Helpful
- Thread starter Sneakers
- Start date
Kinnakeet
Well-Known Member
You might be correct
Dean Torrence didn't wreck anything. It was Jan Berry who wrecked his corvette on Dead Mans curve. And playing the woulda coulda shouda game doesn't really change history does it?
James Dean wrecked his Porche, otherwise he would have been the best actor in history, right? Lots of woulda coulda shoulda's out there. Have fun.
Last edited:
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
Oops. I stand corrected. Error in name usage. It was Berry, not Dean. Prior comment still stands though regarding giving the Beach Boys a run for their money.
Oops. I stand corrected. Error in name usage. It was Berry, not Dean. Prior comment still stands though regarding giving the Beach Boys a run for their money.
James Dean would have been just as great as Brando, couldn't stand either of them.
Tiggers?
SRV was better than all of them combined.
CPUSA
Well-Known Member
that is....actually, some pretty good advice....
URGENT CLARIFICATION: We’ve been made aware of growing confusion between the Hillman Avenger and the Grumman Avenger, so we wanted to step in to clear this up immediately.
The confusion is understandable of course. Not only do the Avengers share the same name, both served in the RNZAF, and are startlingly pretty machines with sleek, purposeful lines and an enviable record for reliability and performance.
Since they may appear almost identical to the untrained eye, we have prepared a handy guide so you can tell them apart at a glance.
Most obvious difference of course is Grumman Avenger’s telltale dorsal gun turret fitted with a .50 calibre machine gun, which the Hillman Avenger – sadly – lacked.
In a short-sighted sales and marketing decision, Hillman decided not to offer a gun turret as an optional extra, which we can only assume hurt sales.
The second major difference is in load carrying systems. Have a close look below the Hillman Avenger and you’ll notice there is no bomb bay.
The Hillman catered for extra loads with a rear-loading boot, hinged from the top. The Hillman’s boot could cope with the shopping and at least two large suitcases, or a bike with a bit of wire to tie the boot lid down on shorter missions.
By contrast the Grumman came with a capacious bomb bay that meant business. It could accommodate one torpedo or four 227 kg bombs. Punchy!
If you are still struggling to tell them apart, a quick look beneath the bonnet will set you right.
The Hillman Avenger GL was powered by a 1500 cc inline four-cylinder water-cooled engine which developed an impressive 63 horsepower, giving it a top speed of 144 km/h.
The Grumman Avenger was powered by an air-cooled Wright Cyclone twin-row 14-cylinder R-2600-8 engine developing 1600 horsepower and a top speed of 442 km/h.
While both power plants made the Avengers impressive performers, the stark difference here was in fuel economy. The Grumman proved to be a gas guzzler and its 1249 litre fuel tank would cost about $3600 to fill at today’s prices, compared to a more modest $140 for the Hillman.
That’s a big running cost difference but remember - no gun turret!
This has been an Urgent Clarification brought to you by Girard & Fick Optometrists.
You're welcome!
The confusion is understandable of course. Not only do the Avengers share the same name, both served in the RNZAF, and are startlingly pretty machines with sleek, purposeful lines and an enviable record for reliability and performance.
Since they may appear almost identical to the untrained eye, we have prepared a handy guide so you can tell them apart at a glance.
Most obvious difference of course is Grumman Avenger’s telltale dorsal gun turret fitted with a .50 calibre machine gun, which the Hillman Avenger – sadly – lacked.
In a short-sighted sales and marketing decision, Hillman decided not to offer a gun turret as an optional extra, which we can only assume hurt sales.
The second major difference is in load carrying systems. Have a close look below the Hillman Avenger and you’ll notice there is no bomb bay.
The Hillman catered for extra loads with a rear-loading boot, hinged from the top. The Hillman’s boot could cope with the shopping and at least two large suitcases, or a bike with a bit of wire to tie the boot lid down on shorter missions.
By contrast the Grumman came with a capacious bomb bay that meant business. It could accommodate one torpedo or four 227 kg bombs. Punchy!
If you are still struggling to tell them apart, a quick look beneath the bonnet will set you right.
The Hillman Avenger GL was powered by a 1500 cc inline four-cylinder water-cooled engine which developed an impressive 63 horsepower, giving it a top speed of 144 km/h.
The Grumman Avenger was powered by an air-cooled Wright Cyclone twin-row 14-cylinder R-2600-8 engine developing 1600 horsepower and a top speed of 442 km/h.
While both power plants made the Avengers impressive performers, the stark difference here was in fuel economy. The Grumman proved to be a gas guzzler and its 1249 litre fuel tank would cost about $3600 to fill at today’s prices, compared to a more modest $140 for the Hillman.
That’s a big running cost difference but remember - no gun turret!
This has been an Urgent Clarification brought to you by Girard & Fick Optometrists.
You're welcome!