Survivability in Combat

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:56:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have to
fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is equipped
with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine. Which
plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?. Opinions?

My gut feeling is the jet, if only because it's faster and spends less
time being shot at (and the higher deflection makes it harder to hit).
Also, jet aircraft can be pretty tough; stories around about them
surviving assorted insults (going as far as F-105s flying with destroyed
engines, using the afterburner as a sort-of-ramjet) so the survivability
between a jet and a radial recip isn't as pronounced.

After all, either aircraft is equally at risk from hits to pilot,
control surfaces, fuel tanks et cetera... superior survivability of the
engine is a factor, but not the only one (vice the use of P-51s rather
than P-47s in Korea)

Seems to me that you need to define a lot of additional parameters
before you can reduce the discussion to whether a radial is more
survivable than a jet.

If you say same speed, same profile, same airframe, same tactics, same
thrust(power) to weight, same performance, then I'd go to the radial
engine as being one that sustains a bit more insult. But, we've not
added the factor (significant in my mind) about the volatility of
AvGas over JP-4 (JP-8). Wet wing airplane taking a hit in the fuel
tanks? Not pretty.

Glad someone mentioned the fuel difference. Early on, the USN and RN blended AvGas
with kerosene for jets on their carriers, as they still had a lot of piston a/c on
board. The stowage requirements were very different; Kerosene fuel could go in
unprotected fuel tanks just like ship fuel oil, while AvGas had to be carried in
tanks inside the ship's armored box. The British were even more careful with AvGas
than the US was -- they kept it inside the armored box in cylindrical tanks totally
surrounded by water filled compartments. This restricted their AvGas stowage even
more, which is one reason why the British carriers were unable to operate as many a/c
as US ones did.

It was also found that 62% of the single engined jet losses in Vietnam and the middle
east were due to damage to the fuel system. Given the far greater likelihood that a
hit in a fuel tank or line containing AvGas would cause a fire, it seems reasonably
safe to assume that this was the cause of at least as high a percentage of
piston-engined fighter losses in WW2, although no statistical data seems to have been
gathered prior to Vietnam as to specific causes of loss. FWIE, the remaining causes
of loss were pilot incapacitation, 18%, 10% to control damage, 7% to loss of engine
power, and 3% to structural damage. So engine toughness per se was a relatively
minor part of single-engined jet combat losses, at least in the 1960s.

The use of AvGas made it difficult to radically increase the a/c fuel carried by the
Essex class carriers postwar (to meet the needs of thirstier engines), owing to the
fire danger and stowage requirements. The swirtch to a higher and higher percentage
of jets meant they could carry more fuel just about anywhere, allowing over a 100%
increase in a/c fuel carried, which was very necessary to handle the jets' greater
thirst.

But, if you let your jet go faster, pull more G, maneuver more
aggressively, build a tactics package that suppresses the defenses,
etc. then you come up with the undebatable conclusion that the jet
does better.

Have I ever mentioned that FAST is better?

The early centrifugal jet engines like the Nene and Tay seem to have been quite
damage tolerant (the early axials less so, but design has improved a lot since
then). Hre's Gabby Gabreski on his first MiG kill, firing from dead six on a
non-maneuvering target:

"When the sight was squarely on his mid-section I fired a short burst of
armor-piercing and incendiary from the six fifties. I could see strikes all over the
lower section of the fuselage, I kept firing for a couple of seconds and was now
directly astern, about 600 feet back. I centered the sight on his tailpipe next and
gave him another burst. I saw strikes again, around the engines as well as the
wings. Now he went into a slight dive and smoke began to stream back from the
tailpipe.

"I passed over him and broke off to the right and he started down and I kept him in
view. He was losing altitude but much to my amazement, was still under control. I
decided to make another pass from above right; my three Sabres were now strung out
behind me. There was grey smoke from the MiG; he had decelerated. In a matter of
seconds, I closed for another pass, coming in from astern, I got very close and gave
him a good, long burst. This time pieces of his aircraft began to fly off. They
might have been turbine blades from the engine and they passed me on the right. The
canopy flew off. Then the pilot ejected. His parachute opened. We turned on course
for home.

"I was surprised to see how hard it was to bring down a jet, how much damage he
absorbed before he finally went down. Later, of course, we got the bigger guns [Guy:
4 x 20mm M39] in the Sabres . . . these were fifty calibre shells. It took a lot of
them to bring one down."

[Quoted in "F-86 Sabre," by Maurice Allward]

The six .50 cal. M3s in the Sabre fired about 50% faster than the WW2 era M2s in the
P-47, and unlike the P-47 they were all mounted in the nose rather than the wings, so
when you were on target, you were _really_ on target; no need to worry about
convergence range. Elsewhere in the same book, Col. Eagleston (former 354th 'Pioneer
Mustang' group leading ace, IIRR commanded either the 4th Group or Wing in Korea; I
forget which, but both echelons existed) is mentioned as preparing a report stating
that of every three MiGs hit by his Sabres, two had escaped, and that to destroy a
MiG, an average of 1,024 rounds of .50 caliber had been fired. Russian MiG pilots
had a high opionion of the damage tolerance of their MiG-15 engines (essentially
reverse-engineered R-R Nenes), but had a lower opinion of the toughness of the
Sabre's GE J47 axial engine. To be fair, their guns were a lot more powerful than
the Sabre's .50s, so the comparison isn't exact. How well the MiG-15 would have held
up under the fire of a 37mm and two 23mms is an interesting question.

ISTR seeing navy stats that showed Navy and Marine Panthers suffered a lower loss
rate than Corsairs and maybe ADs on ground attack missions; the Panther also used a
license built Nene (J42), and later the larger but also centrifugal R-R Tay (J48). I
don't know how the Banshee, which used a pair of axial engines IIRR, stacked up, but
its involvement in Korea was limited.

It's impossible to make such a comparison on the Air Force side of Korea, as the only
piston fighter they used for ground attack was the Mustang, and there's absolutely no
doubt that a jet is superior to a water-cooled engine in damage tolerance. I've got
the USAF fighter statistical data for the Korean war, and the Mustang's loss rate is
far higher than either of the two USAF jet fighters that were largely dedicated to
ground attack. Here's the Korean War total combat sorties / losses credited to
ground fire / % loss rate (credited) to ground fire per sortie for the F-51, F-80
(centrifugal) and F-84 (axial). I've left out the losses credited to aircraft and
unknown causes:

F-51: 62,607 / 172 / 0.27%

F-80: 98,515 / 113 / 0.11%

F-84: 86,408 / 122 / 0.14%

The Republic F-84's higher loss rate compared to the F-80 may be due to a higher
vulnerability of its J35 axial engine compared to the F-80's centrifugal J33, but
it's also possible that other factors unrelated to the engine may be the cause.
Early on the F-80 flew a fair number of A/A sorties, and while the F-84s of the 27th
Fighter-Escort Wing also flew some, I suspect that the F-84 flew a higher percentage
of its sorties air to ground. The F-84 also came into the war well after the F-80,
so it may be that it was just facing stronger defenses, especially after the front
line had stagnated. The type of ordnance employed may also have affected the time
spent in threat zones, and thus loss rates -- the F-80 fired almost 4 times (80,935
vs. 22, 154) as many rockets as the F-84, while the latter dropped a considerably
higher tonnage (55,987 vs. 41,593 tons) of bombs. I lack the data to reach any hard
conclusions, but the F-84, being from the Republic 'Foundry, certainly had the
reputation of being able to take more damage than its USAF fighter contemporaries.

All in all, though, I'd say the jets have it hands down over pistons, air-cooled or
otherwise, although control issues (loss of hydraulic fluid) for jets that lack
manual reversion or FBW slightly skew things. Given the choice of doing Art's
mission in a P-47/Corsair/Skyraider, or an A-10, I know which one I'd choose, but
that's talking a 30 year technology difference.

Guy

Cub Driver wrote:


How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.

Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
airplanes?

Dudley, there is something fishy about you.


all the best -- Dan Ford

C'mon Dud, obfuscate, you know you're good (albeit kinda obvious)
at it...
--

-Gord.

(ArtKramr) wrote in message ...
Subject: Survivability in Combat
From: "The Enlightenment"
Date: 12/7/03 5:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will
have to
fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane
is equipped
with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet
engine. Which
plane would have a better chance of survival inder these
conditions?. Opinions?

Regards,


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



Much of the Structure of a Gas turbine is thinner than that of the
rugged engine blocks, cylinder and heads required on piston engines
and thus penetration into a vital component by projectiles may be more
likely however gas turbines can be quite tough. The central casting
of which the shaft and combustion chambers are suspended is quite
solid and centrifugal compressors can be very rugged.

It might be possible to obtain data as to how influential compressor
type is on combat ruggedness.

I suppose that the best comparison might be to assume an aircraft such
as the B26,A26 or B29 had of been equipped with a turboprop like the
Rolls Royce Dart. (Fokker when designing the F27 (built latter by
Fairchild) resisted American Airlines's pressure to use the PW2800.)

This engine would have about 1/2rd the weight and I suspect 1/2 to
volume of the PW2800 and this in itself would reduce its chance of
being hit. The two stage centrifugal compressor was very rugged and
for the weight saved you could wrap the engine in armor.

The Allison T53 gas turbine used on the UH-1 Iroquois and many other
aircraft had a reputation for ruggedness. It kept operating with
objects like bolts ingested and stuck in the compressor. This engine
had as a first stage an axial compressor, a second stage centrifugal
stage that led to a double reverse flow combustion chamber.

The Germans seemed to have had a concern with debris ingestion
(presumably after a hit on a target) in the Jumo 004B engine of the
Me 262. For ground handling and safety reasons wire baskets had been
developed to prevent unfortunate ground crewman being ingested. The
aircraft was tested in flight with the baskets attached and apparently
suffered no reduction in performance.

The concern of 'combat ruggedness' was one reason that the RLM
technocrat Helmuth Schelp (who mapped out Germany's 15 year gas
turbine development program in 1938?) specified that the Heinkel
Hirth He S11 1300kg turbo-jet was to have a 'diagonal compressor'.
This is essentially a centrifugal compressor faired such that the air
flow exits axially (backward) instead of radialy (outward). The air
is then impinged upon a stator to get a degree of axial compression.
In the He S11 there were then 3 subsequently axial stages.

The beauty is that the ruggedness of centrifugal compressor in object
ingestion and turbulent airflow as a first stage can be combined with
subsequently more axial stages of higher efficiency. (Thus He S11
aircraft designees had very flexible air intake shapes e.g. slits in
wing leading edges )

The efficiency at the operating point for the axial unit of the Jumo
004B was 0.79. For the hybrid diagonal-axial He S11 it was 0.8. By
the time the He S11 entered production in 1945 the diagonal compressor
for the BMW 003C the HERMESO I was achieving 0.85 on the test stand
and the HERMESO II of the BMW 004D was expected to achieve 0.91. (By
this time the Germans were converting to more efficient reaction type
axial compressors over the impulse type axial seen on the Jumo 004B
and BMW 003A then in service) so they sacrificed a lot to achieve this
diagonal/compressor on the He S11.

The British style centrifugal compressors, the double sided impeller
types, must have been much more rugged than the axial types they
Germans preferred (for their low frontal area and ease of
installation)

However a shrapnel or bullet hole in the post combustion area of a
combustion chamber in either type of engine would have been fatal as a
flame would be expelled that would eventually melt or burn through
something. A holed combustion chamber or rocker cover was unlikely
to be fatal in an air cooled radial.

The answer clearly is to try and armor parts of the Jet engine, e.g.
the Chance Vought A7 used silicon carbide. Jets are free of the
oil water cooler problems of piston engines.



Lots of good info. Thanks. I woiuld love to hear the take on all this by a
pilot who flew Jugs in WW II in low level operations then flew jets
later and hear comparative opinions. Any jugheads around here?

It's not inconceivable that some US WW2 types such as the A26 might
have seen action with turbo props or suplemental jets slung on for
extra speed and power. Jets simply lacked the fuel efficinecy for
many missions. (Several types such as the B36,Neptune and others)

There is a Rolls royce Dart Restored Mustang out. (The Dart ranged in
power from 1650shp to 4000shp). I've found at least one restoration
attempt:
http://www.p51.mustangsmustangs.com/.../A68-187.shtml

I recall reading an article in the last 2-3 years in "wings" on the
development of the P47 the designer (Seversky?) discusions with his
development insiders (Probably at coffee break). Lots of interesting
stuff on why he concluded that the aircraft had to be as big as it did
to do the missions and carry the armour and armament that would be
needed. (Sorry the issue is in my dusty attic and my hay fever tells
me not to go have a look)

At one point the P47 designers get around to saying that if they are
going to have turbo-super chargers that they may as well cut out the
piston engine in between. Presumbly to get Jet thurst or to make a
turbo-prop. (Indeed converting automotive turbocharges into jets and
turbo props is a common hobby pursuit these days)

Any of the Jets of the 1940 period could be modified to turbo props
simply by putting on a gearbox and a bigger (perhaps 2 stage) turbine.

The british centrifugal types were a little more suited to conversion
as the airflow path is simpler as it need not be smooth so the ducting
needed around the intake needs less care. (The axial engines of the
Germans were so much narrower it was much easier fitting them to a
wing though)

The US was doing some good work at the time, I'm just not as familiar
with it.

Quite suprisingly Hungary had a turbo-prop in 1940 that was to go into
production.

http://tanks45.tripod.com/Jets45/Lis...ginesOther.htm
"Designed by Gyorgy Jendrassik in 1938 the Cs-1 was the worlds first
working turboprop engine, first run in 1940 and hoped to produce 1,000
hp it never made more that 400 hp due to combustion problems. All work
on the engine was stopped in 1941 as the Daimler-Benz DB 605 engine
was to be made in Hungary. A plane was specifically made for the Cs-1
the RMI-1 X/H, which ironically was fitted with the DB 605 in 1944"

One big problem in any gas turbine was that designing the airflow in
combustion chambers needed extensive test stand experience. The
airflow has to be designed to protect direct flame impingement of
flames on metal by using films of air and a controlled flame
propagation. The Germans, Americans, British, Hungarians all faced
that. The Germans faced with horrible materials to use had the best
test stand facilities of all.

During the second world war the Arado 234 seemed to have no problem
with AA artillery even over the radar directed proximity fused guns in
the British isles. 10,000 meters at 400 knots would have meant that
the aircraft would have travelled almost 3km-5km ( 2-3 miles) before
a shell got near.

Attacking the bridges at Remagen was different and many a Arado pilot
lost his life attacking these bridges due to the super intense AAA at
low altitude. The engine once holed seemed to keep going by some
accounts) but rapidly set the whole wing on fire. (Fuel lines and
Hydraulic lines everywhere) Escaping from an Arado was very difficult
and the ejection seats intended for the awkward to egress cabin never
got fitted to the few production aircraft.

Having said that even getting near the bridges for a piston engined
aircraft must have been near to impossible.

FOI (Foreigne Object Ingestion) is an issue on jets especialy axial
types. Northrop tested the intakes of the F17 (ie F/A 18) by
sprinkling cornflakes on the floor.

The Mig 29 shutters of its intakes with a mesh and draws in airflow
via gills in the top of the intakes on the ground.

The material used probably make a difference. Using steel rather than
Aluminium.







Regards,

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

Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:56:41 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

In message , ArtKramr
writes
Let's take two planes going on low level support missions. They will have to
fly through heavy ground fire including small arms fire. One plane is equipped
with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The other with a jet engine. Which
plane would have a better chance of survival inder these conditions?. Opinions?

My gut feeling is the jet, if only because it's faster and spends less
time being shot at (and the higher deflection makes it harder to hit).
Also, jet aircraft can be pretty tough; stories around about them
surviving assorted insults (going as far as F-105s flying with destroyed
engines, using the afterburner as a sort-of-ramjet) so the survivability
between a jet and a radial recip isn't as pronounced.

After all, either aircraft is equally at risk from hits to pilot,
control surfaces, fuel tanks et cetera... superior survivability of the
engine is a factor, but not the only one (vice the use of P-51s rather
than P-47s in Korea)

Seems to me that you need to define a lot of additional parameters
before you can reduce the discussion to whether a radial is more
survivable than a jet.

If you say same speed, same profile, same airframe, same tactics, same
thrust(power) to weight, same performance, then I'd go to the radial
engine as being one that sustains a bit more insult. But, we've not
added the factor (significant in my mind) about the volatility of
AvGas over JP-4 (JP-8). Wet wing airplane taking a hit in the fuel
tanks? Not pretty.

But, if you let your jet go faster, pull more G, maneuver more
aggressively, build a tactics package that suppresses the defenses,
etc. then you come up with the undebatable conclusion that the jet
does better.

Have I ever mentioned that FAST is better?

I can feel a Lawndart versus Warthog debate comming on. Douglas
Skyraiders seem to have fullfilled niche missions well into the Jet
age.

By the end of the second world war the Japanese (J7W1 Shinden), USA
(Curtiss XP-55 Ascender) and Germans were all testing pusher piston
engined aircraft that might have managed 500-520mph and likely 577mph
with development.

Here is one of the German projections:
DO P.247 Max. Speed: 835 km/h (519 mph)
http://www.luft46.com/dornier/dop247.html

With transonic swept tip "scimatar" shaped propellors:
Dornier Do P.252 Max. Speed 930 km/h 577 mph.
http://www.luft46.com/dornier/dop252.html

So Mach 0.88 was conceivable for a piston engined propellor aircraft
with a modest amount of development no more than jet development.

Mach 0.88 is Enough to take on early Sabres and Mig 15s!

If it had not of been for the development of the Jet engine the two
stroke super charged and turbo supercharged engine probably would have
attracted development and replaced the petrol piston engine. This
type of diesel (eg Napier Nomad) is lighter and more fuel efficient
than a petrol engine and runs of diesel and jet fuel to boot.

With effort some one could have fielded a Mach 0.88 gasoline or diesel
fighter to take on Sabres, Meteors and Mig 15s during the Korean war
on close to even terms and probably with a lot more range.

The B47D with turbo-prop was once tested at 597mph.

In general its was probably not worth diverting the engineering
resources into becuase the only gain: fuel efficiency could be
circumvented by just flying higher and the speed of sound was the
ultimate limit.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.

Sheez. We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot
Fellowship, but we can't inquire as to how and why you flew military
airplanes?

Dudley, there is something fishy about you.

Strange! I don't remember even coming close to requiring you or anyone else
on Usenet to be "awestruck" by either myself, my background, or the
Fellowship. Perhaps you will be kind enough to provide an example of
this........other than the simple fact that I use a tag line sig for the
Fellowship.

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Dudley Henriques"

"Cub Driver" wrote in message

Dudley, would you post a brief bio for us? I think I recall P-51s, but
I don't have any notion of your career. When were you in the
USAF/USAAF? For whom a commercial pilot? Where taught?

I am a civilian pilot Ford, not military. Obviously you haven't yet done
enough research. Lots of public record on this.

How and why I have flown military airplanes is none of your business.

Although I can't stop you from going down the road I believe you're
thinking
of going with this, I will tell you that I don't like this type of post .
Do your own legwork Ford. There are many sources of public information on
me, and what's not there, I have no desire to share with someone as
obviously hostile to me as you are with this post.
I sincerely hope I'm wrong in what I'm reading from your post here. If I
am,
please feel free to dig up and post anything you wish that's public
information on me. If I'm not wrong, I feel compelled to advise you to be
extremely careful where you go with this in a public forum.
Your call !
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques

Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
also see
nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

There's a history here Dan.
I know several of the surviving AVG members personally. I reviewed Ford's
book on the AVG after spending a day being briefed on it by a member of the
Tigers who wasn't at all happy with his "research". Mr. Ford and I go back a
few years, and have our "differences of opinion".
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"B2431" wrote in message
...

Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
also see
nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just for general information;

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet. These
things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone voluntarily,
but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this. The
inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things doesn't
respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The reality
however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots allow
themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can see,
attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster or
the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from a
few people who have become good internet friends on the group through the
years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
what .
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"B2431" wrote in message
...

Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I also
see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a response.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just for general information;

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet. These
things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone voluntarily,
but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this. The
inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things doesn't
respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The reality
however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots allow
themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can see,
attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster or
the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from a
few people who have become good internet friends on the group through the
years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
what .
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or may
not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag line
infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one. The
initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any hostility
in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.

Personally, I think most of you one-fan fliers have been exposed to too many Gs
in your flying careers, with the obvious damaging effect to your gray matter.
But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))

George Z.
C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every minute
in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was ordered
to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.

PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the military,
then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it isn't
so, and let's move on to something else.

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"B2431" wrote in message
...

Am I missing something here? I see nothing "hostile" in the request. I
also
see nothing wrong with simply saying "I'd rather not say" as a
response.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Just for general information;

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.
These
things can be offered in an atmosphere of friendship by someone
voluntarily,
but not asked for. When this is done, it's almost always done in an
atmosphere of hostility. You really need go no further than Mr. Ford's
remark, "Dudley, there is something fishy about you" to ascertain this.
The
inference is that if the person being "asked" to state these things
doesn't
respond to the poster's demand, that there is something to hide. The
reality
however, is that only idiots post these "requests", and only idiots
allow
themselves to be drawn into this scenario. These "requests" as you can
see,
attract the usual posters who either like or dislike either the poster
or
the person being "nailed". It's a losing proposition for everyone, and I
have no intention of getting involved too deeply with it, as aside from
a
few people who have become good internet friends on the group through
the
years, I don't really give a rat's ass who on Usenet believes what about
what .
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or
may
not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag
line
infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one.
The
initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any
hostility
in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.

But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))

George Z.
C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every
minute
in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was
ordered
to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.

PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the
military,
then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....so, please tell me it
isn't
so, and let's move on to something else.

Well, I'll tell you this much. Yes I've flown fighters; not that it matters
a hill of beans. The Fellowship was a very real organization , not that that
matters much either, since it's not me who is making such a fuss about it ;
so unless the tag line is saying something to you through mental telepathy
that I wouldn't be saying myself......yes, let's indeed move on to something
more intelligent shall we?
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

It's considered extremely bad manners to ask for, request, or demand
personal background and/or qualifications of any individual on Usenet.

Sorry, I'd never heard of this rule!

Must be an outgrowth of The New Yorker cartoon: "On the internet,
nobody knows you're a dog."

I was just curious, Dudley. Honest to God! I wanted to know about the
Fighter Pilot Fellowship.

Is Ed Rasimus a member?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com