NAAS Corry Field 1950s
- Thread starter tgycgijoes
- Start date
tgycgijoes
Members +
Stupidbaker
Oooops excuse me. That is what my uncle the Ford man always called them. LOL! If I can find a Studebaker I'll add it. Looked in the "warehouse" and the only one's available are $95.00 not free so sorry, no Studebaker at the gate.
Oooops excuse me. That is what my uncle the Ford man always called them. LOL! If I can find a Studebaker I'll add it. Looked in the "warehouse" and the only one's available are $95.00 not free so sorry, no Studebaker at the gate.
tgycgijoes
Members +
A little change
I liked the Chevy at the gate, too, but unless it broke down it shouldn't be sitting there all day so I wrote a SODE XML for it to only be there at 0800-0810, long enough for the guard to check his ID and wave him onto the base. Got some kinda glitch which I've asked for help over at FS Developers because it still is at the gate all the time even though the code checker says the code is OK. More later on this. Also finished the Building 501 Admin building and am about half done with Building 502 which was the BOQ I understand in the 50's. Then I will do a couple of the old BEQ barracks and a couple more buildings and then I think it will be done for the 1950's. The two water towers are placed in proper position, too. They were there since the 40's from the photos I have. Having fun.
I liked the Chevy at the gate, too, but unless it broke down it shouldn't be sitting there all day so I wrote a SODE XML for it to only be there at 0800-0810, long enough for the guard to check his ID and wave him onto the base. Got some kinda glitch which I've asked for help over at FS Developers because it still is at the gate all the time even though the code checker says the code is OK. More later on this. Also finished the Building 501 Admin building and am about half done with Building 502 which was the BOQ I understand in the 50's. Then I will do a couple of the old BEQ barracks and a couple more buildings and then I think it will be done for the 1950's. The two water towers are placed in proper position, too. They were there since the 40's from the photos I have. Having fun.
tgycgijoes
Members +
Main Gate NAAS Corry
Mike71! Here are two photos I have of the Main Gate, both period photos. The one WITH the little house (not On The Prairie LOL) is not dated. 1964 on the other one, with no little gatehouse in the middle. All are snapshots by guys who went to school there. In you 78 year old memory or anyone else who was at Corry in the past, which is correct for 1950's? I also noticed when I uploaded both of these that I need to add Falcon 409's nice STOP sign to the right in front of the brick pillar as you approach the gate. I remember from NTC GLakes and NAS Glenview that you don't stop on the way out just slow down and dim your lights at night. Hence, no stop sign needed.
Mike71! Here are two photos I have of the Main Gate, both period photos. The one WITH the little house (not On The Prairie LOL) is not dated. 1964 on the other one, with no little gatehouse in the middle. All are snapshots by guys who went to school there. In you 78 year old memory or anyone else who was at Corry in the past, which is correct for 1950's? I also noticed when I uploaded both of these that I need to add Falcon 409's nice STOP sign to the right in front of the brick pillar as you approach the gate. I remember from NTC GLakes and NAS Glenview that you don't stop on the way out just slow down and dim your lights at night. Hence, no stop sign needed.
Mike71
SOH-CM-2025
I would say the one without the guard shack is later. For one thing, the water towers (orange and white) indicate to me that the buildup of the Mainside complex / Corry transition was in progress - the tanks likely indicate the addition of Forrest Sherman Field to the KNPA complex. Also there appears to be a relatively new white structure / garage (?) structure not in the earlier picture. Maybe for Public Works.
Second, as most bases that I am familiar with, base security often reduced the security perimeter so that access was checked at certain buildings and compounds - and base police patrolled the area looking for any vehicle or people who seemed not to belong there (lots of available manpower via the draft in those days!) This allowed much more traffic flow as these facilities multiplied.
It also may have been the case that admission to the entire KNPA complex was moved outward to the main complex entrance, eliminating the need for the internal guard shack.
The brick building was obviously main security, and issued base stickers and other admin duties at one time, perhaps not used for that later on - maybe just info for visitors, etc.
Just my thoughts -
R/Mike
Second, as most bases that I am familiar with, base security often reduced the security perimeter so that access was checked at certain buildings and compounds - and base police patrolled the area looking for any vehicle or people who seemed not to belong there (lots of available manpower via the draft in those days!) This allowed much more traffic flow as these facilities multiplied.
It also may have been the case that admission to the entire KNPA complex was moved outward to the main complex entrance, eliminating the need for the internal guard shack.
The brick building was obviously main security, and issued base stickers and other admin duties at one time, perhaps not used for that later on - maybe just info for visitors, etc.
Just my thoughts -
R/Mike
tgycgijoes
Members +
Thank you for the input
Guess I'll have to build a guardshack and add it. Not hard to do.
tgycgijoes
Members +
Looking For A Jeep
While looking for more photos of Corry I think that the little house was added in 1964 and that the photo with no little house is earlier because I keep finding later and later photo of the gate with the gatehouse all the way to 1990's so I am going to leave it. I am working on Building 522 the baby....green wooden barracks now as some of the last buildings I am going to add before its read to upload.
While looking for more photos of Corry I think that the little house was added in 1964 and that the photo with no little house is earlier because I keep finding later and later photo of the gate with the gatehouse all the way to 1990's so I am going to leave it. I am working on Building 522 the baby....green wooden barracks now as some of the last buildings I am going to add before its read to upload.
tgycgijoes
Members +
A Week Of Sketchup Work
Here is the result of a week's work in the Sketchup Studio:
I thought Building 501 was a challenge:
until I started to design Building 502:
'
Here is the result of a week's work in the Sketchup Studio:
I thought Building 501 was a challenge:
until I started to design Building 502:
tgycgijoes
Members +
Another few days and
I got these two done. They were the same...but different. Building 522 is larger than Building 524 but otherwise they are painted the same and used the same windows and doors so that wasn't too bad. The stairways are all build from scratch using Sketchup Engineering Lumber and the STAIRMAKER. All are done from photos with a lot of interpretation and study. 522's end units are 182'x32' with a 116'x32' center section and 524's end units are 116'x32' with the same size and design center section.
Here is Building 524:
I got these two done. They were the same...but different. Building 522 is larger than Building 524 but otherwise they are painted the same and used the same windows and doors so that wasn't too bad. The stairways are all build from scratch using Sketchup Engineering Lumber and the STAIRMAKER. All are done from photos with a lot of interpretation and study. 522's end units are 182'x32' with a 116'x32' center section and 524's end units are 116'x32' with the same size and design center section.
Here is Building 524:
tgycgijoes
Members +
Two Color Photos
From what I can gather from reading short notes or photo captions, the BOQ in the 1950's was Building 502 and Admin was Building 501. These green barracks were BEQ or may have been BOQ when there were a lot of NAVCADS stationed here during Korea but there is so little before the 1960's onwards its tough to REALLY know unless like you, someone here on SOH was there back then from after the end of Korea through the 50's. Doin' the best I can and I really appreciate the encouragement and the insight. My ashore time was at NB Norfolk/NAS Norfolk and then Portsmouth Navy Shipyard. Then at home it was either Great Lakes or Glenview.
I have a drive to be as accurate as I can. When I was a shipmodeler, my mentor Howard Chappelle who was curator for the Smithsonian "harped" on being as accurate a possible with a replica. When all the information is gone and your replica is all that exists, it will be looked on by the future generations as historic representation of what it was like. The most challenging were the WWII destroyers. Even Buships plans were sometimes not exactly followed in the hurry in the yards of the time. Many times I had that pointed out to me by the sailor who commissioned me to build a model of his ship when he looked at a drawing and pointed out to me variations on HIS ship. If I could get photos that was the best evidence always. Same holds true for aircraft repaint textures. I have a T-2 post here that illustrates that really well, too.
From what I can gather from reading short notes or photo captions, the BOQ in the 1950's was Building 502 and Admin was Building 501. These green barracks were BEQ or may have been BOQ when there were a lot of NAVCADS stationed here during Korea but there is so little before the 1960's onwards its tough to REALLY know unless like you, someone here on SOH was there back then from after the end of Korea through the 50's. Doin' the best I can and I really appreciate the encouragement and the insight. My ashore time was at NB Norfolk/NAS Norfolk and then Portsmouth Navy Shipyard. Then at home it was either Great Lakes or Glenview.
I have a drive to be as accurate as I can. When I was a shipmodeler, my mentor Howard Chappelle who was curator for the Smithsonian "harped" on being as accurate a possible with a replica. When all the information is gone and your replica is all that exists, it will be looked on by the future generations as historic representation of what it was like. The most challenging were the WWII destroyers. Even Buships plans were sometimes not exactly followed in the hurry in the yards of the time. Many times I had that pointed out to me by the sailor who commissioned me to build a model of his ship when he looked at a drawing and pointed out to me variations on HIS ship. If I could get photos that was the best evidence always. Same holds true for aircraft repaint textures. I have a T-2 post here that illustrates that really well, too.
tgycgijoes
Members +
The Bell
Took it a little easy today after all those buildings and built the base bell. Here is the bell i created and below it is the photo I used for reference. I like the way it turned out.
Took it a little easy today after all those buildings and built the base bell. Here is the bell i created and below it is the photo I used for reference. I like the way it turned out.
tgycgijoes
Members +
No I Didn't Make A Mistake
I am posting 3 pictures here of the aircraft carrier USS ANTIETAM, AT-16 because I had an idea. 3 years ago before I learned how to use Carrier Convoy Planner, I created a cruiser as scenery so that I could launch seaplanes from the catapaults. Its only drawback was that it had no motion but was a static "airport". I did the same thing here with Klaus's Antietam for the specific purpose of being able to have AI Aircraft takeoff from the NAAS and fly out to the carrier and then return to NAAS. AI aircraft will not fly out to an aicarrier and land but they WILL fly out and do "Touch n Go's" on this carrier. They can actually land and then takeoff a short while later. At least that's what it says in small print. I created the carrier tonight and will try it out tomorrow with an AIFP Flight Plan of 4 T-28 Trojan AI Aircraft using Tim Conrad's Trojan. This carrier has a "hard deck" and pendants for arrested landings. I'll post results tomorrow.
I am posting 3 pictures here of the aircraft carrier USS ANTIETAM, AT-16 because I had an idea. 3 years ago before I learned how to use Carrier Convoy Planner, I created a cruiser as scenery so that I could launch seaplanes from the catapaults. Its only drawback was that it had no motion but was a static "airport". I did the same thing here with Klaus's Antietam for the specific purpose of being able to have AI Aircraft takeoff from the NAAS and fly out to the carrier and then return to NAAS. AI aircraft will not fly out to an aicarrier and land but they WILL fly out and do "Touch n Go's" on this carrier. They can actually land and then takeoff a short while later. At least that's what it says in small print. I created the carrier tonight and will try it out tomorrow with an AIFP Flight Plan of 4 T-28 Trojan AI Aircraft using Tim Conrad's Trojan. This carrier has a "hard deck" and pendants for arrested landings. I'll post results tomorrow.
Mike71
SOH-CM-2025
Great idea -I think you have a typo though. ANTIETAM was always CV-36, never redesignated as an AVT, though that was her role in her final years.
USS LEXINGTON WAS re-designated as an AVT in the Reagan Administration as I recall. This was a slight ruse by SecNav John Lehman, who worked diligently to build up the Navy's carrier force to "fifteen deployable" which meant an additional two in either a nuclear refueling overhaul or modernization overhaul, plus one non-combatant Aviation Training Carrier (AVT). This made things somewhat clearer in stating his position before Congress. He was quite successful, though the Navy never quite got there.
As an AVT, LEX had been overhauled with no magazines or combat systems and therefore was not counted in the carrier force structure.
tgycgijoes
Members +
Interesting
I have both Antietam AVT-36 and also Lexington AVT-16 in my "shipyard" as ai carriers to use in CCP but as I said and you know, ai aircraft don't land on ai carriers an antithesis. I feel academic this morning...LOL! I researched and Lex relieved Antietam in 1960 so I chose Antietam for my KNCR time period. I have the FP done and am testing it out this morning. TTYL
Richard
I have both Antietam AVT-36 and also Lexington AVT-16 in my "shipyard" as ai carriers to use in CCP but as I said and you know, ai aircraft don't land on ai carriers an antithesis. I feel academic this morning...LOL! I researched and Lex relieved Antietam in 1960 so I chose Antietam for my KNCR time period. I have the FP done and am testing it out this morning. TTYL
Richard
tgycgijoes
Members +
Phooey
For some reason, when I created the USS Portland scenery with runways on the catapults it worked perfectly and still does BUT and a BIG BUT neither Antietam though it looks pretty and when it didn't work I tried Lexington by a different modeler, neither one works as they should. when the airport carrier scenery is created, the runways stay below the bgl carrier not on the flightdeck which is what they need to do like the catapults. The AI Traffic worked perfectly but when the plane gets withing say 20 miles of the carrier and starts to descend to land, the aircraft disappears. the first time I followed the AI aircraft for an hour and got the carrier in sight....poof! no AI aircraft. FSX goes to tracking the next AI aircraft. I spaced them 5 minutes apart. Then when BOB/I go out to the carrier, either one from "Go To Airport" you end up in the water inside the hull at the waterline. I can start on the carrier on the flight deck when FSX is opened but not from any other airport. Frustrating after hours of work. I thought I had something working here.
For some reason, when I created the USS Portland scenery with runways on the catapults it worked perfectly and still does BUT and a BIG BUT neither Antietam though it looks pretty and when it didn't work I tried Lexington by a different modeler, neither one works as they should. when the airport carrier scenery is created, the runways stay below the bgl carrier not on the flightdeck which is what they need to do like the catapults. The AI Traffic worked perfectly but when the plane gets withing say 20 miles of the carrier and starts to descend to land, the aircraft disappears. the first time I followed the AI aircraft for an hour and got the carrier in sight....poof! no AI aircraft. FSX goes to tracking the next AI aircraft. I spaced them 5 minutes apart. Then when BOB/I go out to the carrier, either one from "Go To Airport" you end up in the water inside the hull at the waterline. I can start on the carrier on the flight deck when FSX is opened but not from any other airport. Frustrating after hours of work. I thought I had something working here.
tgycgijoes
Members +
Alternative Plan
I still want to have AI Aircraft here at Corry Field so I decided that I am going to rewrite the Flightplan in AIFP and have them do TNG's at the various OLF's around Corry and still try and figure out the carrier if it is at all possible in spare time but not hold this up. One more building to go in between Bldg's 522 and 524 the green barracks which is shown on the 1949 bw aerial photo I have been using and used for the taxiway/runway layouts. Interesting while I was following the AI taxiing and taking off yesterday. "ATC" was using Runway 34R/16L with no wind and backtaxied down 16L, turned around at the end and then took off over the top of the next aircraft which it held at the hold short line at the start of 16L. I had problems with the aircraft taxiing and not taking off but just sitting on the runway at the beginning. I went to FSDevelopers through a Google search for why and found out that even though in 1958 there were no "Hold Short" lines here at Corry Field, they HAD to be there for FSX to properly handle AI traffic on an airport so I had to put one in each spot they belonged on a modern airport. Food for thought for designers like at Saufley Field to be sure to include them if you want AI traffic to work.
I still want to have AI Aircraft here at Corry Field so I decided that I am going to rewrite the Flightplan in AIFP and have them do TNG's at the various OLF's around Corry and still try and figure out the carrier if it is at all possible in spare time but not hold this up. One more building to go in between Bldg's 522 and 524 the green barracks which is shown on the 1949 bw aerial photo I have been using and used for the taxiway/runway layouts. Interesting while I was following the AI taxiing and taking off yesterday. "ATC" was using Runway 34R/16L with no wind and backtaxied down 16L, turned around at the end and then took off over the top of the next aircraft which it held at the hold short line at the start of 16L. I had problems with the aircraft taxiing and not taking off but just sitting on the runway at the beginning. I went to FSDevelopers through a Google search for why and found out that even though in 1958 there were no "Hold Short" lines here at Corry Field, they HAD to be there for FSX to properly handle AI traffic on an airport so I had to put one in each spot they belonged on a modern airport. Food for thought for designers like at Saufley Field to be sure to include them if you want AI traffic to work.
Yes, any airport where AI traffic will be used must have hold short lines. You can "hide" the hold short lines by indicating that when you "edit" the hold short parameters. That way the appearance will be that of a period airport.
tgycgijoes
Members +
Thank you
Thanks Ed, I didn't know that and will go in and edit all of them. That way they function but are historically accurate. Love your Vermont airport, too.
Thanks Ed, I didn't know that and will go in and edit all of them. That way they function but are historically accurate. Love your Vermont airport, too.