This is the place where the majority of the warbird (aircraft that have survived military service) discussions will take place. Specialized forums may be added in the new future
Post a reply

Re: Oshkosh by the numbers

Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:04 pm

mustangdriver wrote:...but for me the people also make the trip special.


Now there is a politically correct statement if I ever heard one! 8)

Personally, it is all about the airplanes for me, but then again I'm antisocial. If everyone dropped off their planes and left, I'd be perfectly happy.

Re: Oshkosh by the numbers

Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:05 pm

The dreaded iPad double post... Sorry!

Re: Oshkosh by the numbers

Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:16 am

JohnB wrote:
Speedy wrote: ....owners calling them L-17's just because of a crappy paint job with oversized nose art.

I'm pretty liberal when it comes to owner paint schemes, but if they're going to pretend to be something they're not, all I ask is they do it halfway correctly. :)
Nose art on planes that didn't have it is a pet peeve...too many guys think a warbird (or pretend warbird) isn't a warbird without a naked lady on it.
My worse case example is a Twin Beech painted in 1950s SAC markings with a semi clothed lady on the nose.
Somehow, I don't think Curt LeMay would have allowed that on a SAC aircraft in the 50s.


I guess I'm even a little more liberal than you on paint schemes, although I thought I was pretty hard core. I figure you have to acknowledge the compromise between presenting the history and it being a personal airplane, so when the bird is accurate except it has a name or picture of personal meaning to the owner, it doesn't bug me.

Besides, as a shutterbug, there are workarounds. For example, I only shoot Rod Lewis's B-25 from the starboard side. And a lot of the more restrained nose art (e.g. Glacier Girl) is easily retouched out.

August

Re: Oshkosh by the numbers

Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:29 am

bdk wrote:
mustangdriver wrote:...but for me the people also make the trip special.


Now there is a politically correct statement if I ever heard one! 8)

Personally, it is all about the airplanes for me, but then again I'm antisocial. If everyone dropped off their planes and left, I'd be perfectly happy.


Was talking about this with someone. The nature of Oshkosh is that there are different ways of experiencing it, and it is so big that you can only do one well. You can go to see planes, to see people, to have fun flying or being flown, to learn at the workshops and forums, to shop. Whichever you choose to focus on, Oshkosh will still be over before you've finished with it.

Personally I'm with you bdk, I am there for the planes, and ended up taking a pass on almost all the opportunites I had for socializing and rides, and never went inside a forum or vendor building except to shelter from the Thursday storm. It was just dawn to dusk watching and shooting the planes in the parking areas or on the taxiways and runways for me. If I got to Oshkosh more years, I might spend more time sampling its other dimensions. Or maybe not!

August

Re: Oshkosh by the numbers

Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:06 pm

Pat Carry wrote:

Just curious, which P-40's were there?


OK, they were N4420K http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p40regis ... ak753.html

N49FG http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p40regis ... 04959.html

NX40PE http://www.airplane-pictures.net/regist ... p?p=NX40PE

N295RL http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N295RL.html

and N1226N http://www.warbirdregistry.org/p40regis ... 05867.html
Post a reply