Thu May 29, 2008 4:34 pm
If I don't get to check this site out at least twice daily, I feel lost. Without a doubt there are folks lurking here with absolutely no sense of humor whatsoever. I am certainly not one, but that doesen't mean I don't appreciate those of us who are more inclined in the total technical aspects of WWII aircraft. I have picked up a considerable bit of knowledge in the short time I have been here. The ability to converse with those who fly and maintain these aircraft is better than any magazine subscription I have ever had, and that's a fact. But some of the nonsense and infered hurt feelings on some of these posts are inclined toward the rediculous! Keeping interest in our passion is the entire position of our purpose, if you have an opinion express it, but don't expect everyone to agree with it,but do it as a gentleman and accept it if someone has a better one! I will now remove my sopbox and go to bed!
Sgt Hawk
Sgt Hawk
Thu May 29, 2008 4:50 pm
I don't care what groups you are in or into. From Collecting Stamps or Cow Tipping groups, they all get their dander up for something once in a while.
I am in a Drag Racing group, Model Car builders group and the WIX and the only difference sometimes is the names! I mostly enjoy learning from the group and contributing what little I know about any of these subjects and have fun. As warbird nerds we are rather lucky to have quite a few here who actually fly, wrench or have great archives on some of these birds.
Someone will always disagree or refuse to back down wether they are right or wrong. And as always, this too shall pass and we will all be back to trying to win a pony!
Color Me Gone!
I am in a Drag Racing group, Model Car builders group and the WIX and the only difference sometimes is the names! I mostly enjoy learning from the group and contributing what little I know about any of these subjects and have fun. As warbird nerds we are rather lucky to have quite a few here who actually fly, wrench or have great archives on some of these birds.
Someone will always disagree or refuse to back down wether they are right or wrong. And as always, this too shall pass and we will all be back to trying to win a pony!
Color Me Gone!
Thu May 29, 2008 4:51 pm
sgt hawk wrote:If I don't get to check this site out at least twice daily, I feel lost....Sgt Hawk
Ditto! I find myself checking in every couple of hours or more when I have a computer nearby...
Zack
Thu May 29, 2008 6:57 pm
Hi all,
As many of you know I am a stickler to authentisity of warbirds and originality. I understand warbird owners can paint and call their warbird the way they like. If people are gonna call the CAF's B-24 an LB-30 then I really don't see what the matter is in saying that The Collins foundation's B-24 is the only flying B-24 in the world. In a way its correct . As far as I know most of my life I was grown up calling the CAF's B-24 an LB-30. Thats what I have always heard from other people. But now the B-24 was converted back to B-24A standards so then you can also say that there are two B-24's flying today and I would rather place my money on saying two are flying rather then one. The general public won't know the difference Between a B-24 and an LB-30 no less as they would be able to understand the difference between a P-39 and a P-400. But it would be nice if the general public learned the difference that way we don't get people saying the wrong stuff.
I guess its unavoidable. I kinda like the CAF's B-24 being called an "A" model now. Seeing how I also get a thrill out of early model aircraft. Knowing a rare B-24A is flying gets me happy! 
Thanks,
Nathan
As many of you know I am a stickler to authentisity of warbirds and originality. I understand warbird owners can paint and call their warbird the way they like. If people are gonna call the CAF's B-24 an LB-30 then I really don't see what the matter is in saying that The Collins foundation's B-24 is the only flying B-24 in the world. In a way its correct . As far as I know most of my life I was grown up calling the CAF's B-24 an LB-30. Thats what I have always heard from other people. But now the B-24 was converted back to B-24A standards so then you can also say that there are two B-24's flying today and I would rather place my money on saying two are flying rather then one. The general public won't know the difference Between a B-24 and an LB-30 no less as they would be able to understand the difference between a P-39 and a P-400. But it would be nice if the general public learned the difference that way we don't get people saying the wrong stuff.
I guess its unavoidable. I kinda like the CAF's B-24 being called an "A" model now. Seeing how I also get a thrill out of early model aircraft. Knowing a rare B-24A is flying gets me happy!
Thanks,
Nathan
Thu May 29, 2008 9:47 pm
Nathan wrote:Hi all,
As many of you know I am a stickler to authentisity of warbirds and originality. I understand warbird owners can paint and call their warbird the way they like. If people are gonna call the CAF's B-24 an LB-30 then I really don't see what the matter is in saying that The Collins foundation's B-24 is the only flying B-24 in the world. In a way its correct . As far as I know most of my life I was grown up calling the CAF's B-24 an LB-30. Thats what I have always heard from other people. But now the B-24 was converted back to B-24A standards so then you can also say that there are two B-24's flying today and I would rather place my money on saying two are flying rather then one. The general public won't know the difference Between a B-24 and an LB-30 no less as they would be able to understand the difference between a P-39 and a P-400. But it would be nice if the general public learned the difference that way we don't get people saying the wrong stuff.
Thanks,
Nathan
Nathan, I tend to agree with you, I dislike it when the warbird industry makes false claims, ie new build aircraft being described as "original", when they are obviously not, I much prefer the approach taken by those who have built the "reproduction" Yak 9's, Me262's, 190's and Oscars to admit and celebrate the creation of accurate "reproductions" or "recreations" than to claim they are rebuilds from an original smouldering dataplate and left hand wheel nut.
In relation to the P51C, I am not that convinced much of the aircraft is from the identified airframe, however that is in common with many other warbirds today such as recent build P40's and Spitfires? I would prefer to call many of them "reproductions" or "recreations" rather than "restorations", but would be happy to have any of them in any case, and still admire the outcomes.
(and I do realise an issue of certification/design liability etc can arise if the aircraft is not considered a "restoration" of an existing airframe and instead is to be considered construction of a "new" example or even "new" design, so I sympathise with the issues)
Obviously media coverage often gets carried away with reporting an aircraft in an historic colour scheme as the actual wartime aircraft, but thats more evidence of editorial and journalistic errors than the owners intentional mischief.
Many aircraft are painted in ficticious or borrowed paint schemes, and many more are heavily modified to create jump seats or dual controls, and I guess this is better done on a 'recreated" aircraft rather than a restored original intact aircraft with full and historical provenance.
The effort, skills and accuracy of those producing these aircraft is not diminished by the label "recreation" or "reproduction" only the truth in its provenance is affected.
Eventually the market will reflect "originality" versus "reproduction" or "recreation", most likely in the area of museum acquisitions or specialist collectors such as Paul Allen etc, but for most warbird operators, it will probably remain a judgement of price, looks, performance and maintainability.
I think eventually enthusiasts will also recognise original manufacturing and service provenance over workshop "recreations" without necessarily diminishing the enjoyment of the "recreation" in anycase.
In the longer term the more original and historic aircraft have the risk of being grounded or "recreated" to keep them in the air in anycase.
I dont think that will cause workshops to stop being able to profitably undertake these "recreations" or for their resale values to drop, just for the different attributes to be considered by various buyers and sellers.
When it comes to complete restored "original" aircraft with a known provenance I think its clear those histories really cant be embellished or changed, and I dont think most intentionally try to do so.
I think for most of us Ol'927 or Diamond Lil is a B24/Liberator, although many of us know it more technically as a LB30, I dont think the CAF has ever tried to hide its own history, nor should they, as they have every right to be proud of the aircraft, their efforts to preserve it, and what it portrays.
In regard to both the Collings Foundation and the CAF, I have the greatest admiration for their efforts and outcomes.
I do however cringe at certain marketing efforts to attract visitors and sponsors, but I dont think these are aimed to belittle the efforts of others but simply to ensure their own activities continue to exist.
In Australia our only B24 restoration is often billed as the aircraft or type that saved Australia from Japanese invasion, whereas history would probably place that credit with RAAF Beauforts/Kittyhawks and USAAC aircraft in 1942/43, rather than a RAAF B24 delivered in 1944, but its obviously not done to belittle other collections or museums, or preserved aircraft but to simply create a marketing differentiator to attract visitors or sponsors.
Strictly speaking the Collings Foundation are operating a former RAF Liberator GR VI originally KH191 of the RAF and IAF, It is obviously also a B24J 44-44052, although never delivered to the USAAF or served as such, on that technically is it really a B24J or a Liberator GR VI?
(ie Were there British equipment installations in the Liberator GR VI that varied from a B24J in the USAAF?)
I personally dont see any difference to Ol'927 being built as a B24A but delivered to the RAF as an LB30.
They are both B24's as far as I am concerned.
The issue of the Collings Foundation "advertising" as the only flying B24 is one for them to deal with, I am not sure it causes any great loss to the CAF in any case.
If the Collings Foundation feel they need to market their B24 as the only one flying so as to keep it flying then I dont have a problem, eventually an enthusiast, determined journalist, interested Joe Public or corporate sponsor will stumble over the CAF and Ol'927's existance, and in that case it only shows the Collings advertising in a poorer light.
So long as they are not making the claim to denegrade the CAF or Ol'927 it doesnt really matter.
I personally dont think Collings would loose many visitors/supporters if they advertised it as one of only two B24/Liberators flying in the world today, but so be it?
In the end however I hope we have at least two, (and both of these) B24's flying for us for many more years.
And I hope workshops continue to add to the quantity, quality and variety of warbirds even through "recreations" as it forms a valid preservation activity in its own right, its just deserving of a more honest description of the outcomes.
regards
Mark Pilkington
Fri May 30, 2008 6:50 am
In the inimitable words of Frank Barone (Everybody Loves Raymond):
HOLY CRAP!!!
Gary I did not mean anything offensive to you at all. Anyone who has spent the slightest amount of time here at WIX knows that you are one of the hardest working, dedicated wrench-turners here! My comments were about the Lil thread and your engine troubles again
With all of the technical speak and nit-picking that goes on here on WIX, I thought that maybe someone else would pick-up on the fact that the Collings B-24 is the only one FLYING at this point in time. Not if, but when Lil gets back in the air, Collings can no longer claim to have the only B-24 flying. If Kermit Weeks were to somehow get his back in the air, then we might have the distinct pleasure of seeing three B-24s flying! That would be awesome to say the least.
On a side note...I hate having to explain what I mean when I am making a joke...seems to be an awful lot of thin skinned folks here. I was guilty of that early on. Seems that Hellcat had the same experience. Gotta roll with the punches and hope that WIX does get back to the good old days of talking about old airplanes!
There...now, who got my medication???
HOLY CRAP!!!
Gary I did not mean anything offensive to you at all. Anyone who has spent the slightest amount of time here at WIX knows that you are one of the hardest working, dedicated wrench-turners here! My comments were about the Lil thread and your engine troubles again
With all of the technical speak and nit-picking that goes on here on WIX, I thought that maybe someone else would pick-up on the fact that the Collings B-24 is the only one FLYING at this point in time. Not if, but when Lil gets back in the air, Collings can no longer claim to have the only B-24 flying. If Kermit Weeks were to somehow get his back in the air, then we might have the distinct pleasure of seeing three B-24s flying! That would be awesome to say the least.
On a side note...I hate having to explain what I mean when I am making a joke...seems to be an awful lot of thin skinned folks here. I was guilty of that early on. Seems that Hellcat had the same experience. Gotta roll with the punches and hope that WIX does get back to the good old days of talking about old airplanes!
There...now, who got my medication???
Fri May 30, 2008 7:24 am
Gee whiz guys ! Take a break, have a coffee or something ! This is just a forum where you share and exchange views. Of course not everybody will agree ! Just like real life...
As to those claims that the Collins museum is apparently making, I for one could not care less. It just reminds me of the announcers from the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, the lone USAF F-15 doing a routine or the other F-16... they all claim theirs are the best of the best ! Right after the other one just did !
No offence, but we Canadians just sigh and say: Here are the Americans going again, bragging and all ! And then we shut up, look at the display and swipe the drool coming out of our open mouths. And just enjoy the show !
I do the same thing here on WIX. I learn a lot, sigh sometimes, and enjoy the show. Sometimes, I also have the proviledge of swiping the drool coming of my open mouth when reading posts from so many of you.
I still come back everyday. And so is everybody else, it seems...
As to those claims that the Collins museum is apparently making, I for one could not care less. It just reminds me of the announcers from the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, the lone USAF F-15 doing a routine or the other F-16... they all claim theirs are the best of the best ! Right after the other one just did !
No offence, but we Canadians just sigh and say: Here are the Americans going again, bragging and all ! And then we shut up, look at the display and swipe the drool coming out of our open mouths. And just enjoy the show !
I do the same thing here on WIX. I learn a lot, sigh sometimes, and enjoy the show. Sometimes, I also have the proviledge of swiping the drool coming of my open mouth when reading posts from so many of you.
I still come back everyday. And so is everybody else, it seems...
Fri May 30, 2008 9:17 am
hi all,
I really don't see this thread as being heated or anything. I think its an interesting topic. A good debate on a good question....I was trying to come up with some calm solutions and ideas. MAybe someone can clarify if the CAf's B-24 is a B-24A, a LB-30, or both. As far as I know it was both. Kinda like how P-40B's and C' where redesignated P-40G's. Pretty simple to understand. Same kinda plane just named differently.
Cheers,
Nathan
I really don't see this thread as being heated or anything.
I think its an interesting topic. A good debate on a good question....I was trying to come up with some calm solutions and ideas. MAybe someone can clarify if the CAf's B-24 is a B-24A, a LB-30, or both. As far as I know it was both. Kinda like how P-40B's and C' where redesignated P-40G's. Pretty simple to understand. Same kinda plane just named differently.
Cheers,
Nathan
Fri May 30, 2008 9:40 am
Nobody can really clarify it because it is partly a matter of definition and semantics, not facts. What is a B-24? Definitions range from broad:
"Any member of a family of Consolidated 4-engine bombers/transports including LB-30, C-87, PB4Y, and Liberators (no letter/number designation) used by Commonwealth and other air forces."
... to strict:
"An aircraft that was accepted by and served with the US Army Air Corps/Force under the USAAC/F designation B-24."
... with perhaps several in between.
This is really the source of all debate. The history of 927 is settled so if we can agree on what a B-24 is, we can agree whether 927 fits the definition. Obviously, 927 meets the first definition above. It doesn't meet the second although it comes close, because it was ORDERED as a B-24 and did receive a B-24 serial from the USAAC. The fact that it was never completed, accepted, nor put into service as a USAAC B-24 means nothing to some people and everything to others.
This is why the CAF, in good faith, can say it is a B-24 and Collings, also in good faith, can imply it is not (by saying they have the only flying B-24). Each side has marketing reasons to make these conflicting claims, but there is no reason for bad blood and AFAIK there isn't any bad blood.
August
"Any member of a family of Consolidated 4-engine bombers/transports including LB-30, C-87, PB4Y, and Liberators (no letter/number designation) used by Commonwealth and other air forces."
... to strict:
"An aircraft that was accepted by and served with the US Army Air Corps/Force under the USAAC/F designation B-24."
... with perhaps several in between.
This is really the source of all debate. The history of 927 is settled so if we can agree on what a B-24 is, we can agree whether 927 fits the definition. Obviously, 927 meets the first definition above. It doesn't meet the second although it comes close, because it was ORDERED as a B-24 and did receive a B-24 serial from the USAAC. The fact that it was never completed, accepted, nor put into service as a USAAC B-24 means nothing to some people and everything to others.
This is why the CAF, in good faith, can say it is a B-24 and Collings, also in good faith, can imply it is not (by saying they have the only flying B-24). Each side has marketing reasons to make these conflicting claims, but there is no reason for bad blood and AFAIK there isn't any bad blood.
August
Fri May 30, 2008 10:04 am
k5083 wrote:Nobody can really clarify it because it is partly a matter of definition and semantics, not facts. What is a B-24? Definitions range from broad:
"Any member of a family of Consolidated 4-engine bombers/transports including LB-30, C-87, PB4Y, and Liberators (no letter/number designation) used by Commonwealth and other air forces."
... to strict:
"An aircraft that was accepted by and served with the US Army Air Corps/Force under the USAAC/F designation B-24."
... with perhaps several in between.
This is really the source of all debate. The history of 927 is settled so if we can agree on what a B-24 is, we can agree whether 927 fits the definition. Obviously, 927 meets the first definition above. It doesn't meet the second although it comes close, because it was ORDERED as a B-24 and did receive a B-24 serial from the USAAC. The fact that it was never completed, accepted, nor put into service as a USAAC B-24 means nothing to some people and everything to others.
This is why the CAF, in good faith, can say it is a B-24 and Collings, also in good faith, can imply it is not (by saying they have the only flying B-24). Each side has marketing reasons to make these conflicting claims, but there is no reason for bad blood and AFAIK there isn't any bad blood.
August
Hi August,
Thanks for the info.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that the CAF B-24 is leaning more towards the side of being an LB-30? Is this correct?
Fri May 30, 2008 10:08 am
Ah, the trials and tribulations of running a forum... 
The WIX community is full of widely varied personalities and opinions. And the ability of people to express these opinions is the greatest asset this community has. Its also the biggest downfall. The conflict of opinions and the nature of this medium that can be somewhat abrasive can lead to frustrations and disappointment. But heck, I run into that in real life on a daily basis. The fact that this happens on this forum should not be surprising. Sooner or later it happens on every forum and if it doesn't, then that forum probably doesn't see much traffic, doesn't have a passionate community, is horribly clique-ish, or gives away free anti-depressants.
There isn't a week that goes by that I don't at least give passing thought to shutting the whole thing down, WIX, the WRG, Warbirds-Online, the Registry... everything. But their is a big reason I don't... you guys. This ragtag group of people have become a family to me and while we have disagreements at times we all still hang in there. I have met more interesting and amazing people in the 12 years I've done this than in any other time or venue of my life and I'm sure on some level most of you have had similar experiences. Thats one of the things that makes WIX great.
Now you might get pissed off, or disappointed with a thread or comment, or even an individual. Hell, you might even be bored with the site. All these are to be expected at some point. You can't visit here and expect it to be wonderful and exactly what you want or need every day, but some times it is. If your pissed off, angry, or disappointed, well then take a step away from the site or go for a walk. Take some time off from the site. You'll feel better when you come back. And trust me, in my experience you'll almost always come back. And if you don't, thats cool too. No one is forcing you to stay. And if you do decide to go, know that unless I banned you then your always welcome back.
The WIX community is full of widely varied personalities and opinions. And the ability of people to express these opinions is the greatest asset this community has. Its also the biggest downfall. The conflict of opinions and the nature of this medium that can be somewhat abrasive can lead to frustrations and disappointment. But heck, I run into that in real life on a daily basis. The fact that this happens on this forum should not be surprising. Sooner or later it happens on every forum and if it doesn't, then that forum probably doesn't see much traffic, doesn't have a passionate community, is horribly clique-ish, or gives away free anti-depressants.
There isn't a week that goes by that I don't at least give passing thought to shutting the whole thing down, WIX, the WRG, Warbirds-Online, the Registry... everything. But their is a big reason I don't... you guys. This ragtag group of people have become a family to me and while we have disagreements at times we all still hang in there. I have met more interesting and amazing people in the 12 years I've done this than in any other time or venue of my life and I'm sure on some level most of you have had similar experiences. Thats one of the things that makes WIX great.
Now you might get pissed off, or disappointed with a thread or comment, or even an individual. Hell, you might even be bored with the site. All these are to be expected at some point. You can't visit here and expect it to be wonderful and exactly what you want or need every day, but some times it is. If your pissed off, angry, or disappointed, well then take a step away from the site or go for a walk. Take some time off from the site. You'll feel better when you come back. And trust me, in my experience you'll almost always come back. And if you don't, thats cool too. No one is forcing you to stay. And if you do decide to go, know that unless I banned you
then your always welcome back.
Fri May 30, 2008 10:41 am
Nathan wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that the CAF B-24 is leaning more towards the side of being an LB-30? Is this correct?
That is where I, personally, come out. But by now it will be clear that opinions differ!!
August
Fri May 30, 2008 11:10 am
Michel C-GNCJ wrote:Gee whiz guys ! Take a break, have a coffee or something ! This is just a forum where you share and exchange views. Of course not everybody will agree ! Just like real life...
As to those claims that the Collins museum is apparently making, I for one could not care less. It just reminds me of the announcers from the Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, the lone USAF F-15 doing a routine or the other F-16... they all claim theirs are the best of the best ! Right after the other one just did !
No offence, but we Canadians just sigh and say: Here are the Americans going again, bragging and all ! And then we shut up, look at the display and swipe the drool coming out of our open mouths. And just enjoy the show !
I do the same thing here on WIX. I learn a lot, sigh sometimes, and enjoy the show. Sometimes, I also have the proviledge of swiping the drool coming of my open mouth when reading posts from so many of you.
I still come back everyday. And so is everybody else, it seems...
Besides, we all know the Snowbirds are the best!
Fri May 30, 2008 11:25 am
I Check this site out daily, often for hours, the photos and information, exchange of information comments as previously mentioned, is IMO, better and dated more up to the hour better than any aviation magazine I have ever read. Thanks Scott for not pulling the Ejection Lever on us, greatful I am, that you are haning in here 
Fri May 30, 2008 12:40 pm
There seems to be a bunch of thought that my feelings got hurt with this conversation somehow. That's not the case at all. My feelings aren't hurt, as anyone is entitled to their opinion. I do, however, get frustrated with this same ol' argument, over and over and over and over.
Yes, the CF has a B-24J that was built for the British, or whatever. It's true that theirs has all the bells & whistles, and even a new surprise that'll surely "trump" the CAF in their view. Personally, I think that the CF has a fantastic collection of aircraft, with a few darn good folks, a few a-holes, and a bunch of people in between associated with them....kind of like the CAF. Whether they want to admit it or not, they're very much like the CAF...some people love 'em, some people hate 'em.
The CAF's B-24 was initially built as a B-24A, then slid over to the LB-30 line and modified to fill the role for the French initially, then being delivered to the British. It's not a far stretch to say that's about how the CF B-24 was done, if I understand it correctly. Oh, and the primary differences between an LB30 and B-24A?.........Guns and radios. That's pretty much it.
Kind of like Republicans and Democrats, Cats and Dogs, or Mechanics and Pilots, this will surely be a source for perpetual argument. Nobody has to "buy what I'm saying" or anything like that. We're just trying to honor our vets with our B-24, just like the CF does with theirs.
So, no feelings hurt here. I'm all for agreeing to disagree and just move on.
Gary
Yes, the CF has a B-24J that was built for the British, or whatever. It's true that theirs has all the bells & whistles, and even a new surprise that'll surely "trump" the CAF in their view. Personally, I think that the CF has a fantastic collection of aircraft, with a few darn good folks, a few a-holes, and a bunch of people in between associated with them....kind of like the CAF. Whether they want to admit it or not, they're very much like the CAF...some people love 'em, some people hate 'em.
The CAF's B-24 was initially built as a B-24A, then slid over to the LB-30 line and modified to fill the role for the French initially, then being delivered to the British. It's not a far stretch to say that's about how the CF B-24 was done, if I understand it correctly. Oh, and the primary differences between an LB30 and B-24A?.........Guns and radios. That's pretty much it.
Kind of like Republicans and Democrats, Cats and Dogs, or Mechanics and Pilots, this will surely be a source for perpetual argument. Nobody has to "buy what I'm saying" or anything like that. We're just trying to honor our vets with our B-24, just like the CF does with theirs.
So, no feelings hurt here. I'm all for agreeing to disagree and just move on.
Gary