 |
 | 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 / October 2006F-86 Korean war personal markings
I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's brilliant!!! Now I want to build a natural metal aircraft, so I've chosen the F-86. (Yes, I *know* that I'm teetering on a slippery slope! :-) ) Anyroads... I'm not a big fan of special markings - I much prefer a plain line jet. I'm also not a fan of huge flashy personal markings. Small discreet ones I can handle, but when they are massive great big pictures on the side of a jet, I get a bit turned off by them. The problem is that every Korean War F-86 decal sheet has these great big personal markings. I guess they must be popular... ;-) So... how likely is it that these aircraft would have flown missions *after* the squadron markings were applied, but *before* the personal markings were applied? The aircraft I'm thinking of in particular is F-86E-10 51-2834, 335 FIS/ 2 FIW, flown by Captain Clifford D Jolley. Did it ever fly without that hideous skull and crossbones on the fuselage side?  SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's brilliant!!! > > Now I want to build a natural metal aircraft, so I've chosen the F-86. I assume that was a typo and you meant to write Lightning F-6 ? (kim) >>I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's brilliant!!! >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (kim) I assume that was a typo and you really meant P-38 Lightning?.. Signature- Rufus Rufus smirked: >>> I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's >>> brilliant!!! Now I want to build a natural metal aircraft, so I've [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I assume that was a typo and you really meant P-38 Lightning?.. Awww... come *on* !!! SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > Rufus smirked: > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> > >> I assume that was a typo and you meant to write Lightning F-6 ? Had a Skipper who had gone to Empire Test pilot as an exchange guy. (from USN) he had a sortie in an EE Lighting. Departed the pattern and went over the channel, accelerated to Mach whatever (hey, as a Prowler guy anything over .86 was cool) Slowed and and entered the landing pattern with a low fuel light. Landed with .8 onboard. Total fat fingered flight time a .4. Still said it was a great jet and one of the coolest jets he'd ever flown. Pugs You couldn't translate this for those of us who aren't pilots, could you? Gordon McLaughlin Slowed and and entered the landing > pattern with a low fuel light. Landed with .8 onboard. Total fat > fingered flight time a .4. > > Pugs > You couldn't translate this for those of us who aren't pilots, could you? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > fingered flight time a .4. > > > Pugs Sorry...... .8 = 800 lbs of fuel = approx 120 gallons which does not get you far in any fighter .4 = 24 minutes of flight time Fat fingered means he added a bit of time to the actual "real" flight time to make the number a little larger. The two hours of hassle of planning, briefing, getting dressed and manning up for that short a flight made many of us add a tenth or two to a flight for the effort. An additional point is the jet was towed to the end of the runway to save fuel used in normal start-up and taxi. Pugs Thanks! Gordon McLaughlin >> You couldn't translate this for those of us who aren't pilots, could you? >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Pugs > An additional point is the jet was towed to the end of the runway to > save fuel used in normal start-up and taxi. Tornados have a fuel tank in the fin. When they first entered service in the RAF, the engines were so fuel inefficient that taxying to the end of the runway and take-off would empty the fin tank. The fin tank was always the first to be used as when it was empty the CG of the aircraft would move forward and make the jet much easier to handle. SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Forgive me for going back to the original post. USAF F-86s in Korea quite often sported the bare minimum of personal markings. The one that I have been looking for was Lt.Jim Low's aircraft. Aside from squadron markings and codes it only carried the name "Dad" beneath the cockpit. Anyone ever see a photo of this particular Sabre? Tom > > An additional point is the jet was towed to the end of the runway to > > save fuel used in normal start-up and taxi. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first to be used as when it was empty the CG of the aircraft would move > forward and make the jet much easier to handle. >>An additional point is the jet was towed to the end of the runway to >>save fuel used in normal start-up and taxi. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > first to be used as when it was empty the CG of the aircraft would move > forward and make the jet much easier to handle. Actually, F/A-18s have fuel tanks in the tails, too...but they are vent tanks. ...and it's not uncommon for the external tanks on most fighters (that I've worked around) to be 1/2 full or empty by takeoff. Signature- Rufus Totally clear to me... Signature- Rufus > You couldn't translate this for those of us who aren't pilots, could you? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>fingered flight time a .4. > >>Pugs > >>I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's brilliant!!! > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I assume that was a typo and you really meant P-38 Lightning?.. No, the P-38 and F-96 are _foreign_ planes. The Lightning F-6 is a "British" plane. That is to say, useless but good-looking :o) (kim) kim smirked: >>>> I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's >>>> brilliant!!! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > No, the P-38 and F-96 are _foreign_ planes. The Lightning F-6 is a > "British" plane. That is to say, useless but good-looking :o) Oh, I dunno... it was perfectly capable of defending the airfield from which it had just launched... for all of ten minutes! ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >>>>I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's brilliant!!! >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > (kim) I hope you're not talking about the English Electric Lightning...that ain't good looking... Signature- Rufus > >>>>I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's brilliant!!! > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I hope you're not talking about the English Electric Lightning...that > ain't good looking... They used to be bulled-up for international airshows and then they looked stunning. I had a picture of one on the front cover of a magazine on my coffee table for years. (kim) >>>>>>I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > (kim) Kinda reminds me of an over/under shotgun...not really fond of those, either. I'll stick with the P-38 Lightning...used to hang out around one as a kid. Signature- Rufus > >>>>>>I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > I'll stick with the P-38 Lightning...used to hang out around one as a kid. We're talking silver finsih here. Much as I like the P-38, silver is not its most flattering colour. Reminds me. There was magazine article once about a guy who dug an old Airfix B-17 out of his back garden. (It had been buried there by his kid a few years earlier). He clad it in 'Metalskin' and it looked absolutely stunning. One thing he didn't explain was how he managed to clad the compound curves at the wingtips, Metalskin being supplied in flat sheets? (kim) >>>>>>>>I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's >>> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > (kim) A technique called burnishing... The full-scalle P-38 I hung out around was polished bare metal, and it was magnificent. Signature- Rufus >>> No, the P-38 and F-96 are _foreign_ planes. The Lightning F-6 is a >>> "British" plane. That is to say, useless but good-looking :o) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > looked stunning. I had a picture of one on the front cover of a > magazine on my coffee table for years. When Lightnings were service jets, their displays were pretty good, but they could never be flown to really demonstrate their capabilties, because of the need to conserve fatigue life. Then the decision was taken to withdraw them from service in the mid-80s. There were a number of jets in storage and 11 Sqn found two Lightning F3s that had relatively low flying hours on each airframe. The F3 was an earlier version without the exended belly tank and so was much lighter than the F6 but with a similar thrust. 11 Sqn used those two jets solely as their display aircraft for the 1984 season. As the jets were being withdrawn at the end of the season, they didn't give a rats about conserving the fatigue life and so those displays were some of the most spectacular that I have ever seen. They reinstated the famous Lightning "square turn" and they even displayed the jets at supersonic speed. The problem was that they didn't want to cause too much hassle with a sonic boom, so in order to minimise the sonic footprint, they ensured that the jets only went supersonic in a vertical climb after take-off!!!! As for Mig-29s and SU-27 doing that "snakebite" manoevre... what's so special about that? Simply light the Lightning's torch and balance the jet on it. Simple! :-D SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > As for Mig-29s and SU-27 doing that "snakebite" manoevre... what's so > special about that? Simply light the Lightning's torch and balance the jet > on it. Simple! :-D I agree with you for the most part. Just about coming to a complete stop in a dogfight is not necessarally a good idea in real life...... What the Russians are showing with the *Cobra* maneuver is the excellent maneuverability particularly of the Su 27 Also showing off engines that can take radically different airflows without stalling. (still smoke tho) Matter of fact, the Su 27, and 33 are better close in fighters than the F 15. Something the Russians are very strong in, going back to the Yak 3, and 9 series of WW II. Unlike the US, they really never gave up high maneuverability and having an internal gun. (certain MiG's, Su's excluded) They have always had a *turn and burn* mindset, always. Which is one reason the FA 18, is such a good dog fighter. And the F 22 is even better, we are playing the game now too. I fly Su 33's MiG 29's, and F 15's all the time online, and I have NEVER (!!!) seen someone try this in a close in fight, never ! Most online fighting is going in fast, acquiring, ID'ing the target, and losing a volley of AAM's, and getting the hell outta Dodge fast, if all looks good than swing in and do it again........ Most close in fights are over within 20 - 60 seconds. Any longer, and people many many miles away will get you... (because all your radar use attracts attention from people quite far away, like moths to a flame they will come for you) With capable long range radars, slammers, and amraamskies, long distances are easily covered. Stopping and or going painfully slow in mid air is a death sentence in any kind of active air environment. Ya just dont do it........... Game is called LOMAC, and is played online over at HyperLobby. SignatureAM http://sctuser.home.comcast.net CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3 >> As for Mig-29s and SU-27 doing that "snakebite" manoevre... what's so >> special about that? Simply light the Lightning's torch and balance [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just about coming to a complete stop in a dogfight is > not necessarally a good idea in real life...... True. The Harrier was/is renowned for its VIFF (vectoring in forward flight) capability. The problem is that VIFFing is absolutely useless in combat except as the ultimate last resort. True, the Harrier could stop dead and an attacker would "fly right by"... but the Harrier then didn't have enough control authority to put its own missile on the attacker. Then of course the attacker's wingman would just storm straight in and waste the Harrier which by then had zero energy. RAF Harrier pilots never even trained to VIFF, although that might have had as much to do with minimising the stress on the airframe. An emergency VIFF from combat speeds could pull 8g! > I fly Su 33's MiG 29's, and F 15's all the time online, > and I have NEVER (!!!) seen someone try this in a close in > fight, never ! Most online fighting is going in fast, > acquiring, ID'ing the target, and losing a volley of AAM's, > and getting the hell outta Dodge fast, if all looks good > than swing in and do it again........ During the Indonesian Confrontation, the RAF needed to formulate tactics to deal with Indonesian P-51s. Therefore some trials were carried out with Spitfire XIXs dogfighting against RAF Lightnings. On paper the Lightning was superior in almost every respect, yet it was found that if the Lightning pilot allowed himself to get dragged into a turning fight, he would lose every single time. The tactics settled on were as you state. Fast straight-in attacks using the 30mm ADEN cannons with an immediate disengagement and a quick return. The Spitfires had no defence against this. In the event, the tactics were never used in combat. > Most close in fights are over within 20 - 60 seconds. > Any longer, and people many many miles away will get you... > (because all your radar use attracts attention from people > quite far away, like moths to a flame they will come for you) > With capable long range radars, slammers, and amraamskies, > long distances are easily covered. That's all very well in a flightsim game, but in a real-life situation, the Rules of Engagement would probably not allow any sort of BVR engagement. Makes you wonder why the MoD is persevering with the development of BVR missiles such as the Meteor... SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. >>Most close in fights are over within 20 - 60 seconds. >>Any longer, and people many many miles away will get you... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Makes you wonder why the MoD is persevering with the development of BVR > missiles such as the Meteor... I would tend to agree with you, (and kinda still do to a point) but... with all the modern electronics, NCTR target ID'ing, data link, AWACS, and other acquisition, and offboard targeting sensors, all of a sudden it becomes easy for someone a distance away, to separate friend from foe, and engage them. SA for modern fighters, and attack A/C has gone up in a quantum leap. Add to that long range, low smoke, active, multi spectrum weapons, and you have a deadly combination. The days of the dogfight will never be over, but everything in between must be taken care of at a distance precisely. I should have noted in the above, that shooting off SARH's, and long range IR missiles at *crowded* close in fights is generally not a way to win friends. When both go active and are looking, it is a matter of to whom it may concern 1/3 the time... (which also backs up your claim) You really need accurate targeting, and burn through in heavy EW environments. But many times, it is a viable alternative when needed to help out a team mate. (many AAM's have been/are fired out of parameters, just to get an enemies attention, in real life, and the sim world) It's all about energy management, SA, (visual and electronic) and knowing when it's time to run away. The moment you dont dominate anymore, you leave :) (sim world here, both modern and WW II) My younger son is in STRYKERS, and they are all data linked to each other, all have comm's with each other, and all are networked up and down. It is amazing. (he is a SAW gunner SBCT) The real battle these days is in the electronic environment... I do have the Academy 1/48 Su 27, and am waiting to get a decent after market cockpit, and burner cans. I am in serious drool mode over the 1/32 F 16, and Su 27 tho... SignatureAM http://sctuser.home.comcast.net CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3 kim smirked: >> I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's >> brilliant!!! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I assume that was a typo and you meant to write Lightning F-6 ? Do *not* start with me... I do not need yet another obsession!!! ;-) SignatureEnzo I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. > kim smirked: > >> I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. Yeah, EE Lightnings are addictive. I'm with you on the 'plain 'ol service type' markings. Bill Banaszak, MFE Sr. Now that you've been successfully lured into building the F86, is there anything else that I can tempt you into? Meteors are nice... Gordon McLaughlin > I'm very excited! I've tried out this Alclad2 stuff. It's brilliant!!! > > Now I want to build a natural metal aircraft, so I've chosen the F-86. > (Yes, I *know* that I'm teetering on a slippery slope! :-) ) > Now that you've been successfully lured into building the F86, is > there anything else that I can tempt you into? Meteors are nice... Auuuuuuugggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! SignatureEnzo (waiting for the release of the MPM kits...) I wear the cheese. It does not wear me. |
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.