F-15 Breakup Animation & video

wrote in message
et...

Oh please. I once talked to a Green Bay controller who knows you, and he
said you are about as far right-wing as they come, implied you're almost
looney about it.


Doubtful and irrelevant.



Stuff I've seen you post in the past confirmed it.


Such as?

Actually, the Constitution does not give the federal government the power
to maintain an Air Force.

Actually, it does -- unless you don't believe an Air Force contributes to
the "common defence" of the country:

Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.

I don't think that is a valid comparison. What airforce today has
planes that outperform F-15s like an ME109 would outperform a Spad or
a Camel?

Sure, it's a different time, you might say, and we've got satellites to keep
an eye on things, now -- but IMHO maintaining a modern Air Force is cheap
insurance, and one of the few things that our Federal Government is actually
*supposed* to be doing with our tax dollars.

There's nothing cheap about an F-22.

I don't want to say the Air Force is milking this in a time of F-22 cuts, but
Jay don't you think it is a little strange that the cause of the accident had
all but been set in stone in mere hours after this mishap? Think about what
incentives there could be at play. Also, how many accidents have had a cause
determined so quickly, particularly with a relatively complex (if older)
machine? Sure the longeron failed at some point, but it is fascinating how
quickly potential causes (e.g. an Oxygen tank can go boom, right behind the
cockpit, or the emergency tank, or ____). Most other investigations took time
to eliminate other possible causes first.



Jay Honeck wrote:

Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
but I fear otherwise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:G2Wij.300291$Fc.57396@attbi_s21:

Actually, the Constitution does not give the federal government the
power to maintain an Air Force.

Actually, it does -- unless you don't believe an Air Force contributes
to the "common defence" of the country:

Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have Power To lay and
collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Explains why they don't subsidize you, then.

Bertie

"Marissa Reichert" wrote in message
...

I don't want to say the Air Force is milking this in a time of F-22 cuts,
but
Jay don't you think it is a little strange that the cause of the accident
had
all but been set in stone in mere hours after this mishap? Think about
what
incentives there could be at play. Also, how many accidents have had a
cause
determined so quickly, particularly with a relatively complex (if older)
machine? Sure the longeron failed at some point, but it is fascinating
how
quickly potential causes (e.g. an Oxygen tank can go boom, right behind
the
cockpit, or the emergency tank, or ____). Most other investigations took
time
to eliminate other possible causes first.


Do you have reason to believe that was not the case in this investigation?

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:33:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Video depictions of what happened when that longeron failed in-flight:

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-018.wmv

http://www.acc.af.mil/shared/media/d...080110-028.wmv

The sad truth is that our kids are flying around in planes that were
designed during the Nixon administration, and were built when Reagan was
president.

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and grandfathers
flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.

I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and F-35,
but I fear otherwise.


Jay

How do you equate the age of the B-52 fleet compared to the age of the
early Model F-15's you are talking about?

Someone on this thread mentioned the White Scarf era. I still have
mine )

Big John

"Big John" wrote in message
news

How do you equate the age of the B-52 fleet compared to the age of the
early Model F-15's you are talking about?


In terms of flying hours the B-52 fleet may be younger.

Jay Honeck wrote:

To put that in perspective, that would be like our fathers and
grandfathers flying Spads and Sopwith Camels against the Luftwaffe in 1943.


Hardly a fair comparison.

The F15 is still an excellent air superiority fighter. It has a PERFECT,
unblemished record - its never been shot down. Granted much of this is
because of the integrated system in which its deployed - stealth takes
out the enemies eyes, AWACS serves as your eye in the sky, etc.. - even
if it had to operate without the system, it would be formidable.

The B52 assembly line was shut down in the 60's.. and its said the last
crews to fly it have yet to be born. Despite being superseded by the B1B
and the B2, its still the front line workhorse.

Aging issues in the fleet are a serious concern, but that does not mean
the design itself is obsolete or faulty. If new parts and airframes were
readily available, it would still be top dog for quite a while.