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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"TMOliver" wrote in message ... As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before anybody will believe you... If by NA you mean North American you might consider how DOUGLAS would feel. Tex |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" wrote: "Daryl Hunt" wrote ... Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of the 404thk00ks. You live it down well. No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory, both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51 derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before anybody will believe you... To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all potential credibility. TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" wrote: "Daryl Hunt" wrote ... Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of the 404thk00ks. You live it down well. No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory, both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51 derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before anybody will believe you... To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all potential credibility. TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Cuba was not a "battlefield" Vince |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" wrote: "Daryl Hunt" wrote ... Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of the 404thk00ks. You live it down well. No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory, both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51 derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before anybody will believe you... To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all potential credibility. TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Cuba was not a "battlefield" Vince Tell that to the guys who flew over it. President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov. 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph). Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera rendered them ineffective. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=1876 |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote: TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Cuba was not a "battlefield" Vince Tell that to the guys who flew over it. President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov. 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph). Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera rendered them ineffective. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=1876 Spies get shot at all the time Doesn't make it a "battlefield" they were CIA flights Vince |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On May 3, 2:58 pm, Vince wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote: TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Cuba was not a "battlefield" Vince Tell that to the guys who flew over it. President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov. 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph). Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera rendered them ineffective. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=1876 Spies get shot at all the time Doesn't make it a "battlefield" they were CIA flights Vince Air Force. http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1295valor.asp Good spies are never detected only suspected. Name me a spy who was shot by the other side. Usually it's your own people doing Penkovskii and his like in so they can't remember anything later. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Vince" wrote in message . .. Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 10:55 am, "TMOliver" wrote: "Daryl Hunt" wrote ... Speaking of Doofus's and you show up. One person already showed two links that they were around as camera ships in the Actives up until 1959. But don't let the facts get in the way of becoming a contributing member of the 404thk00ks. You live it down well. No, they haven't. There were, unless you can find a competent cite, one with any hint of factual nature, no P-38 derived photo birds in service in 1959 or in the years immediastely preceding. You don't seem to comprehend that P-38s were quick to leave the service because there were in inventory, both for conventional and photo missions literally thousands of more capable a/c gathering dust until Korea, and even Korea's needs were not great enough to summon elderly photo birds with less speed and range than the P-51 derivatives used for low altitude work. As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before anybody will believe you... To say that you are full of **** remains grotesque understaement. You're simply clueless, fallen well over the edge into "wackodom". You ought to be ashamed of yourself (in fact, probably would be, were you not too simple minded to comprehend that you've been emabarrassed so often as to have all potential credibility. TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Cuba was not a "battlefield" I wouldn't want to tell that to the VFP-62 pilots flying low level photo recon in RF8 Crusaders who (while certainly guilty of violating Cuban airspace were being regularly fired upon with both 57mm and 23mm AA as the transited missile sites flying "nap of the ground". The Soviets erecting the sites seemed somewhat hostile toward being photographed. After October 23, I was "only 90 miles away", and the average visitor would have surely thought life was "combatish", VF-101 's F4 Phantoms crouched at the end of the runway, air crew in their seats, for backup CAP, and the airborne birds "on station" in the air off Havana. The RoE was pretty flexible and no one doubted that it was a "missiles free" air defense environment. As for the RB-66's use in combat photo recon, the bird performed didn't last long in that role (just as it had not done well as a bomber), replaced quickly by far more survivable RF4s. The RB-66 was unsuited for low level battlefield recon, too slow (and to the air crew who flew them sharing with the A3 and EA3s the dicey escape method, down, instead of the more conventional upward ejection). The RB-57s were developed to do what the RB-66 did, while the Navy's last version of a similar a/c, the EA3, flew on for many years, longer than the attempt to salvage the Navy's A-5 program with the RA5C. TMO |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Vince" wrote ... Spies get shot at all the time Doesn't make it a "battlefield" they were CIA flights I guess they forgot to tell you that those VFP-62 pilots were in Navy flight suits flying USNavy a/c - big bright stars and all - out of NAS Key West, JAX or off CVA decks. TMO |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Tex Houston" wrote in message ... "TMOliver" wrote in message ... As late as 1957, there may have been a couple of TB-25s around for station "hack" service in the Training Command, and B-26s (NA, Not Martin), were still in ANG service (and used by the CIA/Cuban force strikes connected with the Bay of Pigs), but you're going to have to "show" us P-38s somewhere other than in your agaonized dreams before anybody will believe you... If by NA you mean North American you might consider how DOUGLAS would feel. I apologize for the brain fart. There's one of the last of them still flying sitting in a hangar just across the lake about 3 miles away. I'd appreciate your guess as to the last P-38 service date. TMO |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 3, 2:58 pm, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 2:15 pm, Vince wrote: Jack Linthicum wrote: On May 3, 11:35 am, Vince wrote: TMO http://www.p-38online.com/recon.html A quick and logical explanation for the death of the P-38, P-4 and P-5 was the birth of the U-2. Hardly likely that two such systems, especially with the U-2's superior altitude performance, would co- exist. not really The U2 was not suited for battlefield reconnaissance. USAF tried the Canberra but it was a failure and then the RB-66 derived from the skywarrior which was a success Vince They were used for that purpose in Cuba, one got shot down. By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational. and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_U-2 Cuba was not a "battlefield" Vince Tell that to the guys who flew over it. President Kennedy's favorite photograph of all those taken during the Cuban crisis was shot with the camera displayed at the museum on Nov. 10, 1962 (from less than 500 feet altitude at a speed of 713 mph). Clearly shown are Soviet-built SA-2 surface-to-air missiles in place at launch sites. These defensive missiles protected offensive weapons sites and posed a serious threat to U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. A copy of this portion of the strip photo was mounted in the President's office. Viewed with a stereoscopic projector, the features have a three-dimensional effect. The pattern of dots surrounding several launch sites are actually camouflage nets which were intended to conceal the equipment positioned beneath them, but the strip camera rendered them ineffective. http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...et.asp?id=1876 Spies get shot at all the time Doesn't make it a "battlefield" they were CIA flights Vince Air Force. http://www.afa.org/magazine/valor/1295valor.asp Good spies are never detected only suspected. Name me a spy who was shot by the other side. Usually it's your own people doing Penkovskii and his like in so they can't remember anything later. the pilots were airforce but the flights were CIA. They were reported by the CIA The track of the mission approved on 9 October was plotted to include coverage of the San Cristóbal trapezoid. The overflight did not actually occur until 14 October, owing to inclement weather forecasts and the time needed to train an air force pilot in the intricacies of the more powerful U-2s operated by the CIA.[79] But eventually, Maj. Richard Heyser piloted the U-2 that took 928 photographs in six minutes over an area of Cuba that had not been photographed for 45 days.[80] The film was rushed to Suitland, Maryland, for processing and arrived at NPIC on the morning of 15 October. Shortly before 4:00 p.m., the CIA photo-interpreter on a team of four analysts announced, “We’ve got MRBMs [medium range ballistic missiles] in Cuba.”[81] It was a “moment of splendor” for the U-2, its cameras and film, and the photo-interpreters, as Sherman Kent later put it, if not the CIA’s finest hour of the Cold War.[82] The president issued blanket authority for unrestricted U-2 overflights on 16 October, and the missile crisis commenced in earnest. https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol4...hoto_Gap_2.htm "On the morning of October 14, 1962, a U-2 aircraft, piloted by Air Force Major Richard D. Heyser, flew a reconnaissance mission over the western part of Cuba, flying from south to north. The 928 photographs obtained during the 6-minute flight over the island produced the first verified evidence of the existence of Soviet offensive missile sites in Cuba. Analysis and interpretation of the photographs at the National Photographic Intelligence Center revealed that three medium-range ballistic missile sites were being developed near San Cristobal, in Pinar del Rio province. Photo analysts counted eight large MRBM transporters at the three locations and four erector launchers in tentative firing positions. Two further U-2 missions, flown on October 15 by pilots of the Strategic Air Command, revealed a fourth MRBM site near San Cristobal, and two intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) sites were discovered at Guanajay. Photos also revealed 21 crates for Soviet IL-28 Beagle medium-range bomber aircraft at San Julian airfield. (Chronology of Air Force Actions During the Cuban Crisis, 14 October-30 October 1962; USAF Historical Division Liaison Office, pages 11-12) At 8:30 p.m. on October 15 CIA Deputy Director Carter reported to McGeorge Bundy the hard evidence of the MRBM's, but the President's Special Assistant decided not to notify the President that evening. In a memorandum to the President, dated March 4, 1963, Bundy explained his reasons for this decision: " http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...ba/cuba016.htm On October 10, NSA reported that the Cuban air defense system seemed to be complete. They had just begun passing radar tracking from radar stations to higher headquarters and to defensive fighter bases using Soviet procedures. Their system, with Russians in advisory positions at every point, was ready for business. It was into this defensive thicket that a CIA U-2 flew four days later. Although it survived, on October 25 another U-2 was shot down. http://www.nsa.gov/publications/publi00033.cfm Vince |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
US aviation hero receives RP recognition | [email protected] | General Aviation | 0 | November 30th 06 01:14 AM |
"Going for the Visual" | O. Sami Saydjari | Instrument Flight Rules | 101 | May 18th 04 05:08 AM |
Face-recognition on UAV's | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 3 | April 15th 04 03:18 PM |
Visual Appr. | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | September 17th 03 08:36 PM |
Qn: Casein Glue recognition | Vassilios Mazis | Soaring | 0 | August 20th 03 10:00 PM |