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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Peter,
I did the tour January 2nd and someone on the bus asked the same questions. The docent used a lot more words, but said basically the markings are destroyed so that they don't turn up on ebay. As far as the guillotined parts, I think he said they have to lie there for 90 days for treaty compliance. Now don't ask me why, if those parts are so collectable, the gubmint doesn't sell them! Mike Z - "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S. Air Force" markings on the side had been torn up. Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of defacement. You can find a picture of one of the airplanes he http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg (Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base). Pete |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"Mike Z." wrote in message
ink.net... Peter, I did the tour January 2nd and someone on the bus asked the same questions. The docent used a lot more words, but said basically the markings are destroyed so that they don't turn up on ebay. Weird. What's the stop someone from taking undamaged metal from the plane and painting "U.S. Air Force" on it? Or do they just expect buyers to know that the markings are damaged this way, and so know that anything like that for sale must be a forgery? And what about the rest of the airplane? There are any number of other parts collectors would be happy with. Why focus on the markings? Anyway, thanks for passing that along. It still doesn't make much sense to me, but at least it explains the intent. Pete |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Duniho wrote: Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of defacement. This area happens to be the location of some rather sensitive equipment. Take a good luck at the damage (I can't tell from the shot you posted, and it's only one example). Were the holes punched through from the inside? If so, maybe someone decided it was easier just to hit the demolition charges on the electronic gear than to remove the stuff. George Patterson Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more often to the physician than to the patient. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ... [...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141. I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You prefer to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others? It some cases the "theory" is so far from reasonable as to require it. If you must have a "better" guess try go with this one: the planes no longer belong to the Air Force but to a scrapper and the markings that proclaimed them as such had to be defaced and some bubba determined the quickest & easiest way to do so was by stabbing some bit of a big machine through the markings. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Jake McGuire" wrote in message om... Like what? Sanding, stripping, beadblasting, etc. Even if you could, you'd probably need to send out two men with a cherry picker and painting equipment, and spend at least half an hour a plane. I didn't say "faster". I said "better". Even in the picture I provided, the markings are still relatively visible. Other planes, the damage missed entire letters. And of course, there still begs the question of why the markings would need to be removed. After all, it's just paint. It would be trivial for someone to reproduce (i.e. forge) the markings. What value do the markings have that the AF feels they can remove simply by poking holes in them? The more that I think about it, the more I suspect it's removing the markings in an unorthodox manner. I can tell by looking at the planes that they are removing the markings in some manner (perhaps it's orthodox there). The question is, why remove the markings at all, and why does punching holes in the airplane (which leaves the markings essentially still there and readable) make more sense than other methods (which could actually *remove* the markings, and which would not leave the airframe damaged). Large organizations, especially government ones, have rules to follow; they follow those rules well past the point the reason for the rules apply because "those are the rules." I can easily imagine a rule that says before a plane can leave the grounds under new ownership all markings declaring it US Air Force must be obscured and this rule being enforced even for a trip across the street to the chop shop. Somehow, it seems like the damage is intentional, not just a byproduct of the method used. But I just don't see how this particular method solves any problem worth solving. Pete |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:17:36 GMT, Bob Noel
wrote: In article , Mark and Kim Smith wrote: 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! Parted out and melted down? The buyer wouldn't care. Remember this is what they wanted to do to our old flying war birds. I'd guess it basically means "This is marked for the scrap heap" and has been rendered inoperable. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com The wing spar (box?) problems wouldn't make any buyer happy either. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
18 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 19th 04 02:08 AM |
09 Jan 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | January 9th 04 10:05 PM |
"air security lies in deterrence" | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 7 | January 8th 04 02:06 PM |
27 Nov 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 1 | November 30th 03 05:57 PM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |