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)

Regnirps July 14th 04 04:55 AM

(Bill Shatzer) wrote:

Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.


1935 sounds about right for the retroactive award. Prior to
that, he'd only be out of uniform if he failed to wear the
wound stripe.


Fascinating. Thanks Bill, that solves a little family mystery. My grandfather
didn't know why it arrived when it did. He thought they "just finally got
around to it". That explains perhaps why there are no devices or anything for
wounds during the Mexican campain, though there is a letter from Pershing
somehere around here. "Bah" was an Lt. in the NGW (National Guard, Washington)
at the time. When The Great War for Civilization came along, he was able to
appeal to Pershing to keep his commision when he found himself a private in an
artillery outfit but had lead infantry for ten years.

-- Charlie Springer

Regnirps July 14th 04 05:17 AM

(Bill Shatzer) wrote:

Not at all. The medal was re-created in 1932 in honor of the 200th
anniversary of Washington's birth. Sometime there after, it was
decided to retroactively award the medal to all personnel who had
been awarded "wound stripes" in WW1.


I just checked, it came in 1932. I can't find any pictures of a wound stripe.
Do you know where I can see one? There may be some among all the stuff. He also
mixed in a couple of items from the Spanish American War but we don't know
whose they are.

-- Charlie Springer


Cub Driver July 14th 04 10:45 AM


Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College
votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting.


I recall agonizing about this more than fifty years ago (when all
states were winner-take-all). It was a popular condundrum among
political science majors, along with whether or not the populace had a
right to repeal the constitution.

But not until 2000 did anyone in public life decide that it was a Bad
Thing. And then nobody attempted to do anything about it!

Actually, it serves a very good purpose: it transforms close elections
into clear mandates. If you look at returns over the past century, a
"landslide" in American terms is 60 percent of the vote, but even 55
or 52 percent usually is transformed into an overwhelming margin in
the electoral college.

2000 was the exception: Bush 271, Gore 266. (That's closer than it
looks. New Hampshire with 4 votes would have tipped the election to
Gore, and if I recall correctly Bush carried New Hampshire by 7,000
votes. So if a mere 3,501 Yankees had changed their minds, Gore would
have won, 270 to 267.)

I doubt very much that this election will be as close. History doesn't
often repeat itself. The popular vote may be a squeaker (that often
happens), but the rule is that the electoral college will turn it into
a mandate.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum
www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

Ed Rasimus July 14th 04 03:46 PM

On 13 Jul 2004 17:15:57 -0700, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
...
That while Japan did attack us, the Germans did
no such thing and we were dragged into the conflict for no good
reason.


In WWII Germany declared war on the US befor the US reciprocated.
Germany attacked US shipping befor we fired a shot at them.

Many other argumetns can be made but please, let's make them
within the context of historical reality.


This is called "allegory"--I honestly don't believe that Art had a
father in the Spanish-American War who said any such thing regarding
the correctness of our entry into WW II. I was making a literary
comparision between the nay-sayers of 2004 and the similarity in the
past.


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

Ed Rasimus July 14th 04 04:04 PM

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?


Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.


I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.


You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun. I've got a
great pun built into "Phantom Flights" but you'll have to wait until
February to see who finds it first. I've been surprised that my editor
didn't figure it out, but they are much too literal.


My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal
RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you
could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped
windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could
never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually
able to get some stick time in the RG;-)


Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.



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

Paul Sengupta July 14th 04 04:06 PM

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...
A British newscaster on BBC did it much simpler in trying to explain the
differences in our political parties:

The Republicans are very much like our...Conservatives.
The Democrats are very much like our...Conservatives.


Funny thing is, the Conservative party in the UK are a bit
out in the cold now that Labour (or "New Labour") have
adopted all their policies...

Paul



Steve Mellenthin July 14th 04 04:16 PM

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

Arthur Kramer


I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor. A shootdown went from a moderate statiistical
probability to a random event. In our first in-theater we were told repeatedly
that if we were going to get shot down, it most likely be on the the first 15
missions. I am reminded of guys like Paul Tibbets and Bob Montgomery who flew
multiple tours in multiple airplanes in WWII. I wou ld have to call the
committment.

Jack July 14th 04 04:59 PM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.


Yes it did, with an option for control wheels on both sides. Later
models have the more common dual control setup seen in Piper, Cessna, et al.

Apparently it hasn't been found to be a problem as Found Aircraft of
Canada http://www.foundair.com/Features also has an aircraft recently
certified in Canada and the USA with a similar throw-over control setup,
though I'm sure that far less training is done in Bonanzas and Bush
Hawks than in Cessnas and Pipers, collectively.


Jack

ArtKramr July 14th 04 05:34 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/14/2004 8:16 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

Arthur Kramer


I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor. A shootdown went from a moderate
statiistical
probability to a random event. In our first in-theater we were told
repeatedly
that if we were going to get shot down, it most likely be on the the first 15
missions. I am reminded of guys like Paul Tibbets and Bob Montgomery who
flew
multiple tours in multiple airplanes in WWII. I wou ld have to call the
committment.


Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


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


Steve Mellenthin July 14th 04 06:13 PM

Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


Arthur Kramer


Maybe for WWII. Are you saying that it took no commitment to fly over that
"statistical happenstance that controlled the skies over Germany"?.

You've totally lost me here. Was I said was that Kerry didn't seem
particularly committed to his crew and his oath to serve since he took an
"early out" from Vietnam. Possibly Bush wasn't as committed to serve as some
in that era though I am not sure his actions prove it one way or another, given
that there were others in similar circumstances in the same role as his who
didn't serve in Vietnam either.

Are you saying Kerry told his "early out" because his concern over being
wounded overrode his sense of duty and committment?

Not that it really matters because what should matter is who would best lead
the country not so much as 35 year old history. I am sorry that I just see a
pattern with Kerry that tells me that he is more concerned for himself and his
own interests than the country's. You would probably argue the same thing
about Bush. That is what the election is all about, or should be, not who
stole the election. Gire lost according to the laws of the land and no amount
of grousing is going to change that.

Steve

ArtKramr July 14th 04 06:22 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/14/2004 10:13 AM Pacific


Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


Arthur Kramer


Maybe for WWII. Are you saying that it took no commitment to fly over that
"statistical happenstance that controlled the skies over Germany"?.


Not at all. If you were highly commited (eager beaver) you had no better
chance of survival than someone who was less eager. The flak didn't care who it
killed. It was an equal opportunity executioner.


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


Dude July 14th 04 06:31 PM

If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent us
in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders?


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Foster" wrote in message
...
Or, think of it this way. Bush is an incompetent moron; Kerry isn't.
Bush's incompetence and ego got us into a war we shouldn't be in; Kerry
didn't.


Actually, Kerry has not made any such claims and for good reason: he has
gone on record too many times saying that Bush fooled him on various

issues.
Kerry would probably just as soon his supporters did not make such a big
argument that Bush is stupid; it makes Kerry look even dumber than Bush.

It
makes his supporters look even dumber than that, but of course they are

too
stupid to realize it. :-)





Steve Mellenthin July 14th 04 06:59 PM

Not at all. If you were highly commited (eager beaver) you had no better
chance of survival than someone who was less eager. The flak didn't care who
it
killed. It was an equal opportunity executioner.


Arthur Kramer


I don't relate being an eager beaver to being committed. That's not
committment, its stupidity ina combat environment..

ArtKramr July 14th 04 08:11 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/14/2004 10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Not at all. If you were highly commited (eager beaver) you had no better
chance of survival than someone who was less eager. The flak didn't care who
it
killed. It was an equal opportunity executioner.


Arthur Kramer


I don't relate being an eager beaver to being committed. That's not
committment, its stupidity ina combat environment..



Well I was an eager beaver totally commited to the job to be done. So I guess I
was stupid.



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


Jack July 14th 04 08:36 PM

ArtKramr wrote:

Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


Given the difference in operating flotillas of bombers, unable to
deviate from their chosen path or altitude in order to avoid flak, and
operating smaller flights of more maneuverable jets with very different
weapons delivery parameters and limitations, Art's point is well made.

The fighters seem to have had similar stats in other wars, in that those
pilots who lived through the first dozen or so sorties tended to have
much better survival rates thereafter. For bomber pilots it's much more
a roll of the dice on any given mission, with survival rates changing
only slightly as the number of missions survived increases.

Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
a statistically significant comparison?



Jack

Sam Byrams July 14th 04 09:01 PM

In '68 (not '72) public sentiment was divided.

Probably: by '72 it wasn't. You had a few hardasses and Birchers and
whatnot and everyone else was for getting out. I grew up in a
middle-sized town and one that was overwhelmingly 'AuH2064':yet even
the rednecks had serious questions by '72. Men in uniform-and even
then, although it was understood they were noncombatants, the
occasional female-were certainly not disrespectfully treated, but it
was expressed that we hoped the war would be over shortly -either way.


Bush got his training
slot when production for UPT was as high as it had been historically
since WW II. UPT was expanding from eight to eleven bases and capacity
at each site was increased. We were up to more than 5000 per year
input to UPT from all sources. (I was director of ATC Student Officer
Rated Assignments from 1970 to April 1972 and managing the program.)





My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is
not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state.


Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College

votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting.

It would seem to this political scientist (BS, MPS, MSIR) that the

closeness of the last election in so many states would indicate that
the value of every citizen's vote is critically important.

Ours wasn't close. And this one will unquestionably be farther
apart-Kerry will do worse than Gore.


They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote
Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things
up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long
run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict.


If you can't differentiate between the basic ideological positions of

the two parties, you shouldn't vote. Good choice.


I am aware of what their platforms say. I concede some may consider
them fundamentally different. I consider them basically similar in
that they both seek to encode their politicoreligious notions in the
law. In one case it's a recognized religion, the other is an implicit
one. In practice, they differ only by amount, not by real principle.


Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even

a
MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch
of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that

lesser
level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to
happen.

He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter.


The initial post was about flying "fighters". Yes, Bonanzas are
notorious for applying the principles of Darwin to doctors.

Actually some doctors are pretty good, even excellent, aviators.
Several aerobatic champions have been doctors. Same with other
professions. It is possible to become an excellent stick and rudder
pilot through civilian training if you have the time, money, and
drive. About the only thing you won't be able to learn as a civilian
is weapons delivery.


The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s
era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet
program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where
Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead
six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper.


With all due respect to your uncle, we never won a war by hauling

more
trash than the enemy. Trash haulers help, but only because they
provide the warriors at the pointy end of the spear with the bombs,
beans and bullets to kill the enemy.

He was no fighter pilot, but he was a good guy and he's missed. He'd
planned to get involved in the EAA Young Eagles program and had signed
up for a soaring rating when he dropped dead-not a heart attack per se
but an electrochemical heart problem. The ambulance got there five
minutes too late but the doctors said he might have been
brain-impaired anyway, so "maybe it was for the best."


Haven't seen Mason't book, but if he thinks the "Tiger" attitude got

replaced by something less, he's sadly mistaken. Warriors are
professionals, but they'd better have a healthy dose of attitude.


Mason's book-wriitten for young adults (young male adults-it was
fifteen years before females wore USAF wings)-portrays the USAF air
cadet programs as basically unalloyed aggressiveness designed to crank
out winning fighter jocks-at the expense of a certain casualty rate,
and notwithstanding that most grads went to tankers, transports,
bombers, helos, or ocasionally directly to IP school. As I remember
the big change_according to Mason_ was that flight training "later on"
took in people who were already officers, not needing the boot camp
mentality, and was vastly less tolerant of accidents. Also the T-38
Talon was a big challenge for people whose total experience consisted
of under 200 hours in the T-37.

This agrees with accounts of flight training by many other writers,
including Richard Bach and several of the early astronauts, who went
through 50s era USAF flight training.

Bottom line as far as politics- I personally don't like Bush, right
or wrong, and I can't support a Kennedy, which Kerry as well may be,
nor would I vote for someone that liberal even if he is an active
pilot. (In general I tend to prefer Reps to Dems, provided they are
not so fundamentalist they can't separate church from state.) I don't
agreee with everything John McCain says but I'd work for his election
over Kerry. Voting third party expresses my dissatisfaction, and if it
clearly throws the election either way so much the better.

Ed Rasimus July 14th 04 09:41 PM

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 14:36:09 -0500, Jack
wrote:

ArtKramr wrote:

Flak is not related to commitment. It is statistical happenstance that
controlled the skies over Germany.


Given the difference in operating flotillas of bombers, unable to
deviate from their chosen path or altitude in order to avoid flak, and
operating smaller flights of more maneuverable jets with very different
weapons delivery parameters and limitations, Art's point is well made.

The fighters seem to have had similar stats in other wars, in that those
pilots who lived through the first dozen or so sorties tended to have
much better survival rates thereafter. For bomber pilots it's much more
a roll of the dice on any given mission, with survival rates changing
only slightly as the number of missions survived increases.

Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
a statistically significant comparison?


AAA fire comes in a lot of flavors and flak was not exclusively a WW
II Germany phenomenon. Heavy gun flak at altitude is a scary thing,
and as you mention, the ability to maneuver helps to defend against
it.

But, there's flak and there's flak. Some is aimed fire, some is
barrage. Some is optical and some is radar guided. Anti-aircraft fire
ranges from small .30 and .50 caliber automatic weapons up through
huge guns at 100 or 130MM.

Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.
Barrage flak simply fills a block of airspace and the best option is
to simply expedite your passage through the area.

Modern defense systems integrate multiple weapons, as Art can attest.
Guns and enemy aircraft are better than either one alone. Add some
SAM's in radar or IR flavors and you compound the issue further.

As Steve mentioned, the stats in SEA were that your first ten or
fifteen missions were your most vulnerable. It also turned out that
for a mission count tour, the last five or ten were equally dangerous.
The beginners were likely to make mistakes while the end-of-tour guys
often began to feel invulnerable and sought to win the war
single-handedly.

BUFFs only went into the heavily defended areas of North Vietnam
during Linebacker II. During the eleven days of Christmas they lost
fifteen (and a couple of others crashed on recovery outside of the
target area.) According to Michel in "Eleven Days of Christmas", the
B-52s flew 795 sorties of which 372 went to Hanoi. The loss rate was
1.89 %. All 15 of the losses were within a 13 mile radius of Hanoi and
the loss rate there was 4.3%


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

Typhoon502 July 14th 04 09:43 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From:
(Fred the Red Shirt)

The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?

Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you

think
the job is you have been assigned to do


It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I think this is patently, demonstrably false. The more missions you
fly, the more experience and maturity in the role you gain. And thus,
the more likely you are to avoid making the mistake or error that can
compromise your survival. That's why veteran fighter pilots would
regularly make mince out of rookies sent out to take them on. That's
why you take your experienced soldier, sailors, Marines, and pilots
and put them into training roles to impart some of that knowledge into
the empty heads of their trainees, so that maybe the learning curve
for the new ranks won't be as steep.

And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.

Steve Mellenthin July 14th 04 09:43 PM

The fighters seem to have had similar stats in other wars, in that those
pilots who lived through the first dozen or so sorties tended to have
much better survival rates thereafter. For bomber pilots it's much more
a roll of the dice on any given mission, with survival rates changing
only slightly as the number of missions survived increases.

Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
a statistically significant comparison?



Proabably starting a new thread here.

The BUFFs in SEA in Linebacker II had some moderate losses at the startof the
campaign but I believe it is pretty well accepted that the tactics were wrong
and not all planes had the right equipment. Once that was changed the losses
dropped off.

Steve Mellenthin July 14th 04 09:45 PM

Well I was an eager beaver totally commited to the job to be done. So I guess
I
was stupid.



Arthur Krame


You made it. You must have been a smart committed eager beaver rather than a
dumb one. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Fred the Red Shirt July 14th 04 09:47 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
NOT From:
(Fred the Red Shirt)
[As anything I wrote had already been snipped]

The more missions you fly, the more times you get wounded the slimmer the
chances of survival are. But you know that, don't you?



Arthur Kramer

Guess it is all a matter of how committed you are and how important you

think
the job is you have been assigned to do


It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I think whoever wrote that meant that the decision to stay on or take
advantage of an opportunity for transfer while still alive depended
on the degree of one's commitment. Not that the odds of survival
depended on the degree of one's commmitment.

As someone who never faced combat I'll not criticize the decision or
commitment of anyone who did.

--

FF

ArtKramr July 14th 04 11:58 PM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac


Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.


Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the way
in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:-)


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


Paul J. Adam July 14th 04 11:59 PM

In message , Typhoon502
writes
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
...
It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the
worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I think this is patently, demonstrably false. The more missions you
fly, the more experience and maturity in the role you gain. And thus,
the more likely you are to avoid making the mistake or error that can
compromise your survival.


To a point, but it depends on mission, role and threat.

That's why veteran fighter pilots would
regularly make mince out of rookies sent out to take them on.


True, but how does an "experienced bomber pilot" holding formation in
the box avoid barrage AAA? Can't change course or speed - you're in
*formation*. What else can you do except hold on and hope?

Tactical fighters (and ground combat troops, interestingly) have a well
documented survivability curve, rising rapidly in the early stages as
they learn to recognise and honour the threats (and according to some,
dropping towards the end of fixed-length tours - combat fatigue or
overconfidence? Don't know, but it's at least claimed)

But those are combatants with - literally - a lot more room for
manoeuvre. Flying formation bombing raids was rather more like
Napoleonic infantry forming square under artillery fi each roundshot
fired at the formation could kill or maim four or five men, and
individual skill made no difference at all to the enemy gunners' point
of aim and the flight of the shot.

Experience improved your chances of coming back after damage, fending
off fighter attack and avoiding loss by error (those weren't easy or
forgiving aircraft) but did nothing to reduce the odds of an AA shell
exploding within lethal distance of your aircraft.

That's
why you take your experienced soldier, sailors, Marines, and pilots
and put them into training roles to impart some of that knowledge into
the empty heads of their trainees, so that maybe the learning curve
for the new ranks won't be as steep.


Worth doing just about everywhere.

And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.


Also no argument.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Guy Alcala July 15th 04 01:02 AM

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.


I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.


You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun.


I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a
lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be
rolling in the aisles en masse.

I've got a
great pun built into "Phantom Flights" but you'll have to wait until
February to see who finds it first. I've been surprised that my editor


didn't figure it out, but they are much too literal.


I'll be looking for it.

My personal favorite for transportation and sightseeing was another club's Cardinal
RG -- you had a great view downwards with no struts or wheels in the way, AND you
could see traffic above/in the turn direction because of the highly sloped
windscreen/aft-mounted wing. Possibly my opinion may be biased - AFAIR I could
never pry his hands off the Beech's controls so I could fly it, while I was usually
able to get some stick time in the RG;-)


Didn't the Beech have the flip over control wheel with the column
coming out of the center of the panel? Always thought that had a lot
of potential for disaster midway through a control swap.


It's been so long I don't remember, although that does ring a vague bell. No doubt I'd
remember better if I'd ever been able to get him to turn over control ;-) We used to
come up the coast low over the ocean from Half Moon Bay to the City, pulling up to avoid
the sailboats we didn't want to go around, before passing over the Golden Gate Bridge.
A great flight when the fog wasn't a problem.

Guy


BUFDRVR July 15th 04 01:28 AM

Jack wrote:

Did Buff pilots fly enough sorties over well defended targets in SEA for
a statistically significant comparison?


The guys at Utapo did. Because they were much closer (than Guam) and the wing
much smaller, most Utapo crews flew everyday and by the second week the guys at
Utapo had collected a pretty descent group of "lessons learned".

As far as a statistical comparison, its dificult to make because of several
varying factors, not the least of which was the G models ECM suite which was
much less capable than the D model. Additionally, because of their higher loss
rates, after Night #5, the G models never went "downtown" again. In the end,
out of the 15 aircraft lost during LBII, 7 were from Utapo and 8 from Andersen
for an even split.


BUFDRVR

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

B2431 July 15th 04 01:50 AM

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/13/2004 5:10 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

Vice [sic] President Bush is the issue, and the only issue.


Why isn't Kerry the issue?


Kerry's military records are complete. Bush's are not.

Walt


Gee, walt, portions of my records are missing. Guess I shouldn't run for public
office according to your standards.

Y'know, many of us have asked you if you were so concerned with clinton's draft
dodging and you have refused to answer. Are you that hypocritical? Dean
admitted to providing false information to his draft board to avoid the draft.
Did you ever say anything about that?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431 July 15th 04 02:00 AM

From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/13/2004 5:07 AM Central Daylight Time
Message-id:

This documet shows conclusively that Bush performed no service for
16 months:

http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/doc10.gif


It does not show that he was AWOL.


No, you have to draw that inference yourself.

Walt


Walt, for someone who claims to have been in the military you seem peculiarly
ignorant of what a determination of AWOL is. AWOL means absent without official
leave. Since AWOL is a crime under the UCMJ there would have to be
documentation of it somewhere in his or JAG's records. If no one ever charged
Bush with being AWOL he wasn't.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

ArtKramr July 15th 04 02:34 AM

ubject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: "Paul J. Adam"
Date: 7/14/2004 3:59 PM


And it's definitely a matter of commitment. A committed soldier or
pilot learns more, trains harder, and works more to ensure the
survival of the unit, and therefore himself.


Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

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


Steve Mellenthin July 15th 04 03:05 AM

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

.
Arthur Kramer


Art,

Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you need
to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat was
more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.





ArtKramr July 15th 04 03:23 AM

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: ojunk (Steve Mellenthin)
Date: 7/14/2004 7:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

Flack doesn't care. It will kill anyone with equal ease. Flack is an equal
opportunity executioner and it is all a matter of happenstance and
statistical
probability when you are straight and level on the bomb run.

.
Arthur Kramer


Art,

Again I respect your accomplishments and experiences 60 years ago but you
need
to be speaking of them in the past tense. My dad flew B-17s so I understand
full well what you are saying. However, we stopped making bomb runs of which
you speak through barrage fire half a century ago. 35 years ago the threat
was
more with missiles and fighters. With a certain amount of skill and cunning,
the right equipment, and luck one could defeat them. The skill and cunning
part generally only comes with a certain amount of commitment and dedication.




I only speak from personal experience. in WW II.



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


Steven P. McNicoll July 15th 04 04:05 AM


"Bill Shatzer" wrote in message
...

Assumed but not proven. In any case irrelevant if the folks
-thought- they were in a battle.


Kerry's crew said there was no enemy fire, so the folks didn't think they
were in a battle.



You think those folks in the Bradley who got zapped by a blue
on blue Maverick didn't get PHs? There was no -real- battle,
they were just motoring along when the A-10 mistook them for
a T-72 or whatever. The A-10 driver -thought- it was a battle.


Irrelevant.



"Purported" experience. The things have to cover a minimum
distance before they arm themselves and that distance is
sufficient to place the shooter outside of the blast/shrapnel
radius.

I recall one story from the vietnam conflict where an army
surgeon got written up for removing an unexploded M-79 round
from an ARVN trooper. -He- got shot by friendly fire but the
round hadn't traveled far enough to arm itself.


Based on the best information, Kerry was not entitled to that award.



Ian MacLure July 15th 04 04:50 AM

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

[snip]

But those are combatants with - literally - a lot more room for
manoeuvre. Flying formation bombing raids was rather more like
Napoleonic infantry forming square under artillery fi each roundshot
fired at the formation could kill or maim four or five men, and
individual skill made no difference at all to the enemy gunners' point
of aim and the flight of the shot.


Interesting analogy. In the age of linear tactics, infantry in
line were less vulnerable to artillery than in the square but
cavalry could make hash of them. And vice versa.
Had, for instance, the French cavalry at Waterloo had horse artillery
with them they might have been able to make an impression on the
British Squares. Cambronne and the Old(?) Guard weren't so lucky.
Had the clash of the Guards proceeded with the French column coming
in behind cavalry they might have been able to overrun a British
Guards square instead of being shot to pieces.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source


Ron July 15th 04 04:58 AM

Kerry was and is a true decorated war hero. And it is driving the neocons nut
especially when we look at the war records of president Cheney and vice
president Bush..


Arthur Kramer


So was Dole and Bush 41. Did you vote for them?


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


Peter Stickney July 15th 04 05:40 AM

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.

I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.


You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun.


I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a
lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be
rolling in the aisles en masse.


Oh, I dunno. If a Debonair exercized a bit & slimmed down a bit, it
would probably serve as a Mentor.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

C J Campbell July 15th 04 06:38 AM


"Dude" wrote in message
...
If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent

us
in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders?


Exactly the point. That is why you won't see Kerry going around saying that
Bush is stupid and why he probably wishes his 'supporters' would stop saying
it, too.



Guy Alcala July 15th 04 07:25 AM

Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.

I suspect that one will go over (or under as the case may be) the heads of most
here, this being a military aviation newsgroup.

You don't give us enough credit. I chuckled at the pun.


I did qualify it with most ;-) I knew a few would get it, but the percentage will be a
lot lower than if it were posted to a general aviation group, where they'd presumably be
rolling in the aisles en masse.


Oh, I dunno. If a Debonair exercized a bit & slimmed down a bit, it
would probably serve as a Mentor.


Before we end up (s)punning in, I hereby declare a moratorium on all puns based on the names
of Beech (or any other company's: I can feel someone loading up with the Tutor even as I
write) a/c names. Sure, I know it's probably futile, but the effort has to be made. This is
_not_ s.m.n. ;-)

Guy


Ron July 15th 04 07:57 AM

And
tell me someone in his position with his quals would have got the deal
he got if his father hadn't been a war hero congressman. Apparently
his UPT performance should have put him in multi or helos: and
normally someone without specifically in demand attributes should have
had to go active duty to get UPT at that time anyway. Yes, that's as I
understand it and no, I wasn't there.



Have any sources for that? Apparently he was quite good at UPT, from what IPs
said.


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


Ron July 15th 04 08:02 AM


Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?
That has the rep as the unforgiving GA ship, probably due to lack of
training.


Nothing wrong with a V-tail bonanza really, except that it is a pretty clean
airframe, and will build up speed quickly.

Same with the Malibus that had some mid air breakups in the early 80s.
Momentary inattention can cause airspeed to build quickly, and then if someone
just yanks back on the stick hard...well, the results are predictable.

Doctors are just famous for buying more plane than their abilties warrant.
Plus some who used them for work, had rather long days and were flying when
they were very fatigued. The joke about the Bonanza being the "Forked tail
doctor killer", in reality was more about the pilots than the plane.


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


Jack July 15th 04 03:40 PM

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.


In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.


Jack


Regnirps July 15th 04 04:01 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.


I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how different?
Count the holes afterword?).

-- Charlie Springer



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:26 PM.

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