Most people do not understand the implications of having flown an RF-4
in Vitenam.

What I know about the RF-4 in Vietnam I learned while going through USAF
pilot training in the early 80's. There was a video in our viewing room
called "Alone, Unarmed, and Unafraid." It was about the RF-4.

You see, the RF-4 has no weapons, only cameras. After the US would bomb
something, as you might imagine, all the people that had lived through
the bombing were really ****ed. They were real eager to damage something
US and they knew that they would have a chance by just waiting at the
bombed out sites for the lonely RF-4 that was going to be coming by soon
to take pictures. The damage isn't real until there's a picture, gotta
have a picture. The RF-4's defense was low altitude and speed---lots of
speed. And they still got there ass shot up all the time.

200 missions in an RF-4 over Vietnam. I can't possibly imagine what
might qualify as an unnecessary risk in those circumstances. I tip my hat.

Fred




John Sinclair wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:


You sound like a bunch of wusses.


If the kitchen's too hot for you, get out.


This particular, 'Wuss' has flown 200 combat missions
in Vietnam (RF-4C) and have a hand full of Air medals
+ a DFC. I didn't take unnecessary chances over there
and I haven't done it in 4300 hours spent racing sailplanes.
The advent of GPS has completely negated the need for
the 'Neanderthal' finish line. Why do we keep it in
the rules?

Allow me to touch on another little point, the FAR's
don't allow us to go below 500 feet at places like
an airport, unless we are in the act of landing. Driving
in at 50 feet, we aren't in the act of landing, are
we? Who want's to explain that in court?
JJ Sinclair