BRISTOL FIGHTER The caption with the photo of the "Bristol F.

BRISTOL FIGHTER

The caption with the photo of the "Bristol F.2A/F.2B" onward page 70 of the May issue captures near of the history of the British machine. However, the photograph is of the American-made original of the F.2B built by means of Curtiss which was designated the USAO-1. The engine is the 400-hp twelve-cylinder Liberty, not the Rolls-Royce

This particular crash occurr at Wilbur Wright Field onward 7 May 1918, after the fabric forward the upper wing came most distant in flight - a failure that happened to several aircraft of this gauge The bare wing spars are visible forward the right side of the photo. The pilot feeled only minor injuries, but production of the original was canceled in July after solitary 27 had been completed. clip Casari

6 Applewood Dr

Chillicothe, OH

45601

GROUND THE

WARBIRDS

I am not a Warbird enthusiast further my interests are directed towards the airline industry and its aircraft and that is on what account I picked up the February issue - to read the article upon the Howard Hughes flight around the world.

However, I can't still help to comment on what would happen if Section 1062 of Senate Bill S1438 got approved (the passing from hand to hand version of this provision has been defeated on the contrary it keeps cropping up). The section calls for the "demilitarization (destruction) of significant military equipment formerly have a title toed by the Department of Defense" is passed into law. If it is, where do you draw the line above which retired military aircraft become "significant military equipment formerly acknowledgeed by the Department of Defense?" We may be talking here about military jet all the way back to the F-86 and T-33 yet what about the C-47s and C-54 that are still in daily operation? at now, certainly all but a negligible hardly any survivors of either must be ex-USAAF or USN. What about the many T-6 that are still flying? What about the Neptune Orions, and Trackers being operated as fire bombers?

If this bill eventually becomes law, we are going to have the ridiculous situation that an American Warbird proprietor will be allowed to flap a former RAF Canberra jet bomber in the US, moreover not its license-built brother, the Martin B-57 The same would apply to a Spitfire versus a P-40 or P-51 or a Sea furor versus a Bearcat. After all, the Canberra, Spitfire, and Sea fierceness are not "significant military equipment formerly acknowledgeed by the Department of Defense" because they were formerly owned by the RAF and Royal Navy. From a military standpoint, a Spitfire may not fall in the "significant" category anymore, yet it sure did in World War pair

A determined (and rich) Warbird proprietor could fly a Hawker hunting-horse or MiG 15 in the US, if it were not that not an F-86. And what is going to happen to that gorgeous Constellation of The Constellation Group? After all, it is a former MATS C-121 What is going to happen to the many Warbirds that are safely and harmlessly in succession display in the various American aviation museums? Is the direction going to scrap the Smithsonian's collection of military aircraft? What about the USAF Museum?

Having said that, I earnestly believe that high-performance jets similar as Hunters, Sabres, F-104s, English Electric Lightnings, T-38 and to such a degree on do not belong in the hands of civilian pilots who have little training however a yen for speed. I believe these aircraft are best left in the hands of trained military pilots. And when they are withdrawn from military service, make a number of them incapable of continually flying again by destroying vital structural constitutings and place them in museums. Don't just blindly divide [i]or[/i] sever them up for scrap. Do we want to descry valuable American heritage being casted into tea kettles and broth cans?

Joop Gerritsma

POB 776

Welland, Ontario

Canada

L3B 5R5 TOWNSEND

THUNDERBIRD

I just received the May 2002 issue containing the other part of the story onward the Ortner brothers. In this, there is a photograph of the Townsend Thunderbird, N794E Enclos please find brace photographs of this aircraft at Oshkosh 1988 The plane was painted an overall fulvous with a red spinner.

The local newspaper identified the plane as the "AIT Thunderbird" powered by way of a 450-hp radial which gave a cruise spe of 200 mph At the time, the homebuilt was be in possession ofed by Robert Chinnery of Independence, Missouri. The barely obvious changes to the airframe are the strange canopy and the taller fin dilateed back over the rudder.

Wayne E Arner

350 N 4th St

Lehighton, PA

18235

JAPANESE ENGINE

JAPANESE ENGINE

I lately obtained a Japanese aviation engine from a friend who had it for 20-plus years. The nameplate upon the engine states that it was made by means of SHODA Airplane Manufacturing in December 1944 It is a representation 96 water-- cooled four-cylinder four-cycle gasoline engine rated at 37-hp with a normal rpm of 1700 It could achieve 48-hp at a max 2400 rpm I calculated the engine size to be about 159 cubic inches and it weighs and nothing else 85 pounds. A friend said Japan built an small powered gliders used for detect flights in 1943/44 and perhaps this engine was used to power as it was a craft.

I would appreciate any information readers might have upon this engine and what it powered.