I'm sure this will open a can of worms (which is what I'm hoping) but with so many T-bird fans here and so much information scattered around the many threads, I just wanted to ask: in general, which year(s) Thunderbirds are the all around best in terms of feel, sound, weight, reliability, etc?
I wouldn't mind to try one out but no one carries them in my area, even that Best Buy which has a musical instruments section.
Thanks!
There are fans of the sixties era, mainly because of the pups then used. There are fans of the seventies/Bicentennial era, which used different pups, but still had chrome and large headstocks and tuners which means something to vintage purists and there are fans of the modern post 87 Birds which don't - shock, gasp, horror - mind the black hardware and prefer the TB Plus pups for there more forceful and even sound. It really is a bit like asking whether a seventies Ric 4001 or a modern day 4003 is the better bass. Your wife wouldn't be able to tell (or hear) the difference, but we can fill whole threads with it.
In my humble opinion, modern TBirds are a faithful replica of the sixties and seventies Birds without aping all the inherent flaws of the older models such as a neck break prone too large headstock and neck heavy making large tuners. Among the modern post 87-Birds, the more recent ones underwent another souping up of the TB Plus pups making them even louder, perhaps at the expense of some clarity. Among the earlier runs of the modern TBirds, microphonic or buzzy pups could sometimes be an issue, but there is no such thing as good or bad years.
This may come as a rather shocking revelation but I have never played one... (just worshiped from afar...)
The reason I ended up with my RD in '79 was that I could not find a new T'bird and couldn't get a loan for a s/h one - the Peter Cook may look like a mutant daughter, but she's not...
While I sense that they're the least loved, for me '76s are best. I love chrome, big headstocks, big clover tuners and even with my GK the growly vintage goodness you get. There is a great variation in tone between the 3 I have because of differences in pickup output. I'd also say I really like the contour of a '70s neck best too.
Just my .02 ;)
Purple, Green and Black Sexy, Chromey Goodness.
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/thunderbirds006.jpg)
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/thunderbirds016.jpg)
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/thunderbirds008.jpg)
I don't think I could improve on Uwe's descriptions. I like every era of bird, though like Mark, I have a soft spot for the 70's models, which were my introduction to Thunderbirds. It might be heresy to some, but in the context of a live band I don't think anyone would hear that big a difference between any of the different birds there have been. Even the amp you use will make a bigger difference, I think. I love them all but would not hesitate to recommend getting a 2009 or 10 model over a 60's or 70's bird if money is an issue. I also wouldn't hesitate to recommend Greco, Ibanez, Orville, Epi Japan, or Epi Elitist birds if your budget demands. They're all worthy of the name in my opinion.
Two theories on the popularity of the Bicentennial (into whose production went perhaps the least love, they didn't even have gut bevelling!):
1. They came out when TBirds were - for the first time - regarded cool (unlike the sixties where they met indifference of the public). Name players such as Tom Hamilton, Steve Priest, Roger Glover, Jackie Fox, Phil Way played them from 1976/77 onwards (for a while at least) and you suddenly saw more TBs than ever before. Gibson quickly followed the trend by bringing out the RD basses which to all intents and purposes were TBird shapes sans neck thru (too expensive), long headstock (too frail and neck-heavy), but with a cutaway (better high register access).
2. As mentioned before, there is an inconsistency/variance between various specimen that makes them attractive to collectors - in contrast any two post 87 modern Birds will sound pretty much the same. Even when playing one Bicentennial specimen only, the bass very much reacts how hard you play, there is a lot of compression and distortion going on with those Bicentennial pups and some people find that responsive and raunchy, others prefer the "no matter how hard I play, the bass' signal is consistent" approach of the TB Plus pups of the modern TBirds which also have more low frequency ooomph (while the Bicentennials and sixties models have more of an overdriven rrring to them).
Uwe
I have just one word to say
non reverse
Quote from: EvilLordJuju on February 04, 2010, 04:03:35 AM
I have just one word to say
non reverse
ehhhm... that's two words :toast:
Quote from: EvilLordJuju on February 04, 2010, 04:03:35 AM
I have just one word to say
non reverse
And I can add:
In a strict sense, these are not even Thunderbirds: Not Ray Dietrich's grand auto-inspired design, no lavish neck thru construction. :mrgreen:
A reverse bird looks like no other bass, eternally stylish, timeless. A non rev is some weird-looking sixties instrument with a cult following. :-*
The TBird/Firebird myth was built on the rev design alone. Preferring the looks of the non rev to the rev is like saying the Defiant looked better than the Spitfire.
(http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/types/uk/boulton_paul/defiant/defiant-bpa3.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGDcOEGd0cCOdcHodSDjGMQL2M5fw)
(http://www.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/spitfire-IIA.jpg&usg=AFQjCNFTlmNi6labMCCMmY9LbIBm7sC2tQ)
Jules,
why is it that you won't let me in on your honorable site of sites anymore? My old name and password doesn't work anymore and I tried to reregister as uwe, but the system is telling me my email address is already taken ... :-\ Himmel, we're never gonna finish the 20/20 description that way!
I Love aircraft analogies ! I don't think the NR is quite as ugly as the Defiant, big and ugly maybe but very utilitarian. Though not as rugged I think it is more like The Hawker Typhoon, though come to think of it the Typhoon had a early history of shedding it's tail. :o In fact I find the analogy so fitting I have just this moment dubbed my '67 NR "Tiffie" ;)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/AAF-H-DDay-p15.jpg) Another nice shot of a later Typhoon with the bubble canopy. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/typhoona50.jpg)
The wings were reasonably stable though ...
(http://images.google.com/url?source=imgres&ct=tbn&q=http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/aircraft-pictures/2008/10/10/typhoonlarge-thumb-800x486.jpg&usg=AFQjCNED1zG7wsxVPNAd9wkG5LMgtMX6WQ)
... and it had some grudging respect with other war nations too ...
(http://rareaircraf1.greyfalcon.us/picturesq/aa61.jpg)
Funny you post that pic, Uwe. I was reading about Zirkus Rosarius a few minutes ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirkus_Rosarius
I'm satisfied with the new generation Thunderbird although if I ever had big money again I'd buy a non-reverse.
A thing of grace and beauty... truly happy to have seen one fly, too... even better - twin Merlins... 8)
(http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.com/WWII-Military-Collectibles/Mosquito.jpg)
Twin Merlins built by Packard, that is. ;)
The charm of the Mosquito always escaped me - to me it looked plain and boring. Never much of a fan of twin engine interceptors, but among all those Mosquitos, Me 110s and what have you, the P-38 Lightning wins out for sheer good looks.
Quote from: uwe on February 05, 2010, 06:54:23 AM
The charm of the Mosquito always escaped me - to me it looked plain and boring. Never much of a fan of twin engine interceptors, but among all those Mosquitos, Me 110s and what have you, the P-38 Lightning wins out for sheer good looks.
I was reading a book about the P-51 Mustang and in it were several references to the P-38; the first was "It could climb like a homesick angel" and the next was simply "The Germans avoided it".
Quote from: uwe on February 05, 2010, 06:54:23 AM
The charm of the Mosquito always escaped me - to me it looked plain and boring. Never much of a fan of twin engine interceptors, but among all those Mosquitos, Me 110s and what have you, the P-38 Lightning wins out for sheer good looks.
I don't disagree with you re the aesthitics however a Northrup P -61 Black Widow pretty much kicked the ass of everything it ever came across...........4 .50 and 4 .20 cannon. It didn't get a lot press but this was one plane you did not want to run afoul of in the night skies over any Axis country.
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/BlackWidows33.jpg)
The P-61 is a bad mofo.................I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one :o
Quote from: godofthunder on February 05, 2010, 11:15:37 AM
The P-61 is a bad mofo.................I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one :o
At least you usually couldn't see them coming.
Quote from: Denis on February 05, 2010, 07:10:09 AM
I was reading a book about the P-51 Mustang and in it were several references to the P-38; the first was "It could climb like a homesick angel" and the next was simply "The Germans avoided it".
The Luftwaffe wasn't impressed with the Lightning at all and it suffered badly in the European theater (unlike the Pacific one where someone like Bong turned ace with it), the only reason why it guarded the "Fliegende Festungen" at all in 42/43 was due to its superior range. But it was easily outclassed by either the Me BF 109 F and G and the Focke-Wulf A (at least below 20.000 feet) and D. The first American fighter taken seriously by the Luftwaffe with its P-38, P-39 and P-40 experiences was the P-47 Thunderbolt which replaced the P-38 as escort once they had the jettisonable wing fuel tanks sorted out. "
Zirkus Rosarius" did not like the way TBs flew though, finding the cockpit too large and the pilot too far away from everything. With the advent of the P-51, however, the Luftwaffe pilots who flew it agreed that the USAAF had gotten "everything right".
The P-61 Black Widow is one of my favorite planes (and I thought of mentioning it) , Mark, but it is just too large to be still considered a fighter by me. In Luftwaffe terms it would be a "Zerstörer" (destroyer).
I'm not sure that the P-61 ever saw European skies though. It was mostly too late even for the Pacific, but did good service in the Korean War.
I always wondered how the F4U Corsair would have done in Europe had a non-carrier version been manufactured.
Only here could we hijack a thread on Gibsons, and end up with WWII aircraft. :mrgreen:
Quote from: gweimer on February 05, 2010, 02:04:56 PM
Only here could we hijack a thread on Gibsons, and end up with WWII aircraft. :mrgreen:
Haha, and I haven't even gotten back yet to asking for clarification or details about my original question.
"I'm not sure that the P-61 ever saw European skies though. It was mostly too late even for the Pacific "
Actually in service in Europe by mid '44, tested against the Mosquito by U.S. pilots, they preffered it for manuverabilty, strength and a slightly better overall rate of climb. Not as fast as some day fighters, it none the less aquitted itself rather admiarably serving in the ETO, Med, CBI (limited) and PTO......Not one P-61 was ever shot down by an Axis opponent, tho an errant Mossie pilot did manage to do so, and of course there were losses to "other" causes.
Quote from: Denis on February 05, 2010, 01:31:14 PM
I always wondered how the F4U Corsair would have done in Europe had a non-carrier version been manufactured.
A handful of Corsairs saw service with the Brits in 1944 in Europe. They were testing them for that one mini carrier they had (which never saw action I believe) even though by then the US Navy had already established that the Corsair's carrier deck landing capabilities were poor. Consequently, the Corsair was mainly used by the Marine Corps in the Pacific from island landing strips where it acquitted itself excellently while the carriers, i.e. the Navy stuck with the tried and trusted Hellcat which had better deck landing capabilities.
Back to the Brits. So they get these Corsairs (I bet unpaid for to this day) and use them over Norway, they might have even been used for attacks and bomber escorting vs the Tirpitz which was relegated to a fjord there, but became an obsession of the Royal Navy after the Bismarck (her sister ship) vs. Hood debacle. As usual, the Brits make a mess of it. One of the Corsair pilots gets lost in the fog and has to emergency land in Norway, his plane (and luckily he) unharmed. This is in late 44 and Germany is disintegrating as a military force, but while no pictorial evidence exists there are records of the capture of the Corsair (undenied by the Brits) and it is registered in the records of the
Flugerprobungsstelle Rechlin, home of
Zirkus Rosarius, Germany's Allied Aircraft testing unit, though it is unclear whether it ever reached Rechlin from Norway and whether it flew there. The unfortunate limey pilot was questioned on how the wings would fold and reputedly offered the German engineers to find out for themselves, preferably in midair! :mrgreen:
If you google "captured Corsair" you'll find some drawings and models of how the Corsair
might have looked in German hands. One school of thought sees it in full greenish Luftwaffe splinter camouflage attire and the other in typical yellow tail, snout and wing stripes
Zirkus Rosarius fashion. But it's all speculation, no one knows how it looked or whether my countrymen got to repainting it at all. But it was the Luftwaffe's one and only Corsair. It wasn't exactly a voluntary present, but at least we cherished it unlike those clumsy Brits. :mrgreen:
The patina that vintage instruments have is part of their mystique and desirability, which is probably how some people favor the vintage models. I saw a "modern" Thunderbird from 1993 (a mere 17 years ago) in a guitar shop recently whose finish was thinning and blending into the wood, covered in little scrapes, knicks, and dings, and a generous wear on the back of the neck between the 5th and 7th frets (yes, this must have been a rock n' roll bass).
There is something musicians don't necessarily trust by anything "new." How can it be trusted? B.B. King famously said a guitar never sings the blues "until it's been in a pawn shop." In another 10 or 15 years I would expect more people to favor the modern thunderbirds (especially if they are of a younger age) and attribute it more to musicians from their era who have played them.
Quote from: uwe on February 04, 2010, 05:07:41 AM
And I can add: In a strict sense, these are not even Thunderbirds: Not Ray Dietrich's grand auto-inspired design, no lavish neck thru construction. :mrgreen:
Well, we don't actually know who designed the non rev do we? Perhaps they were sacked immediately and erased from Gibson history. I just prefer everything about the non rev. Look, feel, sound. Neck-through is just so un-Gibson. >:(
Quote from: uwe on February 04, 2010, 05:07:41 AM
My old name and password doesn't work anymore
I have resent your password. You are donnervogel, but I can change you to be uwe if you like - let me know
A Black Widow was "evaluated at RAF Boscombe Down" possibly around 1942... I have a rather good book on Lease-Lend by a chap called Arthur Pearcy - pretty much has everything about everything on the subject (not pushing me away from the Mossie... :P)
I'm surprised no one pointed out that '76-'79 T-Birds' pickups are wired in series instead of parallel like '60s and "teflon" (with the blcak parts)T-birds.
This is what gives them their mid range growl. IMO those 2 pickups are way too hot in series and tend to push most amps into distortion. Call the vintage police, but I wired my '76 in parallel and like it a lot better. Could be put back to stock easily enough, though...
I've owned 'em all. There was a local music store that had a cache of '76 T-Birds that lasted until '81, I bought several at $450 a pop. Plus a few other used ones at that time for less $. Back then, I was hot for an original '64 TB IV but couldn't find one, and probably didn't have enough $ then anyway. The '76's were a disappointment to me since they are not an accurate reissue. Now I've come to appreciate them for what they are, another variation on the TB theme and cool basses in their own right.
Owned 5 real '64 TB IVs, (the first '64 was in '81 from Gruhn, who neglected to mention that someone had drilled the tailpiece mounting holes through the body, complete with countersunk 1" washers...I sent it back!) all were fantastic. The last 1 I had was so clean it was scary, I didn't dare play it...got an offer I couldn't refuse 5 years ago and sold it. Had many non-reverse TB IVs too. Now I own a '65 non-reverse IV and a '76, both sunburst.
Non-reverse 'Birds ARE great basses, (true they deviate from the original neck through body design, but nevertheless they're cool, great sounding basses...and much better basses than the non-reverse Firebirds are guitars) but the quality control wasn't so hot, some have too shallow of a neck angle, I know of at least 1 with a factory defectice truss rod...they're inconsistent. They DO have better access to the higher registers than a reverse TB, which is a big plus!
There's an issue that always comes up with '60s T birds: the bridge is too far back. Gibson blew it here, and the reason why is obvious- the (often missing) brass mute spring that was originally attached to the bridge just barely fits between the bridge pickup and the bridge, the bridge was located about 1/4" flat of where it should be to accomodate this mute. Since the bridge doesn't have a lot of travel, the intonation ends up being flat...Rotosound piano string design strings help a lot with this, by the way, and also sound really great on T Birds! Sounds crazy now, but I'm sure Gibson thought at the time that on a bass intonation innacuracy wouldn't be noticeable. That bridge pre dates the Thunderbirds (I've seen a 100% original LP bodied '59 EB-0 with a TB type bridge and tailpiece) and they weren't about to redesign it in order to put the bridge in the right place. Omitting the mute would've been the sensible thing to do, but back then a bass HAS TO have one, I suppose.
2 other issues common to all TBs are neck dive and fragile headstocks. The answer to the first is the right strap. A wide padded strap won't slip (avoid any strap with a sliding pad!) on your shoulder and will hold the bass in place. I find that the right strap will completely eliminate neck dive! You can take your hand off the bass and it'll sty put! I've seen countless T Birds with multiple neck screw holes from someone trying to find the Magic Spot where it'll balance...don't try it, doesn't work!
As for the fragile headstocks, BE CAREFUL and use strap locks!
Thunderbirds are fantastic basses, but aren't they perfectly thought out marvels that a Fender bass is. Still, they possess a unique tonality that can only be achieved with a TB, not to mention how cool they look!
I love 'em all, but having owned all 3 variations, I must say that the original reverse T-Bird is my favorite...no question.
From JazzbassTbird "There's an issue that always comes up with '60s T birds: the bridge is too far back. Gibson blew it here, and the reason why is obvious- the (often missing) brass mute spring that was originally attached to the bridge just barely fits between the bridge pickup and the bridge, the bridge was located about 1/4" flat of where it should be to accomodate this mute. Since the bridge doesn't have a lot of travel, the intonation ends up being flat...Rotosound piano string design strings help a lot with this, by the way, and also sound really great on T Birds! Sounds crazy now, but I'm sure Gibson thought at the time that on a bass intonation innacuracy wouldn't be noticeable. That bridge pre dates the Thunderbirds (I've seen a 100% original LP bodied '59 EB-0 with a TB type bridge and tailpiece) and they weren't about to redesign it in order to put the bridge in the right place. Omitting the mute would've been the sensible thing to do, but back then a bass HAS TO have one, I suppose." I have a solution for this ;D Mounts on the original studs "intonation without modification"(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v102/godofthunder59/100_2441.jpg)
Quote from: JazzBassTbird on February 10, 2010, 01:07:13 PM
I'm surprised no one pointed out that '76-'79 T-Birds' pickups are wired in series instead of parallel like '60s and "teflon" (with the blcak parts)T-birds.
This is what gives them their mid range growl. IMO those 2 pickups are way too hot in series and tend to push most amps into distortion. Call the vintage police, but I wired my '76 in parallel and like it a lot better. Could be put back to stock easily enough, though...
I've owned 'em all. There was a local music store that had a cache of '76 T-Birds that lasted until '81, I bought several at $450 a pop. Plus a few other used ones at that time for less $. Back then, I was hot for an original '64 TB IV but couldn't find one, and probably didn't have enough $ then anyway. The '76's were a disappointment to me since they are not an accurate reissue. Now I've come to appreciate them for what they are, another variation on the TB theme and cool basses in their own right.
Owned 5 real '64 TB IVs, (the first '64 was in '81 from Gruhn, who neglected to mention that someone had drilled the tailpiece mounting holes through the body, complete with countersunk 1" washers...I sent it back!) all were fantastic. The last 1 I had was so clean it was scary, I didn't dare play it...got an offer I couldn't refuse 5 years ago and sold it. Had many non-reverse TB IVs too. Now I own a '65 non-reverse IV and a '76, both sunburst.
Non-reverse 'Birds ARE great basses, (true they deviate from the original neck through body design, but nevertheless they're cool, great sounding basses...and much better basses than the non-reverse Firebirds are guitars) but the quality control wasn't so hot, some have too shallow of a neck angle, I know of at least 1 with a factory defectice truss rod...they're inconsistent. They DO have better access to the higher registers than a reverse TB, which is a big plus!
There's an issue that always comes up with '60s T birds: the bridge is too far back. Gibson blew it here, and the reason why is obvious- the (often missing) brass mute spring that was originally attached to the bridge just barely fits between the bridge pickup and the bridge, the bridge was located about 1/4" flat of where it should be to accomodate this mute. Since the bridge doesn't have a lot of travel, the intonation ends up being flat...Rotosound piano string design strings help a lot with this, by the way, and also sound really great on T Birds! Sounds crazy now, but I'm sure Gibson thought at the time that on a bass intonation innacuracy wouldn't be noticeable. That bridge pre dates the Thunderbirds (I've seen a 100% original LP bodied '59 EB-0 with a TB type bridge and tailpiece) and they weren't about to redesign it in order to put the bridge in the right place. Omitting the mute would've been the sensible thing to do, but back then a bass HAS TO have one, I suppose.
2 other issues common to all TBs are neck dive and fragile headstocks. The answer to the first is the right strap. A wide padded strap won't slip (avoid any strap with a sliding pad!) on your shoulder and will hold the bass in place. I find that the right strap will completely eliminate neck dive! You can take your hand off the bass and it'll sty put! I've seen countless T Birds with multiple neck screw holes from someone trying to find the Magic Spot where it'll balance...don't try it, doesn't work!
As for the fragile headstocks, BE CAREFUL and use strap locks!
Thunderbirds are fantastic basses, but aren't they perfectly thought out marvels that a Fender bass is. Still, they possess a unique tonality that can only be achieved with a TB, not to mention how cool they look!
I love 'em all, but having owned all 3 variations, I must say that the original reverse T-Bird is my favorite...no question.
Welcome !
Can you post any pictures?
Hi, thanks for the warm welcome!
I tried to post some pics, but got a message that the files are too large...I don't really want to reduce these, so I'll take some especially for this purpose and post them soon...
Best,
Bill C.
Quote from: gweimer on February 05, 2010, 02:04:56 PM
Only here could we hijack a thread on Gibsons, and end up with WWII aircraft. :mrgreen:
It's the only subject here that is morphed into faster than assplay.
Quote from: JazzBassTbird on February 11, 2010, 11:20:05 PM
Hi, thanks for the warm welcome!
I tried to post some pics, but got a message that the files are too large...I don't really want to reduce these, so I'll take some especially for this purpose and post them soon...
Best,
Bill C.
You need to set up a photobucket account (free). they can reduce the pictures.
Just to elaborate, you can upload copies of your original pictures to Photobucket and host them from there. You can set your uploads to automatically size them down to a specified file size, or re-size each shot individually. Once you're ready to host them, you can copy the link provided (IMG code) under your picture and paste it into your post here, to get this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/gcarlston/black%20velvet/small%20velvet/68_Thunderbird_II.jpg)
Assplay and airplanes. Huge topics around here. ;)
Did somebody say.............
Assplay?
Airplanes?
;)
Quote from: OldManC on February 12, 2010, 08:28:05 AM
Just to elaborate, you can upload copies of your original pictures to Photobucket and host them from there. You can set your uploads to automatically size them down to a specified file size, or re-size each shot individually. Once you're ready to host them, you can copy the link provided (IMG code) under your picture and paste it into your post here, to get this:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/gcarlston/black%20velvet/small%20velvet/68_Thunderbird_II.jpg)
You have an NR photo for every occasion, don't you? :thumbsup:
Mark, you are incorrigible!!!
Quote from: TBird1958 on February 13, 2010, 09:31:32 AM
Did somebody say.............
Assplay?
Airplanes?
;)
That took you a whole day, Mark. You're slipping. ;D
Quote from: lowend1 on February 13, 2010, 10:42:34 AM
That took you a whole day, Mark. You're slipping. ;D
Yes.........But Thur and Fri are my days off from work. Belive it or not I was engaged in one or the other - Airplanes or ;)
Don't forget trains and automobiles... they have as much right to interupt a thread as anything else...
Last time Mark was engaged in something, it was that Dutch kid.
I nearly made a monstrous mistake concerning mixing a joke about the Dutch kid with the thumb, but twisting the word, but it might be construed as offensive... so I didn't... ;)
Kenny, don't let yourself be inhibited by such misconceptions as decorum, pc and taste!!!
Ok... the one with the dyke...? :o
No... it was Doug...!
The dyke's mound was moist and salty.
Hmm... that sounds a bit fishy to me...
Clam up, that's gross!
Clam up? No, not exactly. (http://www.thetoque.com/adult_content/theres_nothing_tastier_than_the_bearded_clam_20060112.html)
Okay, well, maybe the dyke's moist and salty clam is gross, but certainly not ALL clams are so.
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/BASSES%20A/DSC08542.jpg)
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/BASSES%20A/66T-Bird4.jpg)
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/BASSES%20A/66T-Bird9.jpg)
IMG]http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/BASSES%20A/DSC04591.jpg[/IMG]
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/BASSES%20A/DSC04591.jpg)
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/BASSES%20A/76T-Bird.jpg)
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/BASSES%20A/DSC08542.jpg)
(http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z100/bullettrain308/Basses/76T-Birdcontrolcavity.jpg)
Typical... some has to go and ruin a thread by bringing us back on track... :P
Seriously beautiful 'Birds... 8) 8) 8)
Wow, those are gorgeous! Thanks for posting those pics!
Oh crap! Sexy T Bird goodness! :P
Hey JazzbassTbird, is that stock wiring on both? Very cool 'birds.
Thanks..they're great basses! Took me a while to figure out how to upload pics from Photobucket.
The pic with the blue cap is stock '76 series wiring, the one with the '60s style orange ceramic disc in rewired to '60s style parallel.
Interesting Clint,
I had # 204 and 205!
(http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd306/veronicasteed/Nikki%20Sixx/NikkiSixx001.jpg)
Quote from: uwe on February 05, 2010, 06:54:23 AM
The charm of the Mosquito always escaped me - to me it looked plain and boring. Never much of a fan of twin engine interceptors, but among all those Mosquitos, Me 110s and what have you, the P-38 Lightning wins out for sheer good looks.
The Mosquito was largely made of wood, making it perhaps the first 'stealth" aircraft. Have also crawled all around one and watched (and listened to) it fly. I like it!
Is that recent...? Kermit Weeks repudedly owns one but it's not flying - I know he has the last flying example of a Sunderland flying-boat - flying boats are a particular weakness with me, especially "Cats"...
The last Mossie I knew of (over here) went down some years back... used to be owned by BAe (RR229/G-ASKH)... both pilots killed... this is footage of the incident - stalled on a climb...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag5ut3tP3ZM
This is a presently running thread elsewhere...
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98396 (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=98396)
Sad. I am tired of these beautiful old machines being asked to do things that puts them ,not to mention their occupants and people on the ground, at jeopardy. THESE THINGS ARE LIVING HISTORY. By all means fly them. But dam, fool take care of it!!
Saw it years ago at an airshow in Ca-nada
Ugh, how could that happen to a Mosquito which had allegedly such splendid and benign handling characteristics? ??? :o :o Poor pilots. That wasn't that radical a manouvre, especially for a plane that largely relied on its speed and manouvrability to escape German fighters.
That footage was used at the inquest... problem was that being an "old girl" they took it easy on the airframe, and paid the ultimate price...
Tangential move-ish... heres an unusual fact about Spitfire's... there are more of them in flying condition now than there were 10 years ago, and the same goes for ten years before that... the figure has been consistently going up since the 70's... the "gate-guardians" have been coming down and getting refurbished...
Quote from: birdie on March 29, 2010, 04:09:27 PM
Saw it years ago at an airshow in Ca-nada
(
serious envy from the UK)
i was working right next to the airport when this was taking off and landing.http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3520383/Catalina-flying-boat-a-hit-at-aero-club-open-day (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3520383/Catalina-flying-boat-a-hit-at-aero-club-open-day)
We have the one over here, too
(http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu280/kjrstewart/random%20stuff/2006090353.jpg)
(daughter and me by the "Cat")
Quote from: uwe on March 30, 2010, 11:33:50 AM
Ugh, how could that happen to a Mosquito which had allegedly such splendid and benign handling characteristics? ??? :o :o Poor pilots. That wasn't that radical a manouvre, especially for a plane that largely relied on its speed and manouvrability to escape German fighters.
You are correct, it was not that radical a move. However,the crew appears to have exercised poor energy management. Watch the aircraft run out of flying speed near the top of the arc. Pretty much a classic stall,spin scenario.....
I did not intend to appear heartless about the human loss. It is indeed tragic.