They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

"Ignoramus28209" wrote in
message ...
They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

We can acknowledge good Russian ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilyushin_Il-2

-jsw

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209
wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE Hear the cheers.

--
No greater wrong can ever be done than to put a good man at the mercy
of a bad, while telling him not to defend himself or his fellows;
in no way can the success of evil be made quicker or surer.
--Theodore Roosevelt

On 2016-01-22, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209
wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE Hear the cheers.


A great plane to win local battles and survive being shot at.

i

"Why Ted Cruz Is Ineligible To Be President"
FOX News Radio (blog)-Jan 18, 2016

-- http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/01/18/...-be-president/

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209 wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-...iring-warthog-
attack-plane-russia-islamic-state/27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Ever since World War II there's been tension between the "strategic
bombing and fighters" majority in the Air Force, and the guys who are
willing to get down low and provide aggressive ground support to the
troops.

In theory this whole problem was supposed to have been solved by letting
the Army have helicopters. I think that -- since the Air Force cares so
little about them -- the Army should get to have the ground support
airplanes along with the personnel that goes with them.

They might get used more effectively that way.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209 wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-...iring-warthog-
attack-plane-russia-islamic-state/27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

If it works well it is beautiful, by definition.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!


Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:43:48 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle

Motivational fun with the Warthog:
http://i.imgur.com/a2pzagH.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/d8naopp
http://tinyurl.com/jj9rw38
http://tinyurl.com/z5ftjbk

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2, but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical reasons but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary bulky duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank has a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

-jsw

On 2016-01-24, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


The recoil from Shooting this cannon would probably stop that little
car almost instantly.

"Ignoramus2169" wrote in message
...
On 2016-01-24, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect
for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


The recoil from Shooting this cannon would probably stop that little
car almost instantly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death

http://imgur.com/gallery/kvVkgWV

-jsw

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209
wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Indeed. The plans to retire it were very stupid. The ugly *******
simply works..and works very well.

If it aint broke..dont fix it (with the F-35)

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209
wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Indeed. The plans to retire it were very stupid. The ugly *******
simply works..and works very well.

If it aint broke..dont fix it (with the F-35)


They wouldn't survive against an enemy with modern antiaircraft
defenses, or even the better WW2 ones.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-PLA-PD-SAM.html
Dr. Kopp used to participate in our discussions on
rec.aviation.military.

-jsw

On 2016-01-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209
wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Indeed. The plans to retire it were very stupid. The ugly *******
simply works..and works very well.

If it aint broke..dont fix it (with the F-35)


I would suppose, though, that it would not work as well on
battlefields where it could encounter manpads.

i

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0600, Ignoramus2169
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209
wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Indeed. The plans to retire it were very stupid. The ugly *******
simply works..and works very well.

If it aint broke..dont fix it (with the F-35)


I would suppose, though, that it would not work as well on
battlefields where it could encounter manpads.

i

The Chinese have been selling discount-house MANPADS to anyone with
the money. They're IR and supposedly are fairly immune to flare
decoys, and they're good for 12,000 feet.

The big question is whether IS has them. If they do, look out.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 11:56:10 -0600, Ignoramus2169
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209
wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Indeed. The plans to retire it were very stupid. The ugly *******
simply works..and works very well.

If it aint broke..dont fix it (with the F-35)


I would suppose, though, that it would not work as well on
battlefields where it could encounter manpads.

i

So far its been doing quite nicely. Think the Iraqis didnt have
manpads?

Tom Gardner on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

And put great big round right on target.
--
pyotr
Job creation and destruction are both relentless.
The small difference between the two is what we call prosperity.

Ignoramus2169 on Sun, 24 Jan 2016
11:56:10 -0600 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 2016-01-24, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:46:10 -0600, Ignoramus28209 wrote:

They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

Indeed. The plans to retire it were very stupid. The ugly *******
simply works..and works very well.

If it aint broke..dont fix it (with the F-35)

I would suppose, though, that it would not work as well on
battlefields where it could encounter manpads.

It was designed to tangle with Warsaw Pact forces. Manpads and
all.
And as was demonstrated, you can put holes in them, and they still
come home.
--
pyotr
Job creation and destruction are both relentless.
The small difference between the two is what we call prosperity.

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:28:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2, but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical reasons but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary bulky duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank has a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

It looks like we gave them the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon-equipped
models at first, then the 4 Brownings + M-4 and they loved it. All
except the small, 30rd magazines. Wiki said that we gave the Russians
1-1/4 million cannon rounds, so they must have liked 'em.


Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

Dad flew those for bomb runs over Germany, then was shot down over
occupied France. The Russians rolled their tanks over the barbed wire
fencing of the Stalag 10 months later and Dad came home. In at 210,
out at 140lbs.

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 08:45:25 -0600, Ignoramus2169
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


The recoil from Shooting this cannon would probably stop that little
car almost instantly.

You misspelled "SHRED" as "stop" there, Ig. g

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

On 2016-01-25, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 08:45:25 -0600, Ignoramus2169
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


The recoil from Shooting this cannon would probably stop that little
car almost instantly.

You misspelled "SHRED" as "stop" there, Ig. g


Why, it would not be shredded by recoil...

On 1/24/2016 7:28 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

-jsw




IIRC, the Russians LOVED the P-39. Now, the P-38 was one of my favs,
I'm building another model of one now, a 40" balsa.

On 1/24/2016 6:59 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Tom Gardner on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

And put great big round right on target.
--
pyotr
Job creation and destruction are both relentless.
The small difference between the two is what we call prosperity.



Weren't they depleted Uranium?

On 2016-01-25, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 1/24/2016 7:28 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

-jsw




IIRC, the Russians LOVED the P-39. Now, the P-38 was one of my favs,
I'm building another model of one now, a 40" balsa.


Would love to see pictures of those models... How do you paint balsa?

i

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 00:09:56 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/24/2016 6:59 PM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Tom Gardner on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500 typed
in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

And put great big round right on target.
--
pyotr
Job creation and destruction are both relentless.
The small difference between the two is what we call prosperity.

Weren't they depleted Uranium?

I think they were for awhile, but the current rounds are HE.
http://tinyurl.com/z9r5tbz cutaway illustration.

P.S: I guess the PCs don't think DU is sustainable.

--
The most decisive actions of our life - I mean those that are most
likely to decide the whole course of our future - are, more often
than not, unconsidered.
-- Andre Gide

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:48:31 -0600, Ignoramus2169
wrote:

On 2016-01-25, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 08:45:25 -0600, Ignoramus2169
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


The recoil from Shooting this cannon would probably stop that little
car almost instantly.

You misspelled "SHRED" as "stop" there, Ig. g


Why, it would not be shredded by recoil...

Yes...it would

"Tom Gardner" wrote in message
...
On 1/24/2016 7:28 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them
on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at
low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

-jsw




IIRC, the Russians LOVED the P-39. Now, the P-38 was one of my
favs, I'm building another model of one now, a 40" balsa.

http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/englis...cles/index.htm

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:26:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:28:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2, but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical reasons but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary bulky duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank has a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

It looks like we gave them the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon-equipped
models at first, then the 4 Brownings + M-4 and they loved it. All
except the small, 30rd magazines. Wiki said that we gave the Russians
1-1/4 million cannon rounds, so they must have liked 'em.


Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

Dad flew those for bomb runs over Germany, then was shot down over
occupied France. The Russians rolled their tanks over the barbed wire
fencing of the Stalag 10 months later and Dad came home. In at 210,
out at 140lbs.

Dad flew the P-39 from mid '42 until end of '43. Kanton, Guadalcanal,
New Caledonia, New Guinea, Woodlark... Great ground strafer, the 37mm,
..50's and .30's didn't track the same in a turn, which in addition to
the single stage supercharger also didn't help dogfighting. But he
said it was his favorite for just flying. It could also get into a
kind of uncontrollable tumble which killed a lot of guys. It happened
once to Dad on Kanton, but after losing 10000 ft or so, it ended up
heading straight down, so he was able to recover. Skinned his elbows
and knees flailing around, and accidently knocked the electric pitch
prop to very low pitch, so the landing was approximately deadstick.
Lucky. Was also attacked by a Corsair while on final at Guadalcanal
with gear and flaps down. He did some fancy talking on the radio. He
never did like those Marines after that.

He also flew P-40's in Hawaii for about 6 weeks before heading to
Kanton, then P-47's and P-51's with the 78th out of Duxford from
September '44 to the end.

Dad is still doing o.k. Using a walker now, and short term memory is
shot to hell. He turned 96 in December.
Pete Keillor

Ignoramus2169 wrote:
On 2016-01-25, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 1/24/2016 7:28 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at
low altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good
use of the P-39 against the Me-109.

Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

-jsw




IIRC, the Russians LOVED the P-39. Now, the P-38 was one of my favs,
I'm building another model of one now, a 40" balsa.


Would love to see pictures of those models... How do you paint balsa?

i

You start with a coat or two of filler/sealer , then your base/color coats
then a clear coat . Smoothness depends on how many coats of filler and how
it's sanded between coats .

--
Snag

Ignoramus2169 wrote:
On 2016-01-25, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 08:45:25 -0600, Ignoramus2169
wrote:

On 2016-01-24, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect
for HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


The recoil from Shooting this cannon would probably stop that little
car almost instantly.

You misspelled "SHRED" as "stop" there, Ig. g


Why, it would not be shredded by recoil...

Iggy , if I understand it correctly that gun must be fired in short bursts
at low airspeeds or it can slow the 'Hog down below stall speed . One round
with it mounted to a car would tear it loose and shred the car ...

--
Snag

"Pete Keillor" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:26:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:28:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect
for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2, but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had
decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical reasons
but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary bulky
duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank has
a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real
fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them
on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at
low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

It looks like we gave them the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon-equipped
models at first, then the 4 Brownings + M-4 and they loved it. All
except the small, 30rd magazines. Wiki said that we gave the
Russians
1-1/4 million cannon rounds, so they must have liked 'em.


Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

Dad flew those for bomb runs over Germany, then was shot down over
occupied France. The Russians rolled their tanks over the barbed
wire
fencing of the Stalag 10 months later and Dad came home. In at 210,
out at 140lbs.

Dad flew the P-39 from mid '42 until end of '43. Kanton,
Guadalcanal,
New Caledonia, New Guinea, Woodlark... Great ground strafer, the
37mm,
.50's and .30's didn't track the same in a turn, which in addition
to
the single stage supercharger also didn't help dogfighting. But he
said it was his favorite for just flying. It could also get into a
kind of uncontrollable tumble which killed a lot of guys. It
happened
once to Dad on Kanton, but after losing 10000 ft or so, it ended up
heading straight down, so he was able to recover. Skinned his elbows
and knees flailing around, and accidently knocked the electric pitch
prop to very low pitch, so the landing was approximately deadstick.
Lucky. Was also attacked by a Corsair while on final at Guadalcanal
with gear and flaps down. He did some fancy talking on the radio.
He
never did like those Marines after that.

He also flew P-40's in Hawaii for about 6 weeks before heading to
Kanton, then P-47's and P-51's with the 78th out of Duxford from
September '44 to the end.

Dad is still doing o.k. Using a walker now, and short term memory is
shot to hell. He turned 96 in December.
Pete Keillor

You might ask him if he knew Edward Parks:
http://www.amazon.com/Nanette-Her-Pi.../dp/039305618X

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:51:16 -0600, Pete Keillor
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:26:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:28:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2, but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical reasons but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary bulky duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank has a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

It looks like we gave them the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon-equipped
models at first, then the 4 Brownings + M-4 and they loved it. All
except the small, 30rd magazines. Wiki said that we gave the Russians
1-1/4 million cannon rounds, so they must have liked 'em.


Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

Dad flew those for bomb runs over Germany, then was shot down over
occupied France. The Russians rolled their tanks over the barbed wire
fencing of the Stalag 10 months later and Dad came home. In at 210,
out at 140lbs.

Dad flew the P-39 from mid '42 until end of '43. Kanton, Guadalcanal,
New Caledonia, New Guinea, Woodlark... Great ground strafer, the 37mm,
.50's and .30's didn't track the same in a turn, which in addition to
the single stage supercharger also didn't help dogfighting. But he
said it was his favorite for just flying. It could also get into a
kind of uncontrollable tumble which killed a lot of guys. It happened
once to Dad on Kanton, but after losing 10000 ft or so, it ended up
heading straight down, so he was able to recover. Skinned his elbows
and knees flailing around, and accidently knocked the electric pitch
prop to very low pitch, so the landing was approximately deadstick.
Lucky. Was also attacked by a Corsair while on final at Guadalcanal
with gear and flaps down. He did some fancy talking on the radio. He
never did like those Marines after that.

He also flew P-40's in Hawaii for about 6 weeks before heading to
Kanton, then P-47's and P-51's with the 78th out of Duxford from
September '44 to the end.

Dad is still doing o.k. Using a walker now, and short term memory is
shot to hell. He turned 96 in December.
Pete Keillor

My dad was on the ground at Guadalcanal and New Guinea, and remarked
several times about how beautiful those P-39s were. Maybe your dad
made some strafing runs over my dad's head -- he was one of those
Marines your dad didn't like. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:51:16 -0600, Pete Keillor
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:26:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:28:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in
message
m...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect
for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2,
but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had
decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical reasons
but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary bulky
duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank
has a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing
weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many
reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also
didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real
fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them
on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at
low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use
of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

It looks like we gave them the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon-equipped
models at first, then the 4 Brownings + M-4 and they loved it. All
except the small, 30rd magazines. Wiki said that we gave the
Russians
1-1/4 million cannon rounds, so they must have liked 'em.


Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

Dad flew those for bomb runs over Germany, then was shot down over
occupied France. The Russians rolled their tanks over the barbed
wire
fencing of the Stalag 10 months later and Dad came home. In at 210,
out at 140lbs.

Dad flew the P-39 from mid '42 until end of '43. Kanton,
Guadalcanal,
New Caledonia, New Guinea, Woodlark... Great ground strafer, the
37mm,
.50's and .30's didn't track the same in a turn, which in addition
to
the single stage supercharger also didn't help dogfighting. But he
said it was his favorite for just flying. It could also get into a
kind of uncontrollable tumble which killed a lot of guys. It
happened
once to Dad on Kanton, but after losing 10000 ft or so, it ended up
heading straight down, so he was able to recover. Skinned his elbows
and knees flailing around, and accidently knocked the electric pitch
prop to very low pitch, so the landing was approximately deadstick.
Lucky. Was also attacked by a Corsair while on final at Guadalcanal
with gear and flaps down. He did some fancy talking on the radio.
He
never did like those Marines after that.

He also flew P-40's in Hawaii for about 6 weeks before heading to
Kanton, then P-47's and P-51's with the 78th out of Duxford from
September '44 to the end.

Dad is still doing o.k. Using a walker now, and short term memory is
shot to hell. He turned 96 in December.
Pete Keillor

My dad was on the ground at Guadalcanal and New Guinea, and remarked
several times about how beautiful those P-39s were. Maybe your dad
made some strafing runs over my dad's head -- he was one of those
Marines your dad didn't like. g

--
Ed Huntress

My dad was the CO of the 417th Bomb Group's chemical (smoke, napalm,
WP) ordnance company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/417th_Bombardment_Group

-jsw

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:13:01 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:51:16 -0600, Pete Keillor
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:26:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:28:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in
message
om...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner
wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be perfect
for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2,
but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had
decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical reasons
but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary bulky
duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank
has a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing
weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many
reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also
didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real
fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded them
on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was at
low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use
of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

It looks like we gave them the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza cannon-equipped
models at first, then the 4 Brownings + M-4 and they loved it. All
except the small, 30rd magazines. Wiki said that we gave the
Russians
1-1/4 million cannon rounds, so they must have liked 'em.


Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

Dad flew those for bomb runs over Germany, then was shot down over
occupied France. The Russians rolled their tanks over the barbed
wire
fencing of the Stalag 10 months later and Dad came home. In at 210,
out at 140lbs.

Dad flew the P-39 from mid '42 until end of '43. Kanton,
Guadalcanal,
New Caledonia, New Guinea, Woodlark... Great ground strafer, the
37mm,
.50's and .30's didn't track the same in a turn, which in addition
to
the single stage supercharger also didn't help dogfighting. But he
said it was his favorite for just flying. It could also get into a
kind of uncontrollable tumble which killed a lot of guys. It
happened
once to Dad on Kanton, but after losing 10000 ft or so, it ended up
heading straight down, so he was able to recover. Skinned his elbows
and knees flailing around, and accidently knocked the electric pitch
prop to very low pitch, so the landing was approximately deadstick.
Lucky. Was also attacked by a Corsair while on final at Guadalcanal
with gear and flaps down. He did some fancy talking on the radio.
He
never did like those Marines after that.

He also flew P-40's in Hawaii for about 6 weeks before heading to
Kanton, then P-47's and P-51's with the 78th out of Duxford from
September '44 to the end.

Dad is still doing o.k. Using a walker now, and short term memory is
shot to hell. He turned 96 in December.
Pete Keillor

My dad was on the ground at Guadalcanal and New Guinea, and remarked
several times about how beautiful those P-39s were. Maybe your dad
made some strafing runs over my dad's head -- he was one of those
Marines your dad didn't like. g

--
Ed Huntress

My dad was the CO of the 417th Bomb Group's chemical (smoke, napalm,
WP) ordnance company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/417th_Bombardment_Group

-jsw

Mine was a radio chief (forward artillary spotter -- "scout observer"
in the Marines) in the 11th Marine Regiment, which was part of the 1st
Division in WWII.

If you ever saw HBO's "The Pacific" or read Sledge's _With the Old
Breed_, that was about it.

--
Ed Huntress

On 1/21/2016 7:46 PM, Ignoramus28209 wrote:
They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

If it's militarily useful, fine, keep it. Most of the reaction here
seems to be based only on nostalgia and liking to see things blown up
just to satisfy juvenile interest.

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 10:13:01 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 06:51:16 -0600, Pete Keillor
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:26:24 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:28:14 -0500, "Jim Wilkins"
wrote:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in
message
news:kel8abpl9sh6tldmitlrquj5hv2ffhbp6i@4ax. com...
On Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:11:01 -0500, Tom Gardner

wrote:

On 1/22/2016 8:23 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Soldiers everywhere (and American taxpayer pocketbooks) are
rejoicing
over that wonderful news. Long Live the Warthog!

Designed and built just to haul around that big-ass gun!

That GAU-8 is a kick-ass cannon, wot? YeeeeeeeeeeeHaw!
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._VW_Type_1.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/34M4T3n.png Installed. This would be
perfect
for
HelL.A. traffic gridlock, methinks. giggle


We put a big autocannon in a small fighter at the start of WW2,
but
the innovative combination's development was troublesome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_cannon

The P-39 began life as a bomber interceptor. The Air Corps had
decreed
that high-altitude engines would use turbochargers instead of
mechanically driven superchargers for very sound technical
reasons
but
they underestimated the difficulty of packing the necessary
bulky
duct
work into a sleek single-engine fighter, in which the fuel tank
has a
better claim to the space behind the engine so it's changing
weight
doesn't upset balance.

The P-39 turbo installation was unsatisfactory for too many
reasons
and it was repurposed to ground attack, where the plane also
didn't
work so well - neither did the Stuka when confronted by real
fighters.

So we swapped in a lighter, cheaper 20mm cannon and unloaded
them
on
the Russians as Lend-Lease. Neither side on the Eastern Front
had
high-altitude bombers to attack or defend, the air fighting was
at
low
altitude unlike over Europe, and the Russians made very good use
of
the P-39 against the Me-109.

It looks like we gave them the 20 mm Hispano-Suiza
cannon-equipped
models at first, then the 4 Brownings + M-4 and they loved it.
All
except the small, 30rd magazines. Wiki said that we gave the
Russians
1-1/4 million cannon rounds, so they must have liked 'em.


Field-expedient flying artillery:
http://www.tailsthroughtime.com/2012...er-bomber.html

Dad flew those for bomb runs over Germany, then was shot down
over
occupied France. The Russians rolled their tanks over the barbed
wire
fencing of the Stalag 10 months later and Dad came home. In at
210,
out at 140lbs.

Dad flew the P-39 from mid '42 until end of '43. Kanton,
Guadalcanal,
New Caledonia, New Guinea, Woodlark... Great ground strafer, the
37mm,
.50's and .30's didn't track the same in a turn, which in addition
to
the single stage supercharger also didn't help dogfighting. But
he
said it was his favorite for just flying. It could also get into a
kind of uncontrollable tumble which killed a lot of guys. It
happened
once to Dad on Kanton, but after losing 10000 ft or so, it ended
up
heading straight down, so he was able to recover. Skinned his
elbows
and knees flailing around, and accidently knocked the electric
pitch
prop to very low pitch, so the landing was approximately
deadstick.
Lucky. Was also attacked by a Corsair while on final at
Guadalcanal
with gear and flaps down. He did some fancy talking on the radio.
He
never did like those Marines after that.

He also flew P-40's in Hawaii for about 6 weeks before heading to
Kanton, then P-47's and P-51's with the 78th out of Duxford from
September '44 to the end.

Dad is still doing o.k. Using a walker now, and short term memory
is
shot to hell. He turned 96 in December.
Pete Keillor

My dad was on the ground at Guadalcanal and New Guinea, and
remarked
several times about how beautiful those P-39s were. Maybe your dad
made some strafing runs over my dad's head -- he was one of those
Marines your dad didn't like. g

--
Ed Huntress

My dad was the CO of the 417th Bomb Group's chemical (smoke, napalm,
WP) ordnance company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/417th_Bombardment_Group

-jsw

Mine was a radio chief (forward artillary spotter -- "scout
observer"
in the Marines) in the 11th Marine Regiment, which was part of the
1st
Division in WWII.

If you ever saw HBO's "The Pacific" or read Sledge's _With the Old
Breed_, that was about it.

--
Ed Huntress

My assigned lab and office at Mitre were waaay back by the boiler
room, like Dan Aykroyd's in Spies Like Us. A tech who had been an
artillery Forward Observer had already claimed the more remote office
beyond mine.

-jsw

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:28:08 -0800, Buzz Forward
kick.jerry.sauks.fat.pimply.flabby.ass.hourly@eve rywhere.now wrote:

On 1/21/2016 7:46 PM, Ignoramus28209 wrote:
They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

If it's militarily useful, fine, keep it. Most of the reaction here
seems to be based only on nostalgia and liking to see things blown up
just to satisfy juvenile interest.

This of course in opposition to the reaction to keeping $900 toilet
seats and aircraft that take 15 yrs to make work properly.

you do realize that many of us are ex- military and we like seeing our
tax dollars spent on stuff with a very good cost/benefit
relationship...right?

Gunner

On 1/25/2016 9:38 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:28:08 -0800, Buzz Forward
kick.jerry.sauks.fat.pimply.flabby.ass.hourly@eve rywhere.now wrote:

On 1/21/2016 7:46 PM, Ignoramus28209 wrote:
They are keeping the A-10 Warthog

http://www.rferl.org/content/us-air-.../27502684.html

Ugly plane that works great

If it's militarily useful, fine, keep it. Most of the reaction here
seems to be based only on nostalgia and liking to see things blown up
just to satisfy juvenile interest.

This of course in opposition to the reaction to keeping $900 toilet
seats and aircraft that take 15 yrs to make work properly.

you do realize that many of us are ex- military and we like seeing our
tax dollars spent on stuff with a very good cost/benefit
relationship...right?

You're not competent to judge good cost/benefit. You're one of those
nostalgic dopes who just like seeing stuff blow up.