Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

ojunk (Steve Mellenthin) wrote:

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor.

When you view the P-47 films from the 78th FG you find that ground attacks
occure from ever greater altitudes or distances as the war goes on. Some of
this is because the guys who liked to bet very close didn't last, but others
are from experience with ground fire.

Art didn't have the discretion that the escorts had. I'm sure there were
assigned altitudes and headings and you stayed with the group.

Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?

-- Charlie Springer

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 7/15/2004 8:01 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

It has nothing to do with any of that. The more missions you fly the worse
the
odds of survival. How commited you are is irrelevant.

I agree, but only if yu look at the ensemble of flights. Each flight is not
more dangerous than the next. Every time yu survive, your chances start over
on
the next mission. Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event. (This assumes a random risk which is an ideal that
certainly
isn't true, as each mission is different. But how do you measuer how
different?
Count the holes afterword?).

-- Charlie Springer



True. But if you roll the same number 5 times in row a crap table, note how
everyone is shocked and the house will change the dice.The difference between
a mission and a crap table is that at the crap table a bad roll doesn't result
in death. And a mixture of targets results in a mixture of odds depending on
defenses. So not all missions are equal like dice rolls. But other than
that......



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On 14 Jul 2004 22:58:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac

Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.

Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the way
in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:-)

Arthur Kramer

There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (Regnirps)
Date: 7/15/2004 8:06 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

(Steve Mellenthin) wrote:

I'm not sure that was borne out by experience in later wars, Art. In mine
it
was the guys with low time, low experience who got shot down the most. More
experience worked in your favor.

When you view the P-47 films from the 78th FG you find that ground attacks
occure from ever greater altitudes or distances as the war goes on. Some of
this is because the guys who liked to bet very close didn't last, but others
are from experience with ground fire.

Art didn't have the discretion that the escorts had. I'm sure there were
assigned altitudes and headings and you stayed with the group.

Art, who was the main stategy guy when you were flying?

-- Charlie Springer



I don't know. Some General up at wing I guess.. But it was always straight and
level with bomb bay doors open and no evasive action on the bomb run. And down
at 10,000 feet. Besides evasive action was imposible on the bomb run, It would
tumble our Vertical Flight Gyros in the Norden, black out the sight, and we
would have to do a go-around, Bad stuff. A go-around could spoil your whole
day. And with all our vast experience flying missions we all knew that being
down at 10,000 feet was nuts. We wanted to be higher but no chance. So much
for doing what experiencve tells you to do.




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/15/2004 8:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On 14 Jul 2004 22:58:46 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: Ed Rasimus
Date: 7/14/2004 1:41 PM Pac

Optically guided flak can be defeated by jinking, random changes in
heading and altitude that destroy the lead computation of the gun.

Real men don't do jinking on the bomb run It's straight and level all the
way
in. And whoever makes it out buys the drinks.(:-)

Arthur Kramer

There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8


I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did you?
In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
336 times.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack
wrote:

Sam Byrams wrote:

[Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.

In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.


You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The
UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41
screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT
syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
prior to T-38 qualification.

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.

Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with
about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in
Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the
occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food
paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.)


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Regnirps wrote:
Same as rolling dice. Rolling five boxcars in a row doesn't
increase the odds that you won't on the 6th throw -- each throw is an
independent event.

I'll take issue with this, Charlie.

While each throw is statistically independent (assuming honest dice,
naturally), the fact that they are honest dice requires that the most
common throw be a seven. The more consecutive boxcars you
throw, the higher the probability that the next throw will NOT be
a 12. Boxcards is not a statistically likely event. Each throw **is**
an independent event, but the total population of throws is governed
by the overall statistical distribution.



Jeff

(ArtKramr) wrote:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.

I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did you?
In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
336 times.

Just more sour grapes because you weren't good enough to be
a pilot, much less a fighter pilot?

Ed wrote:
There's no glory in dying or losing your airplane unnecessarily. "Real
men" put bombs on target. How you get to that point is nobody's
business but your own.


Art replied:
I guess you didn't have 55 other planes in tight formation behind you did
you?
In that csse they (we) are all involved. Do it right or you'll hear about it
336 times.

Differnt war, Different aircraft, Different Tactics, Different weapons,
Different politicians, Same intent..Kill that other poor SOB before he gets
you.

Rick Clark
MFE

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Peter Stickney wrote:

In article ,
Guy Alcala writes:
Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 22:24:59 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Jack wrote:

Harry Andreas wrote:

Yah, but was it a V-tail Bonanza?

Of course, though he was a reasonably debonair sort, for a guy from Toledo.

Oh, I dunno. If a Debonair exercized a bit & slimmed down a bit, it
would probably serve as a Mentor.

Before we end up (s)punning in, I hereby declare a moratorium on all puns based on the names
of Beech (or any other company's: I can feel someone loading up with the Tutor even as I
write) a/c names. Sure, I know it's probably futile, but the effort has to be made. This is
_not_ s.m.n. ;-)

Well, I do see your point. But now that you mention it, you did know
that the nickname at Canadair and in the CanForce for the Malay CL-41
COIM variant equivalant to teh A-37 was the "Shooter Tutor"

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster