Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DiabloTX on December 28, 2007, 12:17:16 PM
-
Mustang that is. 510hp. Why would he choose "A" instead of "D" I'll never know.
Roush P-51A Mustang (http://www.stangnet.com/Ford-Mustang-News/Roush-P-51-Ford-Mustang-071030.html)
My C-Hog will take on all "Mustangs", lol.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/blues_z28copy.jpg)
-
Aye Carumba!!! That is one sweet pony!:cool:
-
He didn't make it. He restored one, so being they are quite limited and hard to find. It's likely yea can't get to picky.
I'm pretty sure he has had two of them and I know at least one of them was pulled out of a lake here in Florida.
-
I'm just guessing here, but maybe Crockett didnt read the link?
-
Airscrew im with you i got 100 says crockett didnt read the link either!
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I'm just guessing here, but maybe Crockett didnt read the link?
Nope. LMAO :rofl
-
(http://atworkandbored.com/jokes-inc/fun-pics/foot-in-mouth-1199.jpeg)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I'm just guessing here, but maybe Crockett didnt read the link?
I took a quick glance at it but thought it was the article I had already read about his real P51. There was an article posted here a month or two back that was from some automotive site that looked like that one.
-
Originally posted by crockett
He didn't make it. He restored one, so being they are quite limited and hard to find. It's likely yea can't get to picky.
I'm pretty sure he has had two of them and I know at least one of them was pulled out of a lake here in Florida.
There are new built P-51As.
Dakota-based Tri-State Aviation flew the first of a run of ten scratchbuilt high-back North American P-51A Mustangs on June 7 2006. See August's Aeroplane magazine for the full story.
It was one of these, iirc, that crashed at Oshkosh.
Jack bought a P-51 Mustang in 1993 and spent 10 months refurbishing it in first class condition as Bud Anderson's WWII Mustang "Old Crow". Jack sold his P-51 "Old Crow" to Jim Hagedorn of Columbus Ohio. He now owns a P-51D "Gentleman Jim" and is working on a new P-51 "Old Crow."
Roush crashed a P-51D into a lake and almost died in 2003.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I'm just guessing here, but maybe Crockett didnt read the link?
:rofl Truer words have never been spoken.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Roush crashed a P-51D into a lake and almost died in 2003.
I thought he crashed a little experimental aircraft into the lake. I didn't think it was a P-51.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
:rofl Truer words have never been spoken.
Well lets get real here there was an article posted a month or two back about Jack Roush as I posted. When I clicked the link the fist thing I see is a picture of the plane with the car in front of it.
Looked like the one I had already read so I just closed the page.
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
I thought he crashed a little experimental aircraft into the lake. I didn't think it was a P-51.
Correct.
Proving great minds think alike, that's the same skin I fly.:aok
-
Originally posted by yankedudel
I thought he crashed a little experimental aircraft into the lake. I didn't think it was a P-51.
The plane, a twin engine Air Cam, small aircraft built by National Geographic magazine for photography, according to Smith, went down in a residential area at about 6 p.m. No passengers were with Roush.
Smith said no details of the crash were available except that Roush, a longtime pilot, was celebrating his birthday with friends and apparently taking turns flying several aircraft.
A newspaper photographer at the scene said the plane crashed into a pond in a gated community. According to WBMA-TV, the plane was apparently underwater for five minutes after the crash. Other reports said Roush may have hit power lines.
-
thats going to be a sweet car. thanks for the link i now have a new desktop background.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
. Why would he choose "A" instead of "D" I'll never know.
I would imaging it the way the cockpit looks with the shades on the rear windows not a bubble canopy looks more like an A version.
-
That car looks fat. Hell, all mustangs this gen look fat. Overweight. Plump. Obese even.
Aerodynamic styling? Not on your life! Make it a brick on a brick, flatten the nose, and pump it up with flab. Hang some blingy faster and furiouser carbon splitter thingies under the bumper, never mind that it'll never actually go fast enough for those to do anything but add drag because the car is huge. Might as well trail a drag chute behind it all the time. Pretend that putting more horsepower in it makes it ok, but then sell the stock "GT" with barely enough horsepower to be able to watch a 10 year old f-body kick it's butt.
Some of the retro cars look ok because they're really trying to look like the old cars, but there is no reason for the mustang to look like a pinto caught with 2 sticks of butter crammed in it's mouth.
I'll take a GTR, any year, over the current (or last gen) mustang any day. The last mustang that looked cool was the 1993 and earlier model. After that, it just done growed up and got porky. That's ok for bubba and the trailer trash, but come on. Ditch the visual styling cues that make the car look a few hundred pounds obese and bring back something that looks FAST, not overweight and fast only when pumped full of cow steroids.
-
Originally posted by eagl
but there is no reason for the mustang to look like a pinto caught with 2 sticks of butter crammed in it's mouth.
:rofl :rofl :rofl tears in my eyes, cant laugh out loud, sides hurt :rofl :rofl
-
heres a mustang for ya
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/NilsensFord.jpg)
of course if you cant afford it you get one of these for $1500, has a new 302 in it to boot
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/maverick11.jpg)
-
Originally posted by eagl
That car looks fat. Hell, all mustangs this gen look fat. Overweight. Plump. Obese even.
Aerodynamic styling? Not on your life! Make it a brick on a brick, flatten the nose, and pump it up with flab. Hang some blingy faster and furiouser carbon splitter thingies under the bumper, never mind that it'll never actually go fast enough for those to do anything but add drag because the car is huge. Might as well trail a drag chute behind it all the time. Pretend that putting more horsepower in it makes it ok, but then sell the stock "GT" with barely enough horsepower to be able to watch a 10 year old f-body kick it's butt.
Some of the retro cars look ok because they're really trying to look like the old cars, but there is no reason for the mustang to look like a pinto caught with 2 sticks of butter crammed in it's mouth.
I'll take a GTR, any year, over the current (or last gen) mustang any day. The last mustang that looked cool was the 1993 and earlier model. After that, it just done growed up and got porky. That's ok for bubba and the trailer trash, but come on. Ditch the visual styling cues that make the car look a few hundred pounds obese and bring back something that looks FAST, not overweight and fast only when pumped full of cow steroids.
I love the new retrostangs. They look a heck of a lot better than the designs Ford has produced in the last 20 years. If you want a pure race design, then the GTR is it.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/maverick11.jpg)
wished I still had my metallic Blue 1974 250ci, was a real sweet car. Hurricane Hugo came through and dropped a tree on it. :cry
or my father's green 1970 170ci.
thing was real good on gas.
he drove it to work alot and took us to the beach with it. My brother got it and drove it into the ground. I never got to drive it, so I bought the '74. :D
'65 and '66 Mustangs, my mother and brother had, were nice but I liked my Maverick better.:p
-
made me go look for a Maverick for sale. found this link http://vegascarman.com/
-
Here is a P51A scratch built off the factory plans. The real deal.
http://www.airventure.org/2006/news/060719_warbird.html
The owner died in this plane.
-
Even though I am a hard core GM (Pontiac) fan, I can appreciate a good looking car when I see one. That is a good looking pony. As for the A model, I think that has more to do with the fact that this series of Mustang is the first model type for Roush and less to do with the airplane.
I wonder how much one will cost? Ponies are nice, but there are so many better choices out there that offer more performance for less money. My GTO might look like an everyday boring car, but that LS2 pushing 400HP laying down 395 ft lbs of torque are all that really matters at the track. All that for under 32K brand new. Can't beat that.
-
Originally posted by eagl
That car looks fat. Hell, all mustangs this gen look fat. Overweight. Plump. Obese even.
Aerodynamic styling? Not on your life! Make it a brick on a brick, flatten the nose, and pump it up with flab. Hang some blingy faster and furiouser carbon splitter thingies under the bumper, never mind that it'll never actually go fast enough for those to do anything but add drag because the car is huge. Might as well trail a drag chute behind it all the time. Pretend that putting more horsepower in it makes it ok, but then sell the stock "GT" with barely enough horsepower to be able to watch a 10 year old f-body kick it's butt.
Some of the retro cars look ok because they're really trying to look like the old cars, but there is no reason for the mustang to look like a pinto caught with 2 sticks of butter crammed in it's mouth.
I'll take a GTR, any year, over the current (or last gen) mustang any day. The last mustang that looked cool was the 1993 and earlier model. After that, it just done growed up and got porky. That's ok for bubba and the trailer trash, but come on. Ditch the visual styling cues that make the car look a few hundred pounds obese and bring back something that looks FAST, not overweight and fast only when pumped full of cow steroids.
LMAO
If that thing has the full "cat in the hat" treatment, it will be no slouch on the track. His suspension and brake packages do wonders.
-
I guess that makes my 2003 Crown Vic with its 504 horsepower at the wheels a P47 Thunderbolt!
Mission Ready:
(http://www.mercurymarauder.net/showcase/files/4/0/8/0/pic2.JPG)
Specs... (http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/vbgarage.php?do=view&id=4080)
-
Originally posted by BBBB
My GTO might look like an everyday boring car, but that LS2 pushing 400HP laying down 395 ft lbs of torque are all that really matters at the track. All that for under 32K brand new. Can't beat that.
See, that's sort of what I liked about the GTO. It isn't all bulged out with goofy fender flares, overly massive hood or bumpers, etc. It's about as small as you can stretch the sheet metal around the basic interior, and it has a huge engine.
Yea they could have done something more with the styling to make it look a bit less bland, but that doesn't mean they have to increase the size of the thing or add goofy looking bling. Or pump up the size of the nose so it looks like the car has elephantitis (like the current stang and the post-1998 WS-6 firebird).
If I didn't already have my firebird, I would have probably bought a GTO.
-
I don't mind the styling. At GTO meets the older GTO guys complain that the new GTOs lack styling. I look at the first series of GTOs and see a grocery getter with a big bellybutton engine dropped in it. That is basically the core of what makes a GTO, small car big engine.
I like how my car looks, it looks like every other car on the road. Cops don't give me a second glance, the ricer boys save their bumble bee on crack exhaust note for someone in a Mustang and the insurance is not as bad on the GTO as it is on some of the more well known modern day muscle cars.
At the same time if I need that power it is there. When some hillbilly pony boy pulls up next to me and starts revving that little 4.6 of theirs I get a little chuckle. I like the way my GTO looks and drives. Even when the new Camaros come out, I can't see myself getting rid of my Goat.
-
2 different schools of thought. I didn't think Pontiac did too good a job with the new GTO styling wise. There's subtle, and then there's boring. As a former owner of a '65 GTO, it had both. That tear-drop hood scoop and those stacked and slanted headlights really gave it an aggressive look. The new GTO just didn't inspire a racing heart beat, especially with those itty bitty tires/wheels on it. It looked like a hotwheel toy to me. But that glorious engine under the hood and the design of the interior went a long way to alleviate the styling short-comings.
As for the 4Gen Firebirds, their styling was a bit too over the top for my tastes, too busy. Although I do like the WS-6 flared nostril hoods, the styling of the 4Gen's are, as I said before, a bit too busy for my tastes.
-
I was going to get a camaro instead of a firebird specifically because like you say, the firebirds are a bit busy and "over the top". I even placed my order for a loaded 1998 Z-28 without ever having seen the car (I had seem magazine reviews of the '98 trans-am) But then I saw the camaro fishmouth, and called the dealer the same day to change my order to a firebird formula. Then I saw the front bumper on the formula, with the fog lights way out on the corners looking like the car has a a golf ball tucked inside each cheek or 2 wads of dip in the lower lip, and called THAT day to change my order from a formula to a trans-am.
Yea it's a bit over the top but I think it stays on the side of "aggressive" vs. "silly", EVERY ONE the scoops, spoilers, etc. are FUNCTIONAL (something you can't say about any factory mustang), and I think the flood of compliments I got on how the car looked for about a year after I bought it pretty much squashed any doubts over getting the TA vs. a formula or Z-28.
I understand why they had to change the nose of the camaro and firebird (the extra power meant it could go fast enough for the old lift-producing noses to be dangerous at the new higher top speed, plus new pedestrian impact standards pretty much rules out pointy noses nowadays) but the fishmouth treatment just looked horrible to me. I don't like pop-up headlights and I really didn't like the double row nostrils of the WS-6 ram air hood, but I couldn't find a reasonable way to mod my car to replace the pop-up lights with something sleek like the 1998 firehawk option headlights (SLP wouldn't sell me just the headlights and then discontinued that option... retards) so I've left the external bits stock.
-
Agreed. When the LS1 were introduced I liked my LT1 (even though it was really a 3.8) front end better, cleaner and meaner. I've sort of come to terms with the catfish front end mainly because of the engine. When my old 3.8 got totalled by the drunk topless dancer, in my search for a clean low mileage LS1, I still liked the less busy look of the Z. But, don't get me wrong, I do like the Firebird and almost bought another f-body 2 years ago to compliment my Camaro and that was a white LS1 Trans Am.