15 am
retroaviation wrote:Sorry I even spoke.
Gary
No need to apologize.
Thu May 29, 2008 10:21 am
I have had many chances to talk about the Cavanaugh planes on TV. Sometimes I miss speak or the interviewer makes a wrong statement. It's hard to correct in the heat of the shoot. Especially live or, as most of these interviews are done, in a live setting. They don't want to take the time to reshoot anything. I made a big snafu while being interviewed on live TV. The guy interviewing me was telling me to hurry up with hand signals. I felt like I did a horrible interview with many mistakes, created by the interviewer asking terrible questions and rushing me. I expected to get a lot of complaints from viewers, but recieved none. Perhaps those that knew better realised that I just made a mistake, but the over all interview did what it was supposed to do.. Interest people in the museum and it's mission. I also don't care for the "only Flying B24" comments, but you can take things too far. It is PR. And it's not that big of deal. I was in the Air Force during Viet Nam. It was near the end and I didn't go over there, I stayed stateside. I don't consider myself a Viet Nam vet. Others would. It's just how you want to push the issue and how you state it.
Thu May 29, 2008 10:26 am
RickH...first of all a big thank you for the link and info on the video.
I agree that this has turned into another p**sing match about "correctness" in restored warbirds.
Well, I couldn't care less if it is painted as a B and is a C, or is a B and not a C... it is just great to see a Mustang, any Mustang, fly. As for it being "original" or "newly manufactured", are there any Mustangs flying today that are ALL original? Haven't a majority of them had new sheet metal, new components, radiators, "hybrid" engines, different brake systems from original, installed? As for paint schemes....I like all paint schemes, but it seems to me that WWII originality would prohibit the use of paint jobs so shiny you can see yourself in them. All of the original color photos I have seen show mostly "flat" paint finishes. Again, I like to see them fly and don't give a rat's ass if they are incorrect in some manner. I will not be out there with a tape measure making sure that the lettering is not 1/32" too small, or that the exact shade of paint is off by a bit, or that the thread count in the seat belt/shoulder harness is not up to WWII configuration...I guess I am just strange that way.
I have said this before, but here it is again. For those of you who don't like the paint job, get your wallets out and go up and pay for a new paint job. Discuss it with the Collings group and let them know you will pay for a new "correct!?" paint job, and then agree to the upkeep. That should soothe your sorrows and troubles over such a travesty as an inaccurate paint job. If you don't want to do that, well then, make sure you stay away from all those inaccurate warbirds out there...but that might be a bit of an issue since the only truly accurate WWII configured warbirds are in museums. I am talking about total accuracy here..you know, no modern raido equipment, all the armor in place, NO jump seats to let people experience the thirll of a WWII fighter, none of the safer hybrid engines, no other modern technology.
If I offended anyone, well, sorry, but I consider these as national treasures and feel lucky to see and hear them in the air. I admire all the people who put money, labor, and sweat into keeping them flying and for some people to complain about the minor things, will maybe you should get another hobby or interest...you are going to give yourselve's ulcers!
I agree that this has turned into another p**sing match about "correctness" in restored warbirds.
Well, I couldn't care less if it is painted as a B and is a C, or is a B and not a C... it is just great to see a Mustang, any Mustang, fly. As for it being "original" or "newly manufactured", are there any Mustangs flying today that are ALL original? Haven't a majority of them had new sheet metal, new components, radiators, "hybrid" engines, different brake systems from original, installed? As for paint schemes....I like all paint schemes, but it seems to me that WWII originality would prohibit the use of paint jobs so shiny you can see yourself in them. All of the original color photos I have seen show mostly "flat" paint finishes. Again, I like to see them fly and don't give a rat's ass if they are incorrect in some manner. I will not be out there with a tape measure making sure that the lettering is not 1/32" too small, or that the exact shade of paint is off by a bit, or that the thread count in the seat belt/shoulder harness is not up to WWII configuration...I guess I am just strange that way.
I have said this before, but here it is again. For those of you who don't like the paint job, get your wallets out and go up and pay for a new paint job. Discuss it with the Collings group and let them know you will pay for a new "correct!?" paint job, and then agree to the upkeep. That should soothe your sorrows and troubles over such a travesty as an inaccurate paint job. If you don't want to do that, well then, make sure you stay away from all those inaccurate warbirds out there...but that might be a bit of an issue since the only truly accurate WWII configured warbirds are in museums. I am talking about total accuracy here..you know, no modern raido equipment, all the armor in place, NO jump seats to let people experience the thirll of a WWII fighter, none of the safer hybrid engines, no other modern technology.
If I offended anyone, well, sorry, but I consider these as national treasures and feel lucky to see and hear them in the air. I admire all the people who put money, labor, and sweat into keeping them flying and for some people to complain about the minor things, will maybe you should get another hobby or interest...you are going to give yourselve's ulcers!
B-25
Thu May 29, 2008 10:31 am
B-25, since we are addressing fine points on this site, the correct word is exposure, not "exposer". The first is publicity, the second, I think relates to a certain Rep. Sen.
And Gary, there's two kinds of guys on WIX, those who can and have actually fixed warbirds, and the rest of us who only write about them.
And Gary, there's two kinds of guys on WIX, those who can and have actually fixed warbirds, and the rest of us who only write about them.
Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Thu May 29, 2008 1:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.