Fri Sep 21, 2007 11:06 am
The big tall red head? Did he show you his baby picture? 
new
Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:18 pm
b-29, If your Dad worked on Mk Vs in WWII, the plane would be no more than 4 years old, so I would consider that to be pretty new parts.
Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:13 pm
b-29,
PM in your inbox.
Scott
PM in your inbox.
Scott
Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:43 pm
Bill, yes I guess you could say they were new. I think you may have met him back when you attended, with your Spit, a CAF display in St. Paul many years ago. He was with the 109th. Tac Recon Sq., 67th. Tac Recon Group.
Re: new
Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:19 pm
Bill Greenwood wrote:b-29, If your Dad worked on Mk Vs in WWII, the plane would be no more than 4 years old, so I would consider that to be pretty new parts.
....until you factor-in intensive combat mission cycles, battle damage, varying degrees
of technical care, varying pilot care. An aircraft in these conditions at the age of
1 or 2 years could have been quite "war weary" by then...the bird surviving at all
at the end of 4 years could have been quite a remarkable occurrence.
Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:45 am
From what I've read an airplane with 400 hours was war weary, and not to flown in combat if at all possible.
Wed Oct 03, 2007 11:15 pm
b29flteng wrote:Are you telling us that your one of those guys that shouldn't have tools in their hands?
A pilot left un-supervised with tools is a problem just waiting to happen
(there are, however, a few exceptions to that rule)