A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

THE PILOT WHO WOULDN'T FLY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 6th 04, 10:10 PM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with


I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
correct me if that's not the generalized definition). I know numerous bomber
pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some fighter pilots who do not.
The only difference in plying our unique trades is that my "wingmen" fly in the
same jet with me.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #3  
Old February 6th 04, 10:58 PM
Mike Marron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
someone wrote:


do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with


I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
correct me if that's not the generalized definition).


That definition also fits a lot of cops, pro athletes, doctors,
lawyers, cops, coaches, car racers, cowboys, insurance agents,
investigative reporters, truck drivers, stockbrokers, entrepreneurs,
lion tamers, hunting guides, firemen, ironworkers, motocross racers,
etc. etc. etc....

I know numerous bomber pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some
fighter pilots who do not. The only difference in plying our unique trades is
that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.


That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).

  #4  
Old February 6th 04, 11:39 PM
Ed Rasimus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 22:58:29 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

(BUFDRVR) wrote:
someone wrote:


do you think fighter and bomber pilots (in
general) have a completely diffferent mindset in regard to the final
missions of a tour? I know they're different breeds to begin with


I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
correct me if that's not the generalized definition).


That definition also fits a lot of cops, pro athletes, doctors,
lawyers, cops, coaches, car racers, cowboys, insurance agents,
investigative reporters, truck drivers, stockbrokers, entrepreneurs,
lion tamers, hunting guides, firemen, ironworkers, motocross racers,
etc. etc. etc....


You've broken the code. Add the caveat, that you only gain the title
when someone else gives it and you've got the basics down.

I know numerous bomber pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some
fighter pilots who do not. The only difference in plying our unique trades is
that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.


That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).


We aren't always in total control of our future. Sometimes, you can
bring together the talent, the desire and the opportunity with the
resultant being that you achieve your goal. But, probably more often,
someone has the attitude but not the opportunity. The assignment isn't
available. Then, the objective is achieved by carrying the attitude
into the assignment, whatever it is.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8
  #5  
Old February 6th 04, 11:55 PM
Mike Marron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Rasimus wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:
(BUFDRVR) wrote:


I've often heard this, and I have trouble believing it. Usually the "fighter
pilot" lable is defined as agressive, unshakeable and highly skilled (someone
correct me if that's not the generalized definition).


That definition also fits a lot of cops, pro athletes, doctors,
lawyers, cops, coaches, car racers, cowboys, insurance agents,
investigative reporters, truck drivers, stockbrokers, entrepreneurs,
lion tamers, hunting guides, firemen, ironworkers, motocross racers,
etc. etc. etc....


You've broken the code. Add the caveat, that you only gain the title
when someone else gives it and you've got the basics down.


While I was finishing up my civilian commercial/instrument ground
school back in 1987, the instructor (an old P-51 and B-29 pilot
curmudgeon) once remarked (under his breath) that I should become
a fighter pilot (FWIW). Alas, by that time I was already 26 years of
age...

I know numerous bomber pilots (and navs!!) that meet that criteria and some
fighter pilots who do not. The only difference in plying our unique trades is
that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.


That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).


We aren't always in total control of our future. Sometimes, you can
bring together the talent, the desire and the opportunity with the
resultant being that you achieve your goal. But, probably more often,
someone has the attitude but not the opportunity. The assignment isn't
available. Then, the objective is achieved by carrying the attitude
into the assignment, whatever it is.


Well said as usual and I salute BUFDRVR.
  #6  
Old February 7th 04, 12:07 AM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).


You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over a
downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles out
to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt. All
flying is good and not everyone belongs on the far side of mach 1, but that
doesn't mean those of us on this side didn't have very bit as much fun, or as
much job satisfaction.

Just a thought.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

  #8  
Old February 7th 04, 02:55 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over
a
downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles
out
to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt.


Can I get an Amen? I thought I had a real "hairy" Belgrade sortie one night
during OAF until I met one of the helicopter pilots who scooped up the downed
F-117 pilot, his story put mine to shame. From a bomber perspective, no F-16
pilot will know the thrill of dropping a half mile long string of weapons and
hearing the ETAC on the radio say you scattered the entire force that was
bearing down on him just minutes earlier.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"
  #9  
Old February 7th 04, 03:15 PM
George Z. Bush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Krztalizer" wrote in message
...

That's a big difference though. It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).


You'll never know the intensity of feeling that goes along with hovering over

a
downed "single-seat fighter" pilot that is wet and alone in his raft, miles

out
to sea, knowing that you and your crew are going to save his soggy butt. All
flying is good and not everyone belongs on the far side of mach 1, but that
doesn't mean those of us on this side didn't have very bit as much fun, or as
much job satisfaction.

Just a thought.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR


Thanks, Gord, you took the words right out of my mouth.

George Z.
(USAF - Air Rescue Service)

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send your old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.



  #10  
Old February 7th 04, 02:50 AM
BUFDRVR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The only difference in plying our unique trades is
that my "wingmen" fly in the same jet with me.


That's a big difference though.


I disagree. The only difference is I use the intercom vis the radio to
coordinate with my team.

It's beyond me why anyone would
choose a multi-engined bomber, trash hauler, whirlybird, or whatever
vis a vis a single-seat fighter (or a single-seat *anything*).


I chose a BUFF over an F-16 and an F-15C, in fact the only difficulty I may
have had in chosing would have been if an F-15E were available, and even then I
think I would have taken the BUFF. I'm the opposite of you, for the life of me,
I can't figure out why anyone would take a fighter, particularly an F-15C. Sure
you have a great time at RED FLAG, but when it comes time for the real deal,
you're a spectator. As for the fighters that employ air-ground ordnance; if
you aren't carrying double digits(in number of weapons), you're just a bomber
want to be


BUFDRVR

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Pilot Error? Is it Mr. Damron? Badwater Bill Home Built 3 June 23rd 04 04:05 PM
definition of "dual controls" Lee Elson Instrument Flight Rules 4 April 24th 04 02:58 PM
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 41 November 20th 03 05:39 AM
Effect of Light Sport on General Aviation Gilan Home Built 17 September 24th 03 06:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.