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
Fri May 30, 2008 2:07 pm
retroaviation wrote: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
Well I hope to see the only B-24 flying in the world in Oshkosh again this summer!!!
Fri May 30, 2008 2:39 pm
Right Arm.. 
..er On 
..er On
Fri May 30, 2008 5:04 pm
very nice pic
Fri May 30, 2008 5:58 pm
armyjunk2 wrote:very nice pic
Thanks. I was hoping is would help soothe the savage beasts.
Fri May 30, 2008 10:59 pm
Ok guys I want to try to put this discussion to an end. I am in the "younger" generation who truly love to see Warbirds fly, heck I run outside when I hear a round engine in the distance to see what it is. Anyways I like CF as well as CAF and I say Ol 927 is a B-24A and there are TWO B-24s, CF can say they have the only one but for me being a round engine lover who needs techicallitys?? I just want to see them fly for a long time. Now back to the regular warbird discussion and lets not use technicallitys and keep them flying!