 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / January 2006What ifs!
If Whittle had been listened to originally? If the Miles poject had continued? We could have had supersonic planes during WW2 (on our side) > If Whittle had been listened to originally? > > If the Miles poject had continued? > > We could have had supersonic planes during WW2 (on our side) That's the beauty of "what if's" and normally only found in RAM under "F-111 v Sopwith Camel ?" Richard. > If Whittle had been listened to originally? It probably would have been sidelined for other priorities. > If the Miles poject had continued? Not sure. > We could have had supersonic planes during WW2 (on our side) Unlikely for two reasons: 1. No use as a bomber, you couldn't build anything big enough to get in there, bomb, and get out. Metalurgy wouldn't allow anything large enough to be a supersonic bomber, plus the fuel penalty would be horrendous. Where would the bombs go, given that fuel load. Consider how many true supersonic bombers (bombers in the the traditional sense) exist today, not many. 2. Limited as a fighter as the same reasons the Germans found with the Me262, at those speeds you don't get much time to hit anything. Once again, fuel penalties. When do you send in your fighters to support the bombers, how much loiter time would they have once there, can they hit anything? No more escorts, just dash in as needed and then rush home for a refuel, leaves the bombers vunerable for more conventional enemy fighters. Yes, you would have seen faster aircraft and they would have been used as fighters. Of course, once you started using fast jets Hitler would probably realise that directing effort towards the Me-262 would be more rational than theV-2 and other miracle weapons.  SignatureThe Raven http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3 ** Now I will bring chaos to the world! For the reasons you've mentioned, an initial prime application for supersonic capability would appear to have been as an unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that could outrun enemy planes. Keep in mind that for similar motivations the fastest airplane ever put into service in the world (SR-71) was used in this role, although it was also considered as an interceptor. Until it became essentially space based, strategic recce literally used to push the flight envelope, both in terms of speed as well as altitude (U-2). Martin > > If Whittle had been listened to originally? > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3 > ** Now I will bring chaos to the world! >> If Whittle had been listened to originally? > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >realise that directing effort towards the Me-262 would be more rational than >theV-2 and other miracle weapons. don't understimate hitler's capacity for f.cking up anything. spamspam@spam.spam (Martin) wrote in <dqnq5r$hbe$3$8300dec7 @news.demon.co.uk>: >If Whittle had been listened to originally? > >If the Miles poject had continued? > >We could have had supersonic planes during WW2 (on our side) Had that happened, the repercussions would still have been noticeable today. Had Britain been a leader in postwar aviation technology, their aircraft industry might not have been is such a sorry state these days. The US could have had supersonic aircraft during WW2 as well: <http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm> If you're interested in exploring this subject, visit <http://www.whatifmodelers.com/>. Alternate history (and building the models to match) is fun. SignatureHarro de Jong remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me ---snippage--- > If you're interested in exploring this subject, visit > <http://www.whatifmodelers.com/>. > Alternate history (and building the models to match) is fun. This is the UK SIG? If so, I met you guys in Telford last year and had a great time. I'm from Seattle where our last big 'what if' was the 1949 Schneider event. The organizer, Tim Nelson, wrote the article and i took most of the pictures in there. It was a great deal of fun! Right now in the early stages of April Fool's planning. It's becoming a tradition here to do a spoof model for April Fool's day. Have fun!! --- Tontoni > This is the UK SIG? The UK SIG is part of it, but there are quite a few people on the forum who aren't in the SIG. > If so, I met you guys in Telford last year and had a great time. Cool. I was there too. We didn't meet, AFAIK (I was probably wandering around). SignatureHarro de Jong remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me > ---snippage--- > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > --- Tontoni I finally got my copy of FSM (and I can see what the discussion centered on as to the cover plane) but I loved that Schneider Cup exercise. There were some very good models shown. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. > spamspam@spam.spam (Martin) wrote in <dqnq5r$hbe$3$8300dec7 > @news.demon.co.uk>: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > technology, their aircraft industry might not have been is such a > sorry state these days. Britain was a leader in postwar aviation technology but it's own government failed to understand that. Hence the cancellation of the TSR.2 and similar projects and their replacement by inferior, less reliable and more costly imported alternatives. The US governemnt and aircraft industry knew all too well and did their combined utmost to sabotage Britain's adanced avaition projects leaving western europe at the mercy of Soviet air power for years to come. > The US could have had supersonic aircraft during WW2 as well: > <http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Histories/Lockheed-L133/L133.htm> This very scenario was explored in the TV programme "Planes That Never Flew" (which is also available on DVD and which is where I first saw it). The programme presents a computer animated sequence in which Lockheed's L133's flying bomber escort duties go after the Me262 leaving other allied fighters to deal with slower German intercerptors. (kim) >The US governemnt and aircraft industry knew all too >well and did their combined utmost to sabotage Britain's adanced avaition >projects leaving western europe at the mercy of Soviet air power for years >to come. Huh? What about all the USAFE units deployed in support of NATO?? SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." >>The US governemnt and aircraft industry knew all too >>well and did their combined utmost to sabotage Britain's adanced avaition [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Huh? What about all the USAFE units deployed in support of > NATO?? Two points here. One is that prior to the deployment of the F-15 in europe, NATO had absolutely no way of countering reconnaissance missions by Soviet Foxbats that were able to overfly western europe with total impunity. The other is that the US adminstration was haranguing europe to do more to defend itself whilst at the same time doing it's level best to put europe's indigenous defence industries out of business. You can't have it both ways. You either have a europe which is strong and can defend itself or you have a europe which is totally dependent on US military aid. US industry of course would prefer the latter as it creates more business for them. (kim) >...prior to the deployment of the F-15 in europe, NATO had absolutely >no way of countering reconnaissance missions by Soviet >Foxbats that were able to overfly western europe with total impunity. How does that equate to "...leaving western europe (sic) at the mercy of Soviet air power for years to come."? >The other is that the US adminstration... There was only one US administration during the entire Cold War? >...was haranguing europe to do more to defend itself... Instead of riding on the coattails of US defense expenditures to pour its money into social programs. Seems to me Europe got a pretty good deal, and it *still* has neither the will nor the means to defend itself. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." >>...prior to the deployment of the F-15 in europe, NATO had absolutely >>no way of countering reconnaissance missions by Soviet >>Foxbats that were able to overfly western europe with total impunity. > > How does that equate to "...leaving western europe (sic) at the > mercy of Soviet air power for years to come."? There was a gap bof many years between the cancellation of the TSR.2 and similar projects and the deployment of F-15's in europe to (partially) fill that gap. During thiose years europe was extremely vulnerable to any hostile Soviet actions. >>The other is that the US adminstration... > > There was only one US administration during the entire Cold War? We outside of the US think of it as being oinetinuous adminstraiton whereas you within the US see it as being several separate administrations. >>...was haranguing europe to do more to defend itself... > > Instead of riding on the coattails of US defense expenditures to > pour its money into social programs. Seems to me Europe got a pretty > good deal, and it *still* has neither the will nor the means to defend > itself. By "europe" I mean of course Great Bitain since that was the only european country within NATO which had an advanced aerospace industry. It was exaggerated claims by US manufacturers such as McDonnel and General Dynamics for the performance and cost of its aircraft which persuaded Britain to abandon its own defense projects. The ultimate cost to the UK taxpayer was actually far higher than if those programs had continued. The USA also suffered in that it did not have those projects to turn to when it's own aircraft proved inadequate for the tasks they were designed for. As an independent observer I can assure you the UK at least has both the means and the will to defend itself against any likely aggressor. (kim) > By "europe" I mean of course Great Bitain since that was the only european > country within NATO which had an advanced aerospace industry. I bet there are some people in France who would have some pretty interesting replies to that statement. :-) Flying Frog, where are you when we need you?? > It was exaggerated claims by US manufacturers such as McDonnel > and General Dynamics for the performance and cost of its aircraft > which persuaded Britain to abandon its own defense projects. Crap! It was the British socialist idiots who were pissed at the aircraft industry and did their own industry in out of spite. > The ultimate cost to the UK taxpayer was actually far higher than > if those programs had continued. IIRC the thing that ran the Phantom project through the roof was re-design to use the Spey engine, which was a change insisted on by the British Government after the fact. Your own government screwed you, as usual. > The USA also suffered in that it did not have those projects to > turn to when it's own aircraft proved inadequate for the tasks > they were designed for. And just which aircraft did you have in mind?? Enlighten us. > As an independent observer I can assure you the UK at least has both the > means and the will to defend itself against any likely aggressor. This sounds like the chest thumping we were hearing after the breakdown of the Soviet Union when we were being bombarded with talk about the "New European Union" and it's new combined military. Then this sociopath Milesovich surfaced in Yugoslavia and all we started to hear was "When are the Americans going to do something about him"?? Bill Shuey "William H. Shuey" <whshuey@starpower.net> wrote in message > Crap! It was the British socialist idiots who were pissed > at the aircraft industry and did their own industry in out of spite. Haven't you heard, blaming the US has long since replaced "the devil made me do it" as the number one cop out heard around the world. WmB > "William H. Shuey" <whshuey@starpower.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Haven't you heard, blaming the US has long since replaced "the devil made me > do it" as the number one cop out heard around the world. It's being honed down to Ted Haggard and also anyone tied in with Opus Dei! Richard. > "William H. Shuey" <whshuey@starpower.net> wrote in message >> Crap! It was the British socialist idiots who were pissed >> at the aircraft industry and did their own industry in out of spite. > > Haven't you heard, blaming the US has long since replaced "the devil made > me do it" as the number one cop out heard around the world. I'm not blaming the USA as a whole. What I'm saying is that there were two powerful corporate lobbies in the US (J.S. McDonnell and General Dynamics) who were more interested in winning large overseas contracts than in disseminating accurate information to potential buyers. The US taxpayer was just as much a victim of false information supplied by certain defence contractors as UK taxpayers were. (kim) > > "William H. Shuey" <whshuey@starpower.net> wrote in message > >> Crap! It was the British socialist idiots who were pissed [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > (kim) Probably right but isn't that what most corporations do? I'm darn sure that BAe has never been completely forthcoming when one of their projects comes a-cropper. Speaking of the thread title, has anyone her tried making an F-111K? Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >very large snip here< > > Speaking of the thread title, has anyone her tried making an F-111K? > > Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. there is a yahoo group which does this kind of thing that you may enjoy looking at. http://groups.msn.com/thewhatifandoddballmodelpage its a uk group but does that realy matter, we all have the modeling bug or we would not be here. Gondor > >very large snip here< > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Gondor The language barrier could be sticky but I always understand Jules on the phone. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. >...I always understand Jules on the phone. Heh. It isn't always _easy_ though... ;-p SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." >> By "europe" I mean of course Great Bitain since that was the only >> european [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > interesting replies to that statement. :-) Flying Frog, where are you > when we need you?? During the time period being referred to, France did not have an 'advanced' aerospace industry, that came later. Besides which France was not a full member of NATO. The Luftwaffe was interested in buying TSR.2 to replace the F-104G and had they done so it is likely many other NATO air forces would have done the same. >> It was exaggerated claims by US manufacturers such as McDonnell >> and General Dynamics for the performance and cost of its aircraft >> which persuaded Britain to abandon its own defense projects. > > Crap! It was the British socialist idiots who were pissed > at the aircraft industry and did their own industry in out of spite. If you examine the records you will that the previous Conservative government had already cancelled many projects and was considering cancelling TSR.2 before the general election which brought the Labour Party into office. The aerospace trade unions who were overwhelmingly socialist marched in support of keeping the project going. >> The ultimate cost to the UK taxpayer was actually far higher than >> if those programs had continued. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > British Government after the fact. Your own government screwed you, > as usual. The order for the bastardised Phantom was placed only after an order for the F-111K was abandoned. The latter was only abandoned becuase of rising costs and delays. Had the UK proceeded with the F-111 order in the same way as Australia did it would eventually have been delivered ten years late and ten times over budget. It was exaggerated claims by J.S. McDonnell for the radar capabilities of the Phantom which persuaded the Conservative UK government to abandon all development of Britain's own fighter-interceptor aircraft as far back as 1962. >> The USA also suffered in that it did not have those projects to >> turn to when it's own aircraft proved inadequate for the tasks >> they were designed for. > > And just which aircraft did you have in mind?? Enlighten us. When the U2 was shot down over Russia the USAF was forced to buy the Canberra from Britain in order to fill a gap in its reconnaissance requirements, albeit disguised as the "Martin RB-57". The US Marines were forced to buy Britsh developed Harrier fighters for close support as there was no US plane suitable for the role. During Gulf War 1 the allies had to rely on RAF Tornado bombers to carry out low level strikes on AAA sites as there was no US design suitable for the job and if Britain had proceeded with the TSR.2 project the USAF would eventually have bough that too for the same reasons it earlier bought the Canberra. >> As an independent observer I can assure you the UK at least has both the >> means and the will to defend itself against any likely aggressor. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Milesovich surfaced in Yugoslavia and all we started to hear was "When > are the Americans going to do something about him"?? I specically used the phrase "defend itself". Serbia was no threat to UK, european or US interests and anyone who's studied the sad history of Yugoslavia will tell you that intervention by foreign nations has seldom been good for the people who live there. Just for the record it was United Nations forces under Boutros Boutros Galli who first intervened in the civil war in Bosnia not the European Union. (kim) >When the U2 was shot down over Russia the USAF was forced to buy the >Canberra from Britain in order to fill a gap in its reconnaissance >requirements, albeit disguised as the "Martin RB-57". Utter BS. The B-57 was purchased as a replacement for the Douglas B-26 as a light bomber in competition with the Martin XB-51, North American B-45 Tornado, North American AJ-1 Savage, and Avro-Canada CF 100. Its development for the reconnaissance role was an afterthought, not the primary reason for its procurement by the USAF. SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." >>>...prior to the deployment of the F-15 in europe, NATO had absolutely >>>no way of countering reconnaissance missions by Soviet [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >that gap. During thiose years europe was extremely vulnerable to any hostile >Soviet actions. Yeah, those ground attack and interceptor versions of the MiG 25 were really awesome... >>>The other is that the US adminstration... >> >> There was only one US administration during the entire Cold War? > >We outside of the US think of it as being oinetinuous adminstraiton whereas >you within the US see it as being several separate administrations. Well then, you would be wrong. >>>...was haranguing europe to do more to defend itself... >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >By "europe" I mean of course Great Bitain since that was the only european >country within NATO which had an advanced aerospace industry. I'm sorry I couldn't read your mind. Why did you write 'europe' rather than Great Britain then in the first place? >It was exaggerated claims by US manufacturers such as McDonnel and General Dynamics >for the performance and cost of its aircraft which persuaded Britain to >abandon its own defense projects. It sounds to me like you're saying the British can't think for themselves. I'm sure you don't mean that either. >The ultimate cost to the UK taxpayer was >actually far higher than if those programs had continued. The USA also >suffered in that it did not have those projects to turn to when it's own >aircraft proved inadequate for the tasks they were designed for. Which US aircraft proved in service to be inadequate for the tasks they were designed for? >As an independent observer I can assure you the UK at least has both the >means and the will to defend itself against any likely aggressor. Well, the UK is certainly better off in the former regard than the rest of Europe. She at least has _some_ force projection assets. For the time being anyways. As for the latter, that's another discussion entirely... SignatureAl Superczynski, MFE, IPMS/USA #3795, continuous since 1968 My "From" address is munged - use 'modeleral (at) swbell (dot) net' to respond via email. Check out my want lists and eBay listings at "Al's Place": http://www.network54.com/realm/modeleral/ "Build what YOU like, the way YOU want to, and the critics will flame you every time." > Two points here. One is that prior to the deployment of the F-15 in > europe, NATO had absolutely no way of countering reconnaissance missions > by Soviet Foxbats that were able to overfly western europe with total > impunity. What about the NIKE-Hercules missile that was fielded (and controlled) by Germany, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Norway, Spain, and even France for awhile? (Not to mention indigenous French and British SAMs.) If NATO had wanted to shoot down a Soviet aircraft, doing with a SAM would've been no worse politically than doing it with a fighter. KL >> Two points here. One is that prior to the deployment of the F-15 in >> europe, NATO had absolutely no way of countering reconnaissance missions [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > had wanted to shoot down a Soviet aircraft, doing with a SAM would've been > no worse politically than doing it with a fighter. Apparently - this what I read at the time - NIKE-Hercules was incapable of bringing down Foxbats without using a nuclear tipped warhead. In peacetime that would have bewn unthinkable. (kim) >>> Two points here. One is that prior to the deployment of the F-15 in >>> europe, NATO had absolutely no way of countering reconnaissance missions [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bringing down Foxbats without using a nuclear tipped warhead. In peacetime > that would have bewn unthinkable. Incapable based on what? I have a pretty good set of N-H manuals, including some classified ones with performance data. What was the problem with the MiG-25R that the N-H supposedly couldn't overcome? (I can check to see if it's true.) Fundamentally, this doesn't make a lot of sense because if it COULD kill it with a W31 airburst, killing with a HE-Frag warhead would simply be a matter of timing as all the W31 has over the M17 is effective radius. . . KL ntscuser@aol.com (kim) wrote in <dr1e4r$k7f$1@domitilla.aioe.org>: >Britain was a leader in postwar aviation technology but it's own >government failed to understand that. Hence the cancellation of the >TSR.2 and similar projects and their replacement by inferior, less >reliable and more costly imported alternatives. I think it started with the cancellation of the Miles M.52. That cost Britain the lead in supersonic research. It went downhill from there. SignatureHarro de Jong remove the extra Xs from xmsnet to mail me There are even more what-ifs not considering Whittle. There were several groups in the US working on turbojet engines. This was at a low level for lack of funding, but at SOME level nonetheless. These groups made inquiries at Wright field in the late thirties and 1940. In fact, a joint army/navy program did issue three contracts to US firms in 1941 prior to the letting of the Whittle copy contract. What if US would have been farsighted enough to take up GE and Lockheed on these projects? The main reason they didn't was the short range/high fuel consumption of turbojets. AAF had strategy of projection of airpower at a distance, and aimed their development on long range aviation. They saw no need for high speed but short range interceptors. They changed their minds, fortunately, and did decide to develop jets once it was clear Germans were developing them. They would have to develop big drop tanks and other means of extending range, but they did go ahead with the effort. P-80s were in England by VE day, but not soon enough to see action. Six months earlier development and we could have seen jet vs jet dogfights in Europe. >If Whittle had been listened to originally? > >If the Miles poject had continued? > >We could have had supersonic planes during WW2 (on our side) if anyone had listened to winnie, no world war 2. > If Whittle had been listened to originally? > > If the Miles poject had continued? > > We could have had supersonic planes during WW2 (on our side) Mine would be: What if any of the major combatants had mastered air-to-air refueling and employed it on a significant scale? WmB >> If Whittle had been listened to originally? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >WmB if the germans had it for the bob, it could have gone very differently. likewise if they had it in russia for bombers going beyond the urals. even africa could have been different. cool one to think about. both sides could have built a system of one sort or another. >>Mine would be: What if any of the major combatants had mastered air-to-air >>refueling and employed it on a significant scale? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >cool one to think about. >both sides could have built a system of one sort or another. The US Army made some record endurance flights through in-flight refuelling long before the war. And of course, the Navy's rigid airships also count. The real problem would be designing a tanker aircraft of sufficient size and efficiency. Granted, a converted bomber would work, as done with B-24s in the CBI theater (supplying forward bases, not in-flight as such). That and protecting the airborne tankers from counterair. I don't think there has ever been an instance of tankers in modern wars being directly targeted, but the option is often given in field exercizes such as Red Flag. Stephen Bierce >>>Mine would be: What if any of the major combatants had mastered air-to-air >>>refueling and employed it on a significant scale? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Stephen Bierce yes, i basically agree. all the side could have come up with some sort of in flight, but i think no one really thought it through in the press of other busines. the rooshuns had their trapeze set-up, that sort of helped. >>>Mine would be: What if any of the major combatants had mastered >>>air-to-air [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Stephen Bierce USN hose-reel types modified from TBFs as carrier-based tankers could make for an interesting wrinkle in Pacfic carrier ops. Something like that would have been useful on the Doolittle Raid and the returning flights forced to ditch during the Marianas operations. Probably need JATO to get the beasties into the sky though. Useful in the Battle of the Atlantic too, utilizing conversions of big land based planes like the B-24/PB4Y. Maybe even scrape out another mission for the Mariner and Coronado flying boats. While the late war hunter-killer ASW groups are the way to go, max avail. air coverage over the Atlantic would have still been desirable - especially early on in the war. The Mid Atlantic gaps in air cover might have been plugged sooner and more effectively with AAR. Over Germany, AAR *might* have allowed for heavier bomb loads on smaller raids. But I would think even the USAAF would have been hard pressed to efficiently manage the AAR logistics of a 1,000 plane raid. Whether AAR would have made a significant contribution with the bombers is questionable, but if it reduces the number of missions flown against a particular target it would seem to be worthwhile when measured against equipment losses and casualties suffered on repeat missions. As for refuelling the escort fighters that clearly would have been something worth pursuing. Extending the range was always a concern, even after the P-51s arrived on the scene and took over escort chores. Even so, AAR missions over Europe would have been far more problematic than over the Atlantic. Over land the Germans had so much more to throw up into the sky at your tankers. As for the Axis, AAR in the hands of the Germans may have breathed life into some of those fanciful and ambitious plans to strike at NY and North America, late in the war. The Japanese, no telling what they might have cooked up. WmB What if? What if the IPMS/USA was ran by competent people who really gave a sh.t? What if the IPMS/USA wasnt populated with has been old fools who cant build anymore? What if there was no IPMS/USA? Well the last one will happen soon! HA HA HA Evil is as evill does and the world will soon be a hot ember after Isreal Nukes Iran! Build them if ya have them! DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!! > What if? > What if the IPMS/USA was ran by competent people who really gave a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Build them if ya have them! At a model show here in Australia one of the clubs built dozens of kits in what if schemes. It is a shame I can't remember all of them but I think there was a TSR2 in Australian markings amongst others. BTW is IPMS popular in America? Tim Brimelow > DO NOT FEED THE TROLL!! > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Build them if ya have them! "tim brimelow" <tbrimelow@optushome.com.au.nospam > BTW is IPMS popular in America? > > Tim Brimelow Well, there is this one guy in AZ with some IPMS issues. WmB > "tim brimelow" <tbrimelow@optushome.com.au.nospam > > BTW is IPMS popular in America? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > WmB But please don't blame Arizona. ;) Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.