VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,

mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,

mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news In article ,

mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message

ink.net...
In article
. net,
mumbled
----------
In article
. net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors
in
the
guide
concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the
recognition
guide
needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have
prevented
it
from
being
accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a
publications
account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret.
You
can
look
up
the
post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government
Bulletin.

It is FOUO.
If it were classified secret FAS would have been
closed
for
publishing
it to the web.

You can't request classified publications from USAPA.
While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are
prone
to
hype
things.

The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you
don't
know a
damned
thing about that so you try to move it away into your
area
of
expertise;
trolling on a non related subject.

Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is
classified.
I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an
account
with
USAPA.


You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft
recognition,
since
you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron
strength
in
the
mid
1950's
A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late
40's.




The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4
mistaking
it
for a
Mig-21
while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the
last
to
make
that
mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So
you
think
it's
easy?
Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will
do us
better
to
go
over to the other side and help them.

P-38...

Tell us again daryl...

And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you
provide
the
proof
that
I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail
your
EID
attacks,
now wouldn't it, Achmed.

Any number of people pointed out actual USAF documents that
showed
the
P38 left unit service in the late 1940's.

And you know that there were no P-38s left in ANY Air Guard Unit
anywhere in
1953? I was told during Tech School that there were NO C-124
Globemasters
left in the Active Duty AF and to just learn enough to pass the
test.
The
instructors said they just didn't get the time to get it out of
the
coriculum. Guess what, a few years later, I was at Elmendorf
AFB,
AK up
to
my asses with two of them. And the Actives kept a whole lot
better
records
and new AC than the Air Guards did back then. But don't let a
little
paperwork get in your way of a good lie.

Not my fault you got exiled to Alaska.
Not suprising given your abrasive nature.




If you are too dense to admit the facts it's not my fault.

And you visited each and every Air Guard Unit in 1953 to verify
this
fact?
Hell, kid you weren't even a gleem in your daddy's eye yet.

So it should be fairly easy for you to cite which Guard unit was
still
flying them in squadron strenght in 1953..



Simple fact is if there were any in squadron service in the
mid-50's
you
could easily provide the unti they were assigned to.

LOL, you sure believe in everything you read on the internet. Of
course,
only those items that bolster your fairytale.

Since my sources include the USAF site at Maxwell you might wish
to
reconsider your bluster.

Nope, your site only cites what was in the ACTIVE DUTY Air Force and
has
nothing to do with the Air National Guard during the early 50s. You
are
just lying to suit your own story.

You keep it up, even in the face of other folks telling you that you
are
wrong.

Your cites are only from Actives. And the 38 went out of service in 49,
not
46 like you claim using your own cites.. But it was out of service from
the
ACTIVES in 49. Using the C-124 Globemaster as an example, according to
all
sources on the net, it was completely phased out of Actives by 1974.
Guess
what, there were two stationed at Elmendorf well past that time frame.
But
there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As usual, if
it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you.

Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?

Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.

No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He was
a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF)
what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that question
then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.

Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get it
over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.







Are you familiar with how Air Guard units get equipment and from whom
they get it ?

Better than you are, k00k.






--
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled


there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As usual, if
it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you.

Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?

Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.

No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He was
a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF)
what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that question
then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.

You were 3 or 4.
I doubt you can remember what he said for sure.

We arn't discussing what he said.
What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they
acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up.


Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get it
over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.

I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the
subject and are now getting spanked Royal.
It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to
admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then.

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

"Tankfixer" wrote ...

mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote...

mumbled


there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As usual,
if
it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you.

Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't you
tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?

Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your point.

No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He
was
a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and USAF)
what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that
question
then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.

You were 3 or 4.
I doubt you can remember what he said for sure.

We arn't discussing what he said.
What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they
acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up.


Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it. Get
it
over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.

I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the
subject and are now getting spanked Royal.
It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to
admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then.


Unless someone has a credible cite to dispute it, I'm quite comfortable
claiming that with the references available to me, there were no P-38s or
derivative photo-recon birds in US military service in 1953 (and that
includes the Reserve and Air Guard because of the spares and upkeep
requirements for the engine models and superchargers).

Any single engine, prop driven photo-recon in Air Guard units would have
likely been carried out with the photo-recon P-51 derivative.

An a/c that Dilbert Dumbass conveniently ignores (a) in service in 1953 and
(b) in some eyes easily mistook for a P-38 was the not quite legendary P-82
Twin Mustang night/AW fighter, its radar nacelle giving it a P-38ish look in
some aspects.

The only P-38s around in the US would have been civilian owned, not many,
and most dedicated to air racing, still big in 1953. The P-38 was the first
of the USAAF fighters in service at war's end to leave squadron service
because of fuel consumption and the type-specific skills required to fly it
well. Even P-47s lasted longer in reserve and guard service.

Next Doofus will be telling us about P-63s deployed to Korea or B-18 raids
on L'Orient....

TMO

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...

"Tankfixer" wrote ...

mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote...

mumbled


there is no mention of that fact anywhere on the Internet. As
usual,
if
it's not on the internet, it just can't exist according to you.

Again, if it only had left service with the active foruce why can't
you
tell us which Air Guard units kept flying them ?

Come on daryl, here is your chance to be the hero and prove your
point.

No point to prove here. I was 3 or 4 in 1953 when I asked my Uncle (He
was
a Civilian Employee at Lowry AFB at the time and prior AAC, AAF and
USAF)
what were those planes in the sky. He said they were P-38s. Now do I
believe him or you? If you dumb enough to hazard a guess on that
question
then you are even dumber than even I give you credit for.

You were 3 or 4.
I doubt you can remember what he said for sure.

We arn't discussing what he said.
What I have been asking you to do is back up your idea that they
acutally were when the USAF's own records do not back you up.


Now, hurry up and put your pathetic spin on that. Go ahead. Do it.
Get
it
over with and go back to you wrecking yet another Military NG.

I'm sorry you wandered into a newsgroup full of people who know the
subject and are now getting spanked Royal.
It was easy for you to avoid the spanking but you are too hard headed to
admit your Uncle could have told you wrong way back then.


Unless someone has a credible cite to dispute it, I'm quite comfortable
claiming that with the references available to me, there were no P-38s or
derivative photo-recon birds in US military service in 1953 (and that
includes the Reserve and Air Guard because of the spares and upkeep
requirements for the engine models and superchargers).

Any single engine, prop driven photo-recon in Air Guard units would have
likely been carried out with the photo-recon P-51 derivative.

An a/c that Dilbert Dumbass conveniently ignores (a) in service in 1953
and
(b) in some eyes easily mistook for a P-38 was the not quite legendary
P-82
Twin Mustang night/AW fighter, its radar nacelle giving it a P-38ish look
in
some aspects.

The only P-38s around in the US would have been civilian owned, not many,
and most dedicated to air racing, still big in 1953. The P-38 was the
first
of the USAAF fighters in service at war's end to leave squadron service
because of fuel consumption and the type-specific skills required to fly
it
well. Even P-47s lasted longer in reserve and guard service.

Next Doofus will be telling us about P-63s deployed to Korea or B-18 raids
on L'Orient....

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.

"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

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.

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

On 3 May 2007 08:25:08 -0700, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" wrote:
"Daryl Hunt" wrote ...


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.

If you double the altitude you have to double the size of the lens[s]
to maintain the same resolution in the image. Low is more detailed.

Casady

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...
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...

If by NA you mean North American you might consider how DOUGLAS would feel.

Tex

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"TMOliver" wrote in message
...
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...

If by NA you mean North American you might consider how DOUGLAS would
feel.

I apologize for the brain fart. There's one of the last of them still
flying sitting in a hangar just across the lake about 3 miles away.

I'd appreciate your guess as to the last P-38 service date.

TMO