AviationBanter

AviationBanter (http://www.aviationbanter.com/index.php)
-   Military Aviation (http://www.aviationbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam (http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=9683)

ArtKramr July 20th 04 03:31 AM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/19/2004 5:57 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

How about a Senior Vice President Creative Supervisor with a major American
corporation with operations worldwide? How about you? Ever done anything?.


Arthur Kramer


VP level program manager in AF Aeronautical Systems Division. Worked B-1,
B-2,
KC-135R, F-15, F-16, F-22, amomg others. Executive support for 3 Star
commander. Otherwise nothing at all.


Good work. Now stay in there and fight to put a SR in front of that VP. I know
you can do it.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


BUFDRVR July 20th 04 03:31 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote;

In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
blue-blue-gray gloss camo.


Affectionately known as "Smurf Jets".

Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable.


Not sure if they did this while you were at UPT Ed, but early on in the T-38
syllabus they take you out and demo how resistant the T-38 is to spin. The
instructor flys because if they let a student try, you know they'de get it into
a spin ;)


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Fred the Red Shirt July 20th 04 04:06 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jul 2004 23:06:39 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



You need to read some good history of the war and stop reading Terry
McAullife dispatches.


I am not familiar with Mr McAullife.


Kerry was testifying before the Senate in 1971. Nixon had been elected
in 1968 and initiated his "Vietnamization" policy to draw down US
troop strength and turn over the war to the ARVN. By April of '71, the
US force had been reduced by half, bombing of NVN had been in hiatus
since 1968.


Yes, that is as I recall.

Arguably the testimony of Kerry encouraged the aggressiveness of the
NVA and led to the increased infiltration that led to the commencement
of Linebacker in May of '72, the siege of An Loch, the intensification
of the siege of Khe Sanh and the final destruction of Hue. The
encouragement of the NV probably increased the destruction rather than
reducing it.


I find it very hard to beleive that you blame all that on Kerry's
testimony.


The current government of Vietnam has estimated that we killed 1.4
million of their soldiers. That does not include wounded soldiers
or civilians killed or wounded. The United Staes won every militarily
significant battle of the Vietnam war. And still the communists
did not give up. Kerry realized that the war in Vietnam could not
be won by military means. It could only have been prolonged.


Once again the attribution of such a strategic view to a Lt(j.g.)
aboard a boat in MR IV is incredible.


Why? It was the same view that was help by a great many ordinary
Americans at that time.


Of course the "current goverment of Vietnam" would have a high
estimate--they are in Hanoi. They were the enemy. That was who we were
trying to kill!


If we killed that many and they didn't give up, or we killed fewer
and they didn't give up, isn't the essential fact that they
didn't give up?


We do not know the answers to the questions I posed above because
men like Kerry did speak out. We did pull out in 1973 and the
surviving POWs did come home. It has been argued that live POWS
were held back by the Vietnamese and others as hostages or slaves
but really, would fewer have been withheld had we remained in the
war longer?


GMAFB! We started our pullout in '68. Despite Kerry's best efforts to
encourage capitulation which wouldn't have resulted in a return of the
POWs we continued negotiation, brought military pressure to bear in
Linebacker I/II and succeeded in getting an incredibly rapid return of
the POWs. It wasn't BECAUSE of Kerry, it was IN SPITE OF him.


Do you really think that absent domestic protests the US would
ever have pulled our ground forces out of Vietnam while the war
continued?


What good would Kerry have done by remaining silent, or by echoing
the lies of his government?


He might now be accepted in his newly desired role of American hero.


I find it odd that you think that would be a good thing.

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt July 20th 04 04:31 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 18 Jul 2004 23:34:06 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ian MacLure

Date: 7/10/2004 11:32 PM Pa



We won the 2000 election.
We are going to win the 2004 election.
So who's bitter?

IBM

Bush was not elected. He was appointed. We'll fix that in November.



Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Sorry, Fred, but unless you are referring to the certification of the
vote of the EC, you are wrong.


Yes I am referring to the certification of the vote of the EC and yes,
I am correct. The USSC has held (in 1877) the the Congress is the
sole judge of the validity of the electoral votes. Thus the Congress
can reject perfectly valid electoral votes cast befor the safe harbot
deadline, as was done in 1877 and can also accept electoral votes submitted
after the safe harbor deadline as was done in 1877 and 1961.

There would be considerable furor, to say the least, if the Congress
were to reverse an election by rejecting perfectly valid elecoral
votes. But that does not mean that they cannot.

So, in a very real sense, it is always the newly elected Congress
that elects the President and Vice President though almost always
they simply applyt their impimatuer to the vote of the Electoral College.



The winner must win by a majority vote, not a plurality. If no
majority, then the Presidential race goes to the house where each
Representative gets a vote


No, each state gets one vote.


and the VP race goes to the Senate where
each State gets one vote.


No, each Senator gets one vote.

--

FF

Mary Shafer July 20th 04 04:35 AM

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.


I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
so think of what it does for a real pilot.

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.

The USAF has been turning every cockpit into a glass cockpit. They
did the KC-135s that the ANG flies a couple of years ago, even.
That's real dedication to glass cockpits, I'd say.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Billy Preston July 20th 04 05:01 AM

"ArtKramr" wrote

How about a Senior Vice President Creative Supervisor with a major American
corporation with operations worldwide? How about you? Ever done anything?.


A Vice President who supervises? Must be a rinky-dink outfit. Did you have to
start the boilers and make the coffee coming on shift, as well?

I've done a lot more then that, I'm a capitalist. I gather capital to expand our
business, so that we can hire more people to increase production. We actually
produce widgets in our company. When I look at the Bush tax cuts, and the
alternatives to fighting recession, I don't really like that we didn't pay down the
debt, but there was no other choice. To fight inflation you need to put money in
the hands of capitalists. The democrats in Washington, just don't get it.

I'm not happy with Bush signing every spending bill he gets, to get the programs
he wants, but I think he's the guy that got us out of the recession in only four
years! That's a hell of an accomplishment. All I see out of the Kerry dreams, is
more money for everyone out of a central planning committee in DC. His wife
is a heir, not a capitalist. His idea of economy, is you send all your money to
Washington, and Congress will distribute it. The Soviets and LBJ already tried that.



Billy Preston July 20th 04 05:07 AM

"WalterM140" wrote

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.


Her county has major voting problems. Her county has zero leadership at the local
level to facilitate the vote in any election, and no one there to this day knows who is
eligible to vote. Hers is the only county that still uses typewriters and 3x5 cards to
produce the rolls for each precinct.



Mary Shafer July 20th 04 05:09 AM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 10:01:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:


Dunno. Never got a -17 flight, but it would be hard to pack more
performance into a little airplane than a T-38. Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable. The airplane
will spin, but it is a decidedly unnatural act and AFAIK only been
accomplished in very abusive flight testing at Edwards.


The F-5 model with the long pointy nose (the F, maybe) spun more
easily and was extremely hard to recover. It took jettisoning the
canopy to break the spin, in fact. The T-38 and the other F-5s
weren't nearly so difficult to recover, but they weren't really easy,
either. The gouge about "easy to spin, easy to recover; hard to spin,
hard to recover" has a certain amount of truth to it.

We, Dryden, were spinning (intentionally) a 3/8ths model of the F-15
when that F-5 got into trouble. Ken had given a briefing on spins,
including the vulnerability of long pointy noses, to a group that
included the AFFTC commander about two days before the F-5 spin. The
commander called our director and asked if anyone else had any
predictions he should know about.

Did you ever run into the inverted pitch hang up on the T-38? It's
well-known in the Flying Qualities community but I haven't heard that
many pilots talk about it. I think the F-5s had it, too.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Bill Shatzer July 20th 04 05:26 AM

"ian maclure" ) writes:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:34:06 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:


[snip]


Elected by the Congress, like all Presidents in a joint session that
most Americans regard as a formality if they know about it at all.


Not quite.
The size of the electoral college is approximately the same
as Congress ( both houses ).
Congress only gets a direct vote if the Electoral College is
a dead heat.


'Tis the House of Representives, not congress as a whole, which can
select a president. And that duty falls on the HoR when no one
receives a majority of the votes in the electoral college. A dead
heat is not required.

The HoR selected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1825 even
though Jackson received more electoral votes - Henry Clay finished
3rd but secured enough electoral votes to deny either Jackson or
Adams a majority.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Fred the Red Shirt July 20th 04 05:34 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On 19 Jul 2004 00:04:17 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:



No. You created teh strawman yourself with your implication that he
was speaking literally. Everyone, including yourself, knows that he
was not speaking literally.


One fervently hopes that testimony given under oath to the US Senate
is always literal. Speaking figuratively about issues, particularly
issues as important as allegations of war crimes should NEVER be done
figuratively. I take Kerry's testimony under oath as literal and I
take his statement on Face the Nation regarding his own commission of
war crimes as truth. Why would I doubt his veracity?


I never said he was speaking figuratively, that is your straw man
again.

I do not believe that you take all his statements as literal. No one
does.

Also, just to disabuse you of the concept in advance, I never said
that NONE of his remarks were literal either. I think it is obvious
to both of us and especially to the Senators in attendance, when he
was speaking generally and when he was speaking of specifics.

To claim that what he said was always one way or the other is
simply dishonest.



Abu Ghraib was reprehensible. It was clearly a failure of leadership
on site.


It was a failure of leadership from the top down. When the Secretary
of Defense re[peatedly and boldly decalres that the United States
will not honor the Geneva Conventions, when he publically scoffs
at accusations of abuse, he sends a clear message on down the line.


Once again we see the strawman. While the principle of responsibility
flowing from the top down is correct, the implication that the
President is responsible for every act of the the entire military
establishment down to the lowest enlisted individual in the field is
impossible to support.


Your straw man again.

In the absence of clear written directives to
act in the manner of the Abu Ghraib guards, one must assume that the
problem was localized.


Again, when the secretary of Defense publicly states that the United
States will not observe the Geneva Conventions, and when he publicly
scoffs at accusations of wrongdoing he sends a clear message on
down the line. And one must assume that message encourages the sort
of abuses as ocurred at Abu Graib.

What of the doctrine of command responsibility? What should we
conclude about the resonsibilites of the officer who received the
ICRC complaints? What about the officers above them?

There has been publication of the
legal opinion statement that suggested a level of detachment from
Geneva Convention rules, but the whole story is that the opinion did
NOT result in an acceptance of that policy. a Convention rules,
but the whole story is that the opinion did
NOT result in an acceptance of that policy.


I don't know what you're talking about here but it looks like your
strawman again.


Consider the following letter written On 4 Aug 1863, From William
Tecumseh Sherman wrote, to John Rawlins, which read in part:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism. I have endeavored to repress this
class of crime, but you know how difficult it is to fix
the guilt among the great mass of all army. In this case I
caught the man in the act. He is acquitted because his
superior officer ordered it. The superior officer is acquitted
because, I suppose, he had not set the fire with his own hands
and thus you and I and every commander must go through the war
justly chargeable with crimes at which we blush.

Sherman said "war is hell." Lee, however, said "it is good that war is
so terrible, lest we come to love it too much." Aristotle said that
"war ennobles man." Putting service above self and recognizing that
there are some principles that are worth fighting and dying for is
basic.


I agree with that but disagree that is is apropos this discussion.


Well, duh! If you introduced the Sherman letter, why should the topic
of war and the relationship of warriors be inappropriate. It isn't my
dog in this hunt, it's yours.


War and warriors are topics that broad beyond the bounds of the
current
discussion. You ran off on a tangent. I'll not follow your stray
dog.



Now, after looking up to see what sorts of things Kerry REALLY said,
and the context in which he said them, would you not consider that
context to be much the same as General Sherman's remarks?

No, I would not. Sherman spoke of an incident and a failure of an
officer to perform.


No. I do have an advantage in that I already knew that Sherman wrote
the letter as part of the correspondence he sent with three officers
(not one) he sent back for court martial for (I think) three seperate
crimes. However I also redirect your attention to the first sentence:

"The amount of burning, stealing, and plundering done by
our army makes me ashamed of it. I would quit the service
if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the
worst sort of vandalism.


So, Sherman had sent the officers back for court-martial, in the same
manner that the Abu Ghraib perps have been brought under
investigation.


I do not recall anyone in the present administartion saying or writing
that they felt any responsibility whatsover for the crimes at Abu
Ghraib.
So no, not at all in the same manner.

Now, back to the discussion at hand, do you not see any parrallels
between what Sherman wrote about the collective guilt of himself,
Rawlins and every commander in the Union Army and what Kerry said
about all American soldiers in Vietnam?

Does that mean that Lincoln condoned war crimes?


Did Lincoln publicly declare that the Union should not abide by the
laws of war? (It wouldn't surprise me, he gave short shrift to
teh habeas protections in the Constitution.)


Sherman was writing about what was happening through out his army,
not an isolated incident. Kerry did what Sherman said he wished
to do. Kerry quit and then renounced the drift into vandalism that
was overtaking the military in Vietnam.


The big difference is that Kerry quit (good choice of words) and then
accused the ENTIRE US military establishment from the top down and
including every warrior in the field of advocating and executing a
policy of war crimes.


Sherman limited his accusation to ALL commanders. I suppose that is
a big difference. But do you see NO similarity?


There were other differences of course. Sherman was fighting for
the survival of the nation, and he was fighting and winning a war
that clearly could be won, and was being won, by military means.

Kerry not only occupied a lower station in the military, but he
also saw that the survival of the US was not at stake and that
the war in Vietnam could not be won by military means. The US
had prevailed almost to the greatest extent possible in every
military endeavor in Vietnam and still the end of the war was
no where in sight.


So, Kerry could occupy a "lower station in the military" but he could
view the global strategic picture and determine that the war could not
be won? How very prescient of him.


Do you not claim to have a view of the global strategic picture in
Vietnam and also in the world today? How prescient are you?



You state correctly that the US prevailed in every military endeavor
(the great Tet victory of the NVA for example was a huge military
defeat for them). And, the end of the war was in sight within two
weeks at any time that the likes of Kerry could be overcome and the
resolve to gain the victory could be mustered by the politicians.


How?

Witness the rapid end to hostilities, the signing of the treaty and
the release of the POWs in less than 90 days following December '72.


Yet the communists did not quit. Do you think that without political
pressure in the US we would have agreed to pull our troops out while
the NVA was still fighting?


Kerry spoke of a generic ignoring of the rules of
war, not only tolerated by leadership but condoned and even directed.
That was a lie.


I do not believe that it was a lie. Cite an example where an
allegattion of war crimes was promptly investigated without an
extensive, even illegal effort to cover-up or obstruct the
investigation.


Calley/Medina.


No. I asked for an example of a promt investigation without an
extensive, even illegal coverup or effort at obstruction.

Or, how about the Turkestan incident since this is an
aviation group?


OK, tell us about it.



My real issue with Kerry is his desire to have it both ways. He sought
public approval for protesting the war vigorously. That was well
within his right to do so. Now, he seeks approval for being a great
warrior. Those are mutually exclusive positions.


No they are not mutually exclusive positions. Moreover they represent
the truth of his experience. Impetuous, even egotistical (and what
politician is not?) he first believed the bull**** and lies about
the glory of war and the righteousness of the cause, and perhaps
there was at one time some truth to that. But once he saw with his
own eyes the reality of Vietnam, and had at his disposal knowledge
gained form his fellow soliders he learned differently, came home,
and tried to fix the problem he had contributed to befor.


You state elsewhere that you turned 18 in 1973. So, you didn't see
with your own eyes the "reality" that Kerry saw.


At 18 I met a man, his nickname ironically was 'Saint'. Saw him
a few times but then I went away to college. Saint said
that when he was in Vietnam he killed 56 people. Some of those
were civilians and some of those, women and children.

I do not doubt what you say about your experience. I do not doubt
what Saint said either. Why should I?

I was there in '66
and I was there again in '72-'73.


How much time did you spend on the ground in combat zones? How much
contact did you have with EPWs? How much contact did you have with
villagers in-country?

I continue to associate with
literally hundreds of warriors from the period--USAF/USA/USN/USMC. Not
one of them agrees with Kerry.


You asked each and every one of them this? I don't believe that you
did. Or is it wrong for me to assume that you must have literally
polled each and every one?

His view of the total corruption of the
military is his alone. Kerry's "fellow soldiers" from the Winter
Soldier testimony--the 150 accusers of war crimes--have been largely
discredited. Many have been found to be outright liars, some did not
serve at all!


I'd like ot see your evidence. Here you can find lists of the
'alleged' veterans, along with other participants:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Marine_roster.html#Robert%20S.%20Craig
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Air_Cav_roster.html#John%20Mallory
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/3d_Marine_roster.html#Allen%20Akers
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/POW_roster.html#Jon%20Floyd
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/Misc_roster.html#Moderators
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/3d_World_roster.html#Evan%20Haney
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/25th_Infantry_roster.html#Ron%20Podlaski
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/82d_Airborne.html#Charles%20Leffler
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/1st_Infantry_roster.html#Robert%20McConnachie
http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/Units/Americal_roster.html#William%20Bezanson


Are not all great warriors anti-war in their hearts?


Actually no. I'm fortunate enough to know many warriors. They are
patriots in their hearts and they take great pride in the profession
of arms.


But have they no objection to war?

--

FF

Bill Shatzer July 20th 04 05:43 AM

BUFDRVR ) writes:
How much longer would the POWs have had to wait for
repatriation?


Recent interviews with former NVN government and military officers and the
publication of certain NVN documents reveal the U.S. anti-war effort actually
encouraged NVN to continue the conflict in hopes of getting the U.S. out of the
war entirely, including support for SVN.


There was never any possibility that they were going to -not- continue
the conflict - with or without the anti-war movement. They had, after all,
been fighting that conflict for more than two decades - since 1946 - and
were willing to invest indefinite lives and treasure.

There was simply no question that they were going to continue the conflict -
with or without a brief "pause" to let US troops withdraw "with honor".

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

Tom Cervo July 20th 04 06:15 AM

Bernie Kozar, former QB of the Cleveland Browns graduated from a
4-year college after two years. He did it because he was smart
enough to complete a four-year program in two years. I also knew
a girl in college who got her microbilogy degree in three years.


Not hard, if you don't party.

Billy Preston July 20th 04 06:21 AM

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote

But have they no objection to war?


As a veteran, I have no objection to wars that serve the oppressed,
but I object to wars of conquest.



Regnirps July 20th 04 06:55 AM

(WalterM140) wrote:

The NYT and all the other news orgs who investigayed over the last two years
concluded that Bush would have won recounts in the areas Gore wanted
recounted.
This issue is so sooo dead that anyone still carying on about it is just
trying to poison the well!


Can you source that?


I read the paper. I don't see why you shouldn't.

Congresswoman Brown indicated that 16,000 of her constituents were not allowed
to vote at all, mooting recounts.


And how did she determine this? Was this in a district Gore contested? Did he
contest the counts in the panhandle or the military votes?

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.


"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer


WalterM140 July 20th 04 08:19 AM

But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.

"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer


So you don't have a source.

Walt

WalterM140 July 20th 04 08:32 AM

That is the problem. The US Constitution gives the state legislature the
right to enact election law. The Florida Supreme Court CANNOT use the state
constitution to change those codes. See the article above.


Very interesting. Thanks.

Saw Howard Fineman of Newsweek on 'Hardball' last night. He said the Dems were
ouy-lawyered in 2000 and they had admitted as much. Kerry is working to be
better prepared this year.



Walt

R Haskin July 20th 04 11:23 AM


"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:04:34 GMT,


In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
blue-blue-gray gloss camo. That's still what is used by the 435th
doing the fighter lead-in portion of the SUPT syllabus.


IFF AT-38Cs are actually now painted in the 2-tone light gray paint scheme
used by the F-16.

Back circa '99 the decision was made by AETC to repaint both SUPT and IFF
T-38s a strange 2-tone gray color which we called the "cow" or "Gateway"
paint job. The idea was that all T-38s would be T-38Cs, and theoretically
interchangeable between missions and units.

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.co...8C_Horn/02.jpg

The IFF guys were able to convince AETC to allow a new, different paint
scheme on IFF jets to reflect their "fighter" status, and thus this new
paintjob was born. They started getting this F-16 style paintjob in 2003
and the fleet is getting repainted as they go through depot.

http://www.flybyaviation.com/T-38C%2...003%20copy.jpg




Jeff Crowell July 20th 04 01:18 PM

Mary Shafer wrote:
The F-5 model with the long pointy nose (the F, maybe) spun more
easily and was extremely hard to recover. It took jettisoning the
canopy to break the spin, in fact. The T-38 and the other F-5s
weren't nearly so difficult to recover, but they weren't really easy,
either. The gouge about "easy to spin, easy to recover; hard to spin,
hard to recover" has a certain amount of truth to it.


The E's and F's we had at Top Gun in '81 had the shark nose mod
and leading edge extension. That they were spinnable was proven
(along with difficulty of recovery) when the skipper (MiG killer
Roy Cash) had to return one to the taxpayers.

We all talked about jettisoning the canopy and, in the case of the
2-seaters F's, directing the backseater to eject, in attempts to get
some nosedown pitch (the backseaters used to point out that
having the frontseater leave, instead, was more likely to work--
particularly since HE was the hamburger who had gotten you into
that fix anyway--given the realtive positions of the seats). Nobody
ever had to test the backseater idea, and I am skeptical about the
canopy idea. If you've got no airflow anyway, what good to throw
away the window? Then again, what do you have to lose?



Jeff



George Z. Bush July 20th 04 02:12 PM


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?


Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator sign.


Walt


What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

George Z.



Typhoon502 July 20th 04 03:15 PM

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...
Sam Byrams wrote:

[Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.


I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky" landing,
but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.


Yeah, you just had to push the "autoland" button, right? ;)

SteveM8597 July 20th 04 03:18 PM

Good work. Now stay in there and fight to put a SR in front of that VP. I
know
you can do it.


Arthur Kramer


Sorry but I am a retired, retired triple dipper 35 years with the AF but too
young for social security. So I think I will just continue to watch the kids
throw sand on one another in this here sandbox, and sell stuff on Ebay.

Ed Rasimus July 20th 04 03:24 PM

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.


I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)


That doesn't track. Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.

with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
so think of what it does for a real pilot.


Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
window.

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.


The glass mod does include a HUD.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

ArtKramr July 20th 04 03:30 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (SteveM8597)
Date: 7/20/2004 7:18 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Good work. Now stay in there and fight to put a SR in front of that VP. I
know
you can do it.


Arthur Kramer


Sorry but I am a retired, retired triple dipper 35 years with the AF but too
young for social security. So I think I will just continue to watch the kids
throw sand on one another in this here sandbox, and sell stuff on Ebay.


Yup. Ebay is fun.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Ed Rasimus July 20th 04 03:31 PM

On 20 Jul 2004 02:31:02 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote;

In '83 we got the entire AT-38 fleet painted in a standard
blue-blue-gray gloss camo.


Affectionately known as "Smurf Jets".

Spins in a T-38 are
unrecoverable as well, but also virtually unattainable.


Not sure if they did this while you were at UPT Ed, but early on in the T-38
syllabus they take you out and demo how resistant the T-38 is to spin. The
instructor flys because if they let a student try, you know they'de get it into
a spin ;)


Trust me, they wouldn't be able to spin the T-38. In Lead-in we
regularly put the stick in every corner of the cockpit and abused the
airplane in ways that used to dazzle the FAIPs we had come through the
program with 1500-2000 hours already in the jet. No spins.

The procedure which MIGHT get a spin was full aft stick at max rate.
But, it had to be done after a nose down unload excursion at nearly
max rate as well. So, pump the nose down hard then quickly reverse and
bang the pole back into your lap. Most folks can't begin to get the
stick rate required and unless the bird is rigged poorly, even then
won't get a departure.

It used to be a common Aggressor trick with the Talon to "nose
pump"--get trapped in lag near to a gun shot, so pump the stick fore
and aft trying to get an couple of extra degrees of lead for a film
shot. Even then, no spins.

We taught rudder rolls, over/under, loaded/unloaded, with or without
full aileron deflection. No spins. We taught gun defense jinking as:
1.) check airspeed to be sure you're below corner velocity, 2.) now
plant the stick in random corners of the cockpit at full speed. 3.)
lather, rinse, repeat. No spins.

It just won't spin. Run it straight up to zero airspeed, put in full
rudder and max aileron--no spins. It simply swaps ends.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

WalterM140 July 20th 04 05:11 PM

Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?


Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator

sign.


Walt


What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

George Z.


Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.

Walt

Jack July 20th 04 05:14 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

The procedure which MIGHT get a spin was full aft stick at max rate.
But, it had to be done after a nose down unload excursion at nearly
max rate as well. So, pump the nose down hard then quickly reverse and
bang the pole back into your lap.


This had to be done in an inverted position, as I remember it, in order
to get that last bit of pitch excursion -- from full nose up (inverted)
to max rate nose down in order to get the Talon to spin.

I never wanted to walk home, so I wouldn't know from personal experience.


Jack

Howard Austin July 20th 04 06:20 PM

(long Snip)

We taught rudder rolls, over/under, loaded/unloaded, with or without
full aileron deflection. No spins. We taught gun defense jinking as:
1.) check airspeed to be sure you're below corner velocity, 2.) now
plant the stick in random corners of the cockpit at full speed. 3.)
lather, rinse, repeat. No spins.

It just won't spin. Run it straight up to zero airspeed, put in full
rudder and max aileron--no spins. It simply swaps ends.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8



The T-38 dash one used to read "If the aircraft is allowed to enter a
stabilized spin loss of the aircraft and crew is probable."

If I remember correctly it took the Northrup test pilots several weeks
to learn how to make it spin. Fortunately their aircraft were equiped
with recovery chutes.

Howard Austin

--
--
Howard Austin
none

Jarg July 20th 04 07:06 PM

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
But I'd like you to provide a quote that the NYT said what you suggest.


"The NYT said what I suggest."

-- Charlie Springer


So you don't have a source.

Walt


I can't believe you missed the multiple reports by every legitimate media
source confirming that Bush won legitimately, but here is the requested link
anyway:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/

Jarg




George Z. Bush July 20th 04 07:26 PM


"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
Would this be the Senate that contained something like 45-50
Democrats? None of whome could be inveigled into signing on?

Yeah, that's weird, isn't it? Tom Dashchle (sp) directed that no senator

sign.


Walt


What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.

George Z.


Sorry. the subject was the certification of Florida electors in 2000.

Walt


So, the comment about Daschle would have referred to something like what Denny
Hastert did with the discharge petition for the vote on concurrent receipt which
got only ONE Republican vote from the entire House? Or doesn't one size fit all
when it comes to politics.....nasty when the Dems do it in the Senate, but OK
when the Repubs do it in the House? Sounds like a case of the whines to me.

George Z.



John S. Shinal July 20th 04 08:55 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

As for the paint job, if his is the one that's been seen on several TV
commercials, it's done in gloss while the Aggressor T-38s were all
flat.


This was on a cover for Plane & Pilot or something similar
around 1990. You are right it was gloss, I thought it was
blue/gray/white but it may have been just blue& white. Medium sized
N-number on the side. It may well have been sold & repainted since
then. I do recall that Thornton was the first private T-38, though.


The Nellis T-38 Aggressors came in all colors including the
basic white as well as blues, grays, browns and "lizard."


I have an older book about Red Flag that shows a bunch of
different Agressor color schemes - some are Rooskie knockoffs, and
some appear to be improvised. Most look pretty effective.

We got them all at Holloman while I was there. Over the NM desert, the
most effective was the brown.


I heard the worst was painted like a bruised banana for a
while - it was supposed to be a modified Snake scheme that went awry.
Eventually they repainted it so people wouldn't tally it from so far
away.



Ron July 20th 04 09:26 PM

Guess the "Shamu" paint job will be a thing of the past..

Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India


Ron July 20th 04 09:30 PM

Was he flying "company"
SR-71?


I didnt think there was such a thing, other than the A-11, which were well
before F-18.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India


Billy Preston July 20th 04 10:27 PM

"George Z. Bush" wrote

What are we talking about? It'd be nice if enough of the original topic had
been retained so that we wouldn't have to ask.


The thread died a month ago bud. Gotta know when it's over, and not just
keep blabbing like you do.



Fred the Red Shirt July 20th 04 10:28 PM

First of all I apologise for the poor quality of the earlier article.
I was tired and let it go without proofreading. You all have been
kind in avoiding criticism.

"ian maclure" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

[snip]

Over in sci.mil a while ago a fellow who said he was a vegteran of
the Swedish army (don;t know if he was as they say, 'on the net
no one knows you're a dog and that doesn;t jsut apply to
alt.personals)
who said in his basic training he was taught to not fire their
heavy machine gun (equivalent to .50 cal) ar individual personell.


Do they use the .50M2? I don't think they do or didn't in
years past. Some of their vehicle mount as 20mm cannon
though.


I haven't been able to find the discussion but recall that he was
refering to their 'heavy' machine gun which if they had one I
would guess to have been 12.7 mm or equivalent. Like most Swedes,
he seemed to have a better grasp of English than most Americans
but might have faltered on some of the technical lingo.


He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,


Incorrect.


Ambiguous.

Historically, (and on-topic for re.aviation.military) some .50
caliber ammunition has been incinidiery or explosive. It is
probably a violation of the GCs the Hague, or other treaties
to use these directly against persons.

Possibly there were objections voiced by other nations about the
use of .50 caliber machine guns in Vietnam predicated on the
presumption that explosive or incindiery (or tracer) rounds
were the norm.

I agree that the statement by Kerry appears on its face to be wrong,
absent elaboration.

My point is that I've heard other folks say that using a .50 cal
machine gun against people is a war crime, though I didn't agree
with them.

Digressing, were there not objections to the effect that the US
used napalm in Vietnam in a manner that violated the GCs?

--

FF

Brett July 20th 04 10:33 PM

"Ed Rasimus" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.


I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)


That doesn't track.


Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
inventory.

Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.

with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
so think of what it does for a real pilot.


Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
window.

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.


The glass mod does include a HUD.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8




Ed Rasimus July 20th 04 10:55 PM

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:33:39 -0400, "Brett"
wrote:

"Ed Rasimus" wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.

I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)


That doesn't track.


Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
inventory.

All the more reason to say it wasn't "B" models.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Fred the Red Shirt July 20th 04 11:17 PM

"ian maclure" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 22:30:57 -0700, Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

....

Do they use the .50M2? I don't think they do or didn't in
years past. Some of their vehicle mount as 20mm cannon
though.

He was taught that to do so was a violation of the Geneva Conventions,


Incorrect.


Oh, here's someone else you can argue with:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Cuy36B.1DJ%40ranger.daytonoh.ncr.com&o utput=gplain

Though his comment may be based on something more recent that the 1949
GCs.

--

FF

BUFDRVR July 21st 04 12:58 AM

Mary wrote:

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD?


Hmm, good question, I know the T-38Cs headed for IFF do, but I'm not sure about
the SUPT T-38s?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR July 21st 04 01:09 AM

Bill Shatzer wrote:

There was never any possibility that they were going to -not- continue
the conflict - with or without the anti-war movement.


Of course, perhaps instead of "continue the war", I should have typed "the U.S.
anti-war effort actually encouraged NVN to resist peace inititives".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

BUFDRVR July 21st 04 01:13 AM

Typhoon502 wrote:

I found the T-38 easier to fly than the Tweet. It was a bit "tricky"

landing,
but it was also easy to learn how to land it well.


Yeah, you just had to push the "autoland" button, right? ;)


Yep, and tell the instuctor; "no sir, I swear I landed it by myself..."


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
AviationBanter.com