Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sat Apr 04, 2026 12:46 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:31 pm
Posts: 248
Location: Broomfield, CO
Saw this on PopSci.com today:


July 1947: "Warplane wing tanks, which can be picked up as war surplus for about $5, make excellent back-yard wading pools. The pool shown was cut from a wing tank made for a B-17 bomber. It was laminated neoprene and cloth and required a couple of hours of cutting time, but it was so stiff that no frame was needed for rigidity."


http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation ... ading-pool

_________________
Scott Greenfield


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:23 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:11 am
Posts: 2397
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Must have been nice to bathe in oily rubery water for the first season.

Makes for great sunblock on top of that :?

Different mind set back then was it :!: :!: :!:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 16, 2009 8:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 8:03 pm
Posts: 283
Location: Mesa, Arizona USA
Neat snippet of information regarding a re-use of war surplus material for its day. But, didja see the dumb-arse comment from the retard who'd commented on the article he or she read from a half-century ago? Here's the text verbatim:

"How did the builder of this pool ensure that chemical residue left inside the wing, such as trace levels of lead, not reach the little kid? I know gasoline was leaded back in those days,but I am not sure about aircraft gas. Though I would guess it was, because metallurgy on aircraft engines weren't much better than automobiles.

Even if the risk is minute, I am not risking my child health, because I am too cheap to buy a $20 wading pool."


This is precisely the kind of mentality we have today that prohibits surplus material from ever reaching the public sector, whether it be KC-130 airframe parts to something as mundane as vehicles, tents or clothing.

The collective thought is that there's gotta be some sort of risk factor associated with surplus material that'll involve some degree of remuneration, perverse innovation, contamination, infestation and no doubt it may lead somehow, someway, or quite possibly to, "procreation..." I mean, it's gotta be in there somehow, right?

I am sure if we investigated dumb-arse and his or her comments closely enough we could no doubt track it back to the very contamination of beef right after WWII. I myself had seen where a cattle rancher outside of Kingman AZ used cut-down B-17 and B-24 fuel cells removed from scrapped planes to water cattle, and I bet some bright scientist could determine that said letter writer's granny or grampy might have had a hamburger in 1948 that came from this very area, explaining the mental retardation passed generationally and mass hysteria over potential for contamination. Hay-suez Ke-rist. What a friggin' individual of questionable judgement.

Neat story - thanks for sharing - and dumb-arse comments from John Q. public nonewithstanding. Geez. Now way in heck you'd ever be able to propose re-use of surplus materiel with today's generation...

Should I post the neat little article as written in a 1948 issue of Popular Mechanics showing how to make a sport diving breathing system out of old bomber oxygen bottles and an airplane breathing regulator, or need I fear reprocussions from some dip-sh-X-t trial lawyer for reprinting something from the public domain?

Just curious...
:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 12:32 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:02 am
Posts: 4738
Location: Yucca Valley, CA
I'm surprised that nobody even considered that the tank could have been brand new and never held fuel to begin with? :?

_________________
Image
All right, Mister Dorfmann, start pullin'!
Pilot: "Flap switch works hard in down position."
Mechanic: "Flap switch checked OK. Pilot needs more P.T." - Flight report, TB-17G 42-102875 (Hobbs AAF)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:22 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member

Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:36 am
Posts: 7961
Location: Mt. Vernon, WA.
SORRY, WHAT DID YOU SAY? I can't hear you over the bleating of all the ignorant sheep that seem to have taken over this country..........just continue to nod and don't ask any questions requiring independant thought

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:22 am
Posts: 422
Location: Melbourne
My girlfriends family have a floating pontoon that rests on 2 F86 sabre droptanks as floats


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:09 am 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 8:11 am
Posts: 2397
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
I think the article is just great to show how different of a mind set we have today......no more no less.

Is what we have today better or worst :?: :?: :?: In some respect....it just again mostly different. I will not even try justifying left or right...... or for that matter attempt putting s weight of people mentality through the ages or their acts in general.

My humble 2 cents opinion is this is as interesting & as relevent to warbirds as the article we saw not long ago on the re-use of B-29 tire for tractors. Just a great catch.

Quote:
I'm surprised that nobody even considered that the tank could have been brand new and never held fuel to begin with?


I think we all have Chris, but since the article does not mention it....it does make for a bit better sensationalism ( spelling ? )


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 8:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 10:07 pm
Posts: 354
Location: Wichita, KS
Pooner wrote:
This is precisely the kind of mentality we have today that prohibits surplus material from ever reaching the public sector, whether it be KC-130 airframe parts to something as mundane as vehicles, tents or clothing.


Probably also the reason why they are charging museums $40mil to clean up each Space Shuttle for display. Sure there are toxic things in those ships, but $40mil toxic?

_________________
F-84F Simulator Project
www.f-84f.org


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 263 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group