General Gibby T-bird question

[uwe]

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.

[Denis]

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".

[TBird1958]

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.

[godofthunder]

The P-61 is a bad mofo.................I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one

[Denis]

The P-61 is a bad mofo.................I wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of one

At least you usually couldn't see them coming.

[uwe]

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.

[Denis]

I always wondered how the F4U Corsair would have done in Europe had a non-carrier version been manufactured.

[gweimer]

Only here could we hijack a thread on Gibsons, and end up with WWII aircraft.   

[Denis]

Only here could we hijack a thread on Gibsons, and end up with WWII aircraft.   

Haha, and I haven't even gotten back yet to asking for clarification or details about my original question.

[TBird1958]

"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.   

[uwe]

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!  

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.  

[n!k]

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.

[EvilLordJuju]

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.  

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. 

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

[Highlander]

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... )

[JazzBassTbird]

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.