![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" wrote: "Daryl Hunt" wrote ... Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of the 404thk00ks. You live it down well. No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory, both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51 derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before anybody will believe you... To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all potential credibility. TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US aviation hero receives RP recognition | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | November 30th 06 01:14 AM |
"Going for the Visual" | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 101 | May 18th 04 05:08 AM |
Face-recognition on UAV's | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 3 | April 15th 04 03:18 PM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |
Qn: Casein Glue recognition | Vassilios Mazis | Soaring | 0 | August 20th 03 10:00 PM |