Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 28FEB11

Expand Messages
  • C. Bibbee
    Jean; Thanks. Ol Nappy is one of my favorite overrated military geniuses . (Don t get me started on the Battle of San Giuliano, aka Marengo .) As for the
    Message 1 of 37 , Mar 1, 2011
      Jean;

       Thanks. Ol' Nappy is one of my favorite overrated military "geniuses". (Don't get me started on the Battle of San Giuliano, aka "Marengo".)

       As for the 104s, great pictures. I noticed that the XF-104 already had a "buzz number", complete with two-letter type code. My guess is production was greenlighted on it a lot faster than it would happen today.

       As for the pictures in the UK in 1980, were those NATO Starfighters? I couldn't see the national markings. Belgian, Dutch, Italian, Canadian?

                                                                                                            Sincerely,

                                                                                                            Carl B.



      From: JeanA <jfa23@...>
      To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 8:42:09 PM
      Subject: [Box-Art] Free Download Alert 28FEB11

       

      Hello Boxsters,
      Another Monday and an new Free Download.
      This week the Chairman presents one I have never seen before.
      The FD is the boxart from Park, who the hell are they, from their 'Born Losers' series of kits.
      The FD is from the Napoleon kit.
      I don't know if this was their only one in this series or not!
      I seem to recall that Park did a bunch of firearms kits too.
      From my archives and the web I give you some nice pics of the iconic Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.
      The last two were taken at an airshow in the UK and they scare the piss outta me. Those guys came over the field barely subsonic at treetop level. What a hoot!
      The old timers here will remember some of them from a previous post, but the classics are always cool.
      I have distinct memories of building the Revell boxscale kit of this airplane in the 1960s.
      You gotta love those Sidewinders stuck out on the wingtips.
      As usual all the images are 1280 pixels.
      Get them at http://theboxartden.com/free_downloads

      Jean

    • DANNY ROBERTSON
      Thanks Carl! DANNY K. ROBERTSON ... From: C. Bibbee Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Fighter Sizes To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com Date: Sunday,
      Message 37 of 37 , Mar 6, 2011
        Thanks Carl!

        DANNY K. ROBERTSON


        --- On Sun, 3/6/11, C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@...> wrote:

        From: C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@...>
        Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Fighter Sizes
        To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011, 8:29 PM

         
        Danny;

         Nothing to be sorry about, except that they're gone. Remembering them is the best we can do.


                                                                                                                       Sincerely,

                                                                                                                       Carl


        From: DANNY ROBERTSON <dkr1949flyer@...>
        To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, March 6, 2011 6:02:46 PM
        Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Fighter Sizes

         
        So true. I didn't make it to SEA, but I lost 9 buddies over there. All were ground pounders, but dead is dead. About 2 years ago, this town finally erected a nice monument in their honor and put it close to our other lost soldiers from all wars. Lot of men from such a small town. Sorry, but everytime I think abouit Nam, they come to mind.

        DANNY K. ROBERTSON


        --- On Sun, 3/6/11, C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@...> wrote:

        From: C. Bibbee <quadgop2000@...>
        Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Fighter Sizes
        To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Sunday, March 6, 2011, 6:08 AM

         
        Danny;

         The "Thud" is an all-time favorite of mine, too. But I still think sending them to SEA was a bad idea. The F-105 was a precision all-weather nuclear strike platform, intended to penetrate WarPac air defenses singly and take out important tactical targets with (on average) 4 KT weapons- one Thud to a target. They were to carry the big bang internally, with a pair of tanks and maybe a couple of Sidewinders for self-defense under the wings, plus the internal Vulcan cannon for flak suppression. They could have easily "done the nasty" on the Soviets' marshaling areas, etc., because even with this sort of load, the Thud could do about 500 KTS on the deck, and go screaming past the average ZSU-57-2 crew before they got their eyes uncrossed.

         In Vietnam, the Thuds were going in high at under 400 KTS, loaded with iron bombs externally (which is why they were only doing 400), behind a B-66 "master bomber", in echelon formations, straight and level. Which is why we lost more than half the Thuds in our entire inventory, mainly to AAA.

         The few times an F-105 did end up at low altitude and high speed (usually while evading MiGs), the NVPAF learned that (a) chasing a Thud in its natural environment was mostly a waste of jet fuel, and (b) if you did catch up with it, you probably wouldn't live long enough to regret having done so. While not designed as a dogfighter, the Thud could pull some fairly vicious high-G maneuvers much like a Navy F-8 Crusader, which usually ended up with the aforementioned MiG eating a burst of 20mm or an AIM-9.

         Hindsight is always 20-20, but IMHO, the USAF would have been better set up if the Thuds had stayed in Europe and more Phantoms had been sent to SEA. (And if they hadn't kept trying to use tactical fighter-bombers to do jobs that needed heavy bombers.) Horses for courses, again.


                                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                               Carl B.



        From: DANNY ROBERTSON <dkr1949flyer@...>
        To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, March 5, 2011 5:43:03 PM
        Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Fighter Sizes

         
        Another of my favorites, the F-105 was big! Hell of a bomber, but we lost a bunch of them in Nam!

        DANNY K. ROBERTSON


        --- On Sat, 3/5/11, Joe Smith <jesmith49@...> wrote:

        From: Joe Smith <jesmith49@...>
        Subject: Re: [Box-Art] Fighter Sizes
        To: Box-Art@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Saturday, March 5, 2011, 5:39 PM

         
        Well if I remember correctly.... the Phantom II got produced because of the politics in the Pentagon.
        The guys who flew the 3 versions of the XF8U-3 Super Crusader wanted it, not the Phantom.
         
        It was faster, could go higher 68,000' sustained, more maneuverable and could go 25% further on
        internal fuel then the Phantom with a 600 gallon belly tank.
         
        It did have certain problems, like the wind screen would melt at sustained high speeds above 2.6 mach.
        But what other airplane was doing 2.6? SR 71, was not even built yet! It only carried 3 missiles, but we
        all know about improvements, wing racks, extra pylons and so forth.
         
        There were a few other things they needed to work on and can be pointed out, but was the Phantom
        really the best game in town, it also needed many improvements before it reached it's potential.
         
        Probley the best aircraft the Navy never built
         
        By the way speaking of "big" airplanes........I remember looking threw the fence at Republic as a
        kid wondering where the airplanes were, then I looked up and realiized I had been lookng between
        the landing gear of an F 105! Talk about big!
         
        Best,
        Joe



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.