dark light

Mondariz

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 1,411 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Beech 18 tri-gear #1190931
    Mondariz
    Participant

    She looks stunning – great job!

    in reply to: American C-47 @ Norwich today #1190934
    Mondariz
    Participant

    I dont think a Warbird needs to look imaculate. why dont we see restored aircraft with stains, patches ect.

    A paintjob is also a protection of the airframe. A standard job is cheaper than the custom patchwork jobs needed, to properly resemble a war-worn aircraft (while still providing the same protection).

    You will find museum display aircraft painted to look like operational aircrafts, but they are also protected by the actual museum building.

    Besides that, very few paintshops would like to deliver a “weathered” aircraft, as it reflects badly on the shop (regardless of us buffs loving it).

    Mondariz
    Participant

    I have absolutly no time for actual racism, but applying a percieved political correctness to a historical movie, not only compromise history, it degrades the people who actually live with racism in a true sense.

    Racism is not about pet names, but about injust treatment of people on the basis of their race. This is an actual problem. Discussing the name of a dog, is of no importance in that context.

    in reply to: Soapy Water #1191079
    Mondariz
    Participant

    The sad thing is, when I left the game I dumped all my Manuel’s and special tools, the only thing I kept was my CAA license book.
    So good luck to all you wonderful people who keep history alive.
    Cheers Bill

    Welcome!

    The highlighted text is going to make a few people cry 😮

    in reply to: American C-47 @ Norwich today #1191127
    Mondariz
    Participant

    what about individual airframe histories?

    Although not fully detailed, this website provides quite an extensive list of US airframes:

    USAAS-USAAC-USAAF-USAF Aircraft Serial Numbers–1908 to Present

    in reply to: American C-47 @ Norwich today #1191889
    Mondariz
    Participant

    This is what she is supposed to look like:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2399/2246156981_f5ee182a7a_b.jpg

    in reply to: American C-47 @ Norwich today #1191898
    Mondariz
    Participant

    Just doing a background check and lo and behold, I and this bird have a past 😎

    One of her former identities is K-683 of RDAF and I have flown quite a bit with all the Danish C-47.

    15211 (c/n 19677) to Norwegian AF as 315211, then to Danish AF Oct 1953 as 68-683, later K-683, then to N3239W, then N5211A, then N1944A now with Wings Venture Ltd of Greenwich, CT. Airworthy and displayed Jul 2007 at Royal International Air Tattoo, RAF Fairford, UK.

    in reply to: American C-47 @ Norwich today #1191922
    Mondariz
    Participant

    Always nice to see/hear a C-47.

    I have one in my neighbourhood that often roars across my house when the sun is out.

    Is there any WWII films in the making, or is it just a new paintjob?

    in reply to: V2 for a Halifax #1192594
    Mondariz
    Participant

    If you just need an approximation, I would say around 100 m.p.h. IAS depending on load.

    in reply to: Paul Newman – aviation info #1193468
    Mondariz
    Participant

    Another one from that great generation is gone….

    We can hope his films will be broadcast as a memorial to this fine actor.

    in reply to: Copyright go hanged!! #1193578
    Mondariz
    Participant

    Thought you would all be interested in this link – seems to cover most things:
    http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/copyright

    Hope this helps some of you.
    Kelvin

    Not a bad discription, but they fail somewhat on the “Fair Use” doctrine.

    Remember that “fair Use” is US legislation only.

    There have been cases about websites using pictures. Some have been judged to be Fair use, others have been judged to be outside fair use (illegal).

    There is no fixed difinition of fair use, as its not a law as such, but an “opening” in copyright law, so people can use otherwise copyrighted material (parts of it) to review and discuss its content in another context.

    The main idea is that the fair use has to be creative. You can’t just copy a picture, without using it in some connection with the original publication.

    Any fair use situation can be tested in court. There is no pre-arranged rules and regulations, so each case has to be judged on its own.

    In that light, you should see “Fair use” as a defence. Something to reply if accused of copyright infringements. Its not there to protect the copyright holder.

    The main factors in deciding if use is fair are:

    1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    Using a private picture of an aircraft, to discuss this aircraft (or the situation in wich the picture taken) on a web based forum (educational purpose) is likely to be considered fair use, in particular if due credit is given to the creator.

    However, only a US court can rule if it is or not.

    in reply to: Another Iraqi Sea Fury? #1193972
    Mondariz
    Participant

    As I understand it, the Fury Trainer made for Iraq, did have the perspex tunnel type canopy. However, Iraq did also had two T61 type trainers.

    Was the Fury Trainer not just a de-navalised Sea fury FB Mk.10, rebuild to fit two?

    This picture shows the canopy arrangement better.

    Problems showing image…

    in reply to: Another Iraqi Sea Fury? #1194102
    Mondariz
    Participant

    No worries Mondariz…but yes, I also used to shout at the box when the commentary states it’s a ‘Stringbag’ as an ‘Applecore’ (etc.etc.,) chugs into view in a grainy extract from a black and white film!…….Sad or what? 😉

    By the way, could have picked up an F.10 Sea Fury, entire and complete, for £15.00 (yes, 15 quid not £15K or £150K!). It went for scrap in 1963, after a Naval Open Day. It could have been mine, if A) as a youngster, I knew how to go about it, and B) there were no objections from mother…where you going to keep it? in the back garden?
    In view of what goes on nowadays in various gardens in the UK vis-a-vis cockpits, entire airframes etc. that outlandish idea didn’t seem so daft, did it?

    Its a historic aviation forum, if we didn’t use the right names and numbers for aircraft, then who should?

    Your Sea Fury story made me cry………:(

    in reply to: Another Iraqi Sea Fury? #1194114
    Mondariz
    Participant

    Rumoured to be somewhere in the UK, but has become somewhat political!

    Bruce

    I bet they just went: “Hey, a Fury…..I’ll have that!”

    Lifting other peoples aircraft can quickly become political.

    in reply to: Another Iraqi Sea Fury? #1194117
    Mondariz
    Participant

    At the risk of being pedantic/ or an anorak, whatever…Fury might be more accurate than Sea Fury. The Iraqi air Force took delivery of five two seat and some 55 single-seat aircraft in the late 1940-s, early 1950’s, and not an arrestor hook to be seen on any of ’em! :confused:

    AFAIK they didn’t have folding wings either.

    No point of paying for maintenance of hook and folder, if you ain’t going to use it.

Viewing 15 posts - 676 through 690 (of 1,411 total)