View Single Post
  #6  
Old February 3rd 04, 09:19 AM
Mark and Kim Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:



To show compliance with some treaty?


[...] umm, probably not


I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.


You


have a better theory?



There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks




Very obvious so mother Russia can verify from space. Leaves no doubt if
a B-52's wings are laying next to the fuselage.

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

Whoops, I take that back. All going to the furnace had their markings
painted over. Time to scratch my head a little more.