Vandalism, security measure, or something else?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?

[...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.
You
have a better theory?

There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks

"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?

"OXMORON1" wrote in message
...
Isn't the south end of the base directly accross the fence from the
recycling
plants?

I don't know. I wouldn't recognize a recycling plant if I saw one.

If it were across the street, would that suggest an answer to my question?
I'm not sure how that would explain what happened to these planes.

Thanks,
Pete

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:



To show compliance with some treaty?


[...] umm, probably not


I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.


You


have a better theory?



There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks




Very obvious so mother Russia can verify from space. Leaves no doubt if
a B-52's wings are laying next to the fuselage.

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!

Whoops, I take that back. All going to the furnace had their markings
painted over. Time to scratch my head a little more.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message ...
Of course, if the goal was to remove the USAF markings, there are better
ways to do that as well.

Like what?

You can't just spray paint the plane while it sits in the desert -
environmental regs are such these days that you need a paint hangar.
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.

If you just poke holes in the side of the plane with a forklift, on
the other hand, it'll take one guy five minutes a shot, not to mention
it'll let him work off a bit of aggression while he's at it.

As the post you quoted suggested, I guess there doesn't have to be a
"sensical [sic]" reason for targeting the USAF label specifically. But I
was hoping there was one. On the face of it, I don't see any rational
reason for attacking the airplanes that way, which is precisely why I was
hoping someone here would know the answer.

The more that I think about it, the more I suspect it's removing the
markings in an unorthodox manner.

-jake

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!

The wing spar (box?) problems wouldn't make any buyer happy either.

--
Bob Noel

In article , OXMORON1
wrote:

A loooong time ago when the F-111B prototype was at DM, there was some
graffiti
on it, and I quote: "F#%k the Navy"
Don't know when or where it got added.
This was about '76 and the a/c was barely a hulk back then.

Oxmoron1
MFE

There were seven F-111B's around at one point and at least two of them
are still hulks out at China Lake. Some photo's located here.

http://www.air-and-space.com/2002062...tage%20aircraf
t.htm

I've been in squadrons that Maint Control would promise 152715 would be
ready for the afternoon go I'm kinda surprised the Naval Aviation
Museum has not claimed one of these.

Pugs

"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?

No, I have no theory to propose, but the one that was put forth was a
non-starter. Why, is there something inherently wrong with debunking an
obviously incorrect theory? This was not a personal attack--it just pointed
out that the theory was unworkable.

Brooks

"Allen Epps" wrote in message
...
In article , OXMORON1
wrote:

A loooong time ago when the F-111B prototype was at DM, there was some
graffiti
on it, and I quote: "F#%k the Navy"
Don't know when or where it got added.
This was about '76 and the a/c was barely a hulk back then.

Oxmoron1
MFE

There were seven F-111B's around at one point and at least two of them
are still hulks out at China Lake. Some photo's located here.

http://www.air-and-space.com/2002062...tage%20aircraf
t.htm

I've been in squadrons that Maint Control would promise 152715 would be
ready for the afternoon go I'm kinda surprised the Naval Aviation
Museum has not claimed one of these.

I suspect the Navy would prefer to act as if the F-111B program never
existed...

Brooks


Pugs

"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).

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