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 Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:15 am

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  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:35 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:02 am
Posts: 4607
Location: Yucca Valley, CA
Chicago Tribune, July 17, 1953. What's surprising here is the aircraft they no longer would be buying parts for at that late date:
Image
I really doubt there were any P-38s, P-63s or - of all things - B-18s in the USAF inventory at that point. Also, weren't the early B-36s being updated with jet engines then?

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:29 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:32 am
Posts: 4308
Location: Battle Creek, MI
The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:19 pm
Posts: 201
Location: Canada
Steve Nelson wrote:
The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN


Fascinating indeed. It shows just how quickly technology was advancing in that time period.

This is the first time I have read references to the Lockheed Lightning and Bell King Cobra with the post-1948 'F' designator for fighters. I'm not so sure there were any Lightnings, King Cobras or Bolos in the USAF at that time, either, although I've never found reference to any exact date when they were retired. This article implies it was some time after 1953!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:25 pm
Posts: 520
Location: Travis AFB
Anybody know the retirement date for the B-24?
When was the last operational B-24 retired?
Did any go to reserve squadrons?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 2:49 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 1748
Location: atlanta,georgia
PropsRule wrote:
Steve Nelson wrote:
The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN


Fascinating indeed. It shows just how quickly technology was advancing in that time period.

This is the first time I have read references to the Lockheed Lightning and Bell King Cobra with the post-1948 'F' designator for fighters. I'm not so sure there were any Lightnings, King Cobras or Bolos in the USAF at that time, either, although I've never found reference to any exact date when they were retired. This article implies it was some time after 1953!

The latest that I heard of p-38s in operation squardron strength was 49th fighter group in korea 1950.They were scrapped right there on the field when the first F-80s showed up.Aurora models made a p-38 with post war markings that had the position for the decals engraved in the model.I thought that was weird even as a 8 year old lo those many years ago.

_________________
Hang The Expense


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:47 am 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5230
Location: Eastern Washington
trojandl wrote:
Anybody know the retirement date for the B-24?
When was the last operational B-24 retired?
Did any go to reserve squadrons?



The last B-24 was the EZB-24M in 1953.
I believe that airframe is the one that ended up at Lackland and is now at the American Air Museum at Duxford restored to its original "J" configuration.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm
Posts: 862
I had to look up "B-37." And then felt a little stupid when I did. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 12:51 am
Posts: 313
The one that puzzled me was the B-32 Dominator. I know one was set aside for the Air Force Museum, but I thought it was scrapped somewhere about that time, but not sure. Even if that one was still around, weren't all the others gone by that time?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:54 am
Posts: 311
hang the expense wrote:
PropsRule wrote:
Steve Nelson wrote:
The fascinating thing is that the oldest planes on the list were less than 15 years old at the time, and most less than ten. It's also interesting that fighters more than three years old and bombers more than six were to be relagated to 'secon line' status. These days we've got first-line aircraft in the inventory that beat that by a factor of ten!

SN


Fascinating indeed. It shows just how quickly technology was advancing in that time period.

This is the first time I have read references to the Lockheed Lightning and Bell King Cobra with the post-1948 'F' designator for fighters. I'm not so sure there were any Lightnings, King Cobras or Bolos in the USAF at that time, either, although I've never found reference to any exact date when they were retired. This article implies it was some time after 1953!

The latest that I heard of p-38s in operation squardron strength was 49th fighter group in korea


1950.They were scrapped right there on the field when the first F-80s showed up.Aurora models made a p-38 with post war markings that had the position for the decals engraved in the model.I thought that was weird even as a 8 year old lo those many years ago.



The 49th transitioned to P-51Ds in 1946 and started transition to F-80Cs in 1948.

Duane


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 3:36 pm 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 2:02 am
Posts: 4607
Location: Yucca Valley, CA
Xrayist wrote:
The one that puzzled me was the B-32 Dominator. I know one was set aside for the Air Force Museum, but I thought it was scrapped somewhere about that time, but not sure. Even if that one was still around, weren't all the others gone by that time?

I believe that one was scrapped in 1949, but the last survivor was the third XB-32 prototype, 41-18336, seen on the fire dump at McClellan AFB circa 1951-52:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=53756&p=534585&hilit=mcclellan#p534585

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:07 am
Posts: 282
Location: Grosse Pointe, Michigan
This article is interesting not only for what it says, but what it doesn't say. For example, aircraft such as the B-17 and B-25 aren't mentioned - and as we know they continued in service for several more years. It looks to me like the PIO involved deliberately added aircraft that were already out of service (e.g., B-32) to create a stronger impression that the AF was being economical.

_________________
Daviemax
Researcher of Post-War B-17 History
Maintains database of B-17s used from 46- on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Posts: 150
Location: Port Moresby, New Guinea
Errr....Just to play the devils advocate here for a moment. Are we suggesting that media reports in the 1950's were significantly more accurate in reporting aviation matters than they are in the 21st century?

_________________
"If that's a goddamn 'Jug' in front of me, you sure as hell better wiggle your wings." 80FS/8FG Cape Gloucester, December 1943. And the entire 41st Fighter Squadron rocked their wings.

ALWAYS LOOKING FOR P-38 PARTS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 6:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:49 pm
Posts: 862
43-2195 wrote:
Errr....Just to play the devils advocate here for a moment. Are we suggesting that media reports in the 1950's were significantly more accurate in reporting aviation matters than they are in the 21st century?

Might or might not have been more accurate, but I don't think they had the same obvious agenda in those days that they do today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 8:58 pm 
Offline
Long Time Member
Long Time Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:27 am
Posts: 5230
Location: Eastern Washington
Snake45 wrote:
43-2195 wrote:
Errr....Just to play the devils advocate here for a moment. Are we suggesting that media reports in the 1950's were significantly more accurate in reporting aviation matters than they are in the 21st century?

Might or might not have been more accurate, but I don't think they had the same obvious agenda in those days that they do today.



I agree with the earlier post that said the AF may have had a hand in this...adding "straw man" aircraft to look like it's being economical. Really, I can't see even the most dense of bureaucracies (which the USAF is not) buying spare parts for an extinct type like the B-32.

Another possibility is the spare parts for the B-32 were generic parts (engine parts, props, , electronics, etc.) that would have been used on some other, in service type....and the Congress or media looked at a part number and were told "they were used on the B-32"..which they could have been, but also something else.

The Chicago Tribune was, IIRC, a very conservative paper...or at least its owner McCormick was conservative, so I don't think its a case of CBS/New York Times slanting news to make the service look bad.

_________________
Remember the vets, the wonderful planes they flew and their sacrifices for a future many of them did not live to see.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 28, 2014 9:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:22 am
Posts: 620
Location: VA, USA
I think the notice may only represent the "official" supply channels formally closing the book on those aircraft, and that parts for them hadn't been acquired for years anyway.

I'll bet the Dept. of the AF posted something to that effect in the Congressional Register and the newspaper guy used it to make a story.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 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