Rumsfeld and flying

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
. com...
Ron W wrote:
Hello George. I was right down ther road from you at Yokota flying
WB-29's and Wb-50's from 1954 to 55, when I was grounded for a
bad eye! Also checked out in our C-54. I learned how to land it
the Berlin Air Lift way: 800 ft final, nose touching the runway, cut
power, full flaps & cowls, gear and nose down. Flare and land on the
stripes. It took a while to get one's courage!


You want to explain that again? I'm having trouble getting a mental
picture of
what you did. You grind the nose on the runway, then lower the gear?
After
grinding, then you flare? I'm missing something.

Sorry I guess I was a little too terse. We flew our final at 800 ft
altitude above ground, (IIRC) until the nose of the a/c just passed
over the end of the runway below, then chopped power, etc, and
flared out of the rather steep end of the final approach.. We didn't
grind anything along the runway if we did things right. Remember during the
air lift, they were hauling loads onto relativly short runways surrounded by
buildings. Their approaches needed to be steep! We
certainly didn't need to did this at Yokota, but the demonstration was
an effective learning tool, if it was needed else where!

When we returned from our weather recce missions off the eastern
coast of Japan we would head for Oshima Island in Tokyo Bay and
with the approval of flight control, again chop power, lower gear,&
flaps with cowl flaps open wide. Airspeed was controlled with the
angle of the dive, again quite steep. The FE maintained engine temps
with a little throttle and cowl adjustments. After using this as a method of
rapid descent in the WB-29's and 50's, the steep final approach in the C-54
wasn't too disconcerting. Exept we were leveling out at about 3000 ft
rather than just above the runway as with the C-54.

During primary, my instructer liked to lose altitude with spins. I
became fairly proficient as most other instructors didn't spin the
T-6 that frequently. I contrast, my ex crop-sprayer T-28 instructor
hated spins, After I successfully demonstrated I could recover, I had
to spin on my solo's if I want to continue. Spining the B-20/50 and
the C-54 wasn't recomended, though I understand a number of 4-engine
a/c, such as B-17's were recovered from spins in WWII

Good luck with the C-54. I enjoyed the short time I spent in in.

Ron

Stephen Harding wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

[snip some interesting stats and possible myths of Vietnam]

old draftees killed, only *seven* were black); and Vietnam was the first
unpopular US war (false, at least in an arguable sense; he points out that a
1937 poll indicated that fully 64% of Americans considered our entry into
WWI as being a blunder, and two years after WWII 25% of Americans thought
our participation in *that* war had been a misguided); and lastly (Art

One could argue on that percentage basis that the Revolution was
even more unpopular. None other than Ben Franklin put the split
between rebel/loyalist/fence sitter at about 1/3 each. The Mexican
War was rather controversial in Congress, and of course, the Civil
War had its bad days when northern opinion in support would be low.
The "sour taste" of WWI involvement after the fact in the US is well
known, and pretty much drove isolationist sentiment.
[snip]

The truth is that most wars in the US have been relatively
unpopular, and poorly viewed by history as well. WWII was probably
the lone exception. It's probably "improved" with age.

The US started out with a fairly isolationist tradition
and wars tended to be ones of expansion, which weren't always
popular everywhere. The Civil War was extremely unpopular and
resulted in riots in some cites which would make most Vietnam
protest look like picnics. An interesting read is "A Country
Made by War". Less about wars themselves and more about the
lead ins and their effects on the country in general.

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
ignorance, huh?

"Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is it a
deal or not?

George Z.

Ron W wrote:
You want to explain that again? I'm having trouble getting a mental picture
of what you did. You grind the nose on the runway, then lower the gear?
After grinding, then you flare? I'm missing something.

Sorry I guess I was a little too terse. We flew our final at 800 ft
altitude above ground, (IIRC) until the nose of the a/c just passed
over the end of the runway below, then chopped power, etc, and
flared out of the rather steep end of the final approach.. We didn't
grind anything along the runway if we did things right. Remember during the
air lift, they were hauling loads onto relativly short runways surrounded by
buildings. Their approaches needed to be steep! We
certainly didn't need to did this at Yokota, but the demonstration was
an effective learning tool, if it was needed else where!


Thanks for the more complete explanation; I got that one. I wish I could say I
was flying the C-54, but the closest I ever got to one was riding in the back as
a kid. There's two other C-54 drivers he one former and one current.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and
interest
into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
Vietnam
veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even more
admirable
job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony you keep
muttering
about. You have two choices here, George--go check the book out from
your
local library and give it a read, or continue to march with your
cherished
myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding
WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky
based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in
blissful
ignorance, huh?

"Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is
it a
deal or not?

Typical George. I asked you up front whether you'd rather read an
interesting work that convincingly puts paid to your ridiculous "Kerry's
speech before Congress was based upon sworn testimony!" (which you
compounded by making that false statement not once but twice in the same
post), or whether you'd prefer to float happily along in continuing
ignorance of the truth regarding that matter. No surprise that you have
chosen the latter--perish the thought of your reading a factual account that
by happenstance (Burkett's work was not directed at a guy who was then just
another Senator from Kennedyland) casts a pall over the veracity of your new
hero's most (in)famous moment. Being afraid of reading the truth (such as
the true nature of the WSI "testimony") is one heck of an endorsement for
your candidate, George.

Brooks


George Z.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

We certainly can count on our statisticians to breath life and interest
into any subject that catches their eye. (^-^)))

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...snort!!! Did I miss anything? (^-^)))

Yeah, you did--a lot of typical misguided preconceived notions about
Vietnam veterans getting blown out of the water. Burkett does an even
more admirable job on your personal favorite, that "sworn" WSI testimony
you keep muttering about. You have two choices here, George--go check the
book out from your local library and give it a read, or continue to march
with your cherished myths--which will it be?

I'll stop babbling when you stop babbling. Deal?

You are not going to risk those cherished and false notions regarding WSI,
are you? All of that "sworn" (your term) testimony that Kerry/Walinsky based
his/their congressional testimony on? Much easier to continue on in blissful
ignorance, huh?

"Yes" or "No" too hard to pick from? I didn't mean to challenge you; is it a
deal or not?

Typical George. I asked you up front whether you'd rather read an
interesting work that convincingly puts paid to your ridiculous "Kerry's
speech before Congress was based upon sworn testimony!" (which you
compounded by making that false statement not once but twice in the same
post), or whether you'd prefer to float happily along in continuing
ignorance of the truth regarding that matter. No surprise that you have
chosen the latter--perish the thought of your reading a factual account that
by happenstance (Burkett's work was not directed at a guy who was then just
another Senator from Kennedyland) casts a pall over the veracity of your new
hero's most (in)famous moment. Being afraid of reading the truth (such as
the true nature of the WSI "testimony") is one heck of an endorsement for
your candidate, George.

I guess I'll have to take that as a "No", then. You obviously still want to
babble on. Well, since you don't want to make a deal with me, and I obviously
can't force you to, go right ahead and keep on babbling, just like the
proverbial brook. (^-^)))

It shouldn't matter to you then if I snooze while you gurgle away. Good night.

George Z.

On 9 Mar 2004 11:44:25 -0800, (me) wrote:

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

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

Cub Driver wrote in message . ..
On 9 Mar 2004 11:44:25 -0800, (me) wrote:

How history treats the "cold war" will be interesting, partially in
exactly how they define it and just how "cold" they consider it.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!


Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe. I think there is
little doubt that without NATO, several european countries would
have been invaded on various pretenses. Easily Berlin would have
"fallen". Waiting until it actually happened would have been
disaster for the US. They would have been left with the choice
of going into a major superpower war over say Germany. NATO
made all of the european countries "one country" militarily
speaking and we tended to be VERY preemptive in our strategy.

They were a vastly lesser threat in the "home country" than
we made out. Of course, that is also a far distance from saying
they were "no threat" here at home. They were a huge intelligence
threat. But they had no real interest in invading or starting a
war with us directly. Truth is, in hindsight, we were more
threatening to them than they were to us.

The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
The domino theory was bunk. In my mind the real question is
in the african and south american arenas. You can make a case
that our most effective opposition was in those areas. Alternately
though, you can make the case that the Soviets never had a prayer.
Much like their inability to spread their influence through
southeast asia, it isn't clear it would spread through Africa
nor South America. Heck, in reality it didn't take hold in
Eastern Europe much less anywhere in Asia.

If there is a legacy to the cold war it is that we didn't have
the "courage of our convictions". Communism didn't take hold
for all the reasons that democracy has. We always claim to be
the "beacon of freedom". But in too many cases we've been the
supporter of despots to keep them out of the arms of communists.
We probably didn't need to, communists couldn't hold them.

The Good People are already defining (or rather re-defining) it. They
chuckle about the "Commies" and the imaginary threat they posed. Hey,
poor old Russia just fell apart, didn't it? No threat at all!


Well.... "They" were a serious threat to europe.

I'm sorry! I was trying to be funny. (Or anyhow ironical.)
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

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

(me) wrote in message . com...
The various proxy wars on the other had are a real mixed bag.
Vietnam was a joke, as can be seen by history. They were no
real friend of the soviets, and not much of one to the chinese.
Our hostility drove them into their arms as much as anything.
The domino theory was bunk.


Perhaps true, but North Vietnamese officials did make public remarks
which instead claimed that Hanoi was part of a global Communist
effort. In 1966, Hoang Anh (Minister of Agriculture and member of the
Central Committee) rationalized the acceptance of military aid from
China and the Soviets with this explanation:

" While setting high the spirit of relying on are own strength as our
main concern, our people highly value and strive to win the sympathy
and support from the fraternal socialist countries and from the
progressive people of the world. We constantly think that our people's
fight against America for national salvation is an inseparable part of
the world revolution. With the victory of the Vietnamese people and
the defeat of the U.S. imperialists, the socialist camp, the world
revolution, and world peace will win. We are exerting all our strength
to fulfill this international duty "

'North Vietnam's Strategy For Survival', Jon M. Van Dyke, 1972.