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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be. Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't called "FB-15" either. Andreas |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:21:07 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be. So MD/Boeing would know all about the FB-4 Phantom, right? From a search using Boeing's own search engine at http://search-www2.boeing.com/: The search results are he http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hpnpg Your search - FB-4 - did not match any documents. No pages were found containing "FB-4". Suggestions: Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Copyright © Boeing. All rights reserved. ----- I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once again. If you call me giving cites that contradict the thing's you're saying as help, then I guess I am. I thought you had given up on that. I'm still partial to the truth. You? Well, you just got demoted back to the dismal 404thk00ks. Is there a secret handshake I have to learn? Nice job. Thank you. You are now wide open for any and all criticism that comes their way. Okay. Guess you will never learn. Learn what, hanging on to an idea despite all contradictory evidence that proves I'm wrong? I guess I never will. -- -Jeff B. zoomie at fastmail fm |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote: McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are wrong and you are right? Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4 nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions. The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
Well let's see......
If we accept that the Phantom ever carried a designation "FB-4", then there must have been a collateral "FB-105"....(and I sure never heard of that bird). Now, there was that short lived F4H..... TMO |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are wrong and you are right? Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4 nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions. The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" www.thunderchief.org www.thundertales.blogspot.com As per usual, Daryl is so BUSTED yet again! - nilita |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
In article ,
mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message nk.net... In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message news In article , mumbled "Tankfixer" wrote in message ink.net... In article . net, mumbled ---------- In article . net, Tankfixer wrote: In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the guide concerning the dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition guide needlessly restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it from being accurate. Needlessly restricted ? That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a publications account with USAPA It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can look up the post at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government Bulletin. It is FOUO. If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for publishing it to the web. You can't request classified publications from USAPA. While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to hype things. The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't know a damned thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of expertise; trolling on a non related subject. Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is classified. I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with USAPA. You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition, since you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in the mid 1950's A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's. The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it for a Mig-21 while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to make that mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think it's easy? Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us better to go over to the other side and help them. P-38... Tell us again daryl... And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you provide the proof that I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail your EID attacks, now wouldn't it, Achmed. Any number of people pointed out actual USAF documents that showed the P38 left unit service in the late 1940's. And you know that there were no P-38s left in ANY Air Guard Unit anywhere in 1953? I was told during Tech School that there were NO C-124 Globemasters left in the Active Duty AF and to just learn enough to pass the test. The instructors said they just didn't get the time to get it out of the coriculum. Guess what, a few years later, I was at Elmendorf AFB, AK up to my asses with two of them. And the Actives kept a whole lot better records and new AC than the Air Guards did back then. But don't let a little paperwork get in your way of a good lie. Not my fault you got exiled to Alaska. Not suprising given your abrasive nature. If you are too dense to admit the facts it's not my fault. And you visited each and every Air Guard Unit in 1953 to verify this fact? Hell, kid you weren't even a gleem in your daddy's eye yet. So it should be fairly easy for you to cite which Guard unit was still flying them in squadron strenght in 1953.. Simple fact is if there were any in squadron service in the mid-50's you could easily provide the unti they were assigned to. LOL, you sure believe in everything you read on the internet. Of course, only those items that bolster your fairytale. Since my sources include the USAF site at Maxwell you might wish to reconsider your bluster. Nope, your site only cites what was in the ACTIVE DUTY Air Force and has nothing to do with the Air National Guard during the early 50s. You are just lying to suit your own story. You keep it up, even in the face of other folks telling you that you are wrong. Are you familiar with how Air Guard units get equipment and from whom they get it ? -- Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a diet of static text and cascading "threads." |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
In message , TMOliver
writes Well let's see...... If we accept that the Phantom ever carried a designation "FB-4", then there must have been a collateral "FB-105"....(and I sure never heard of that bird). Plus the FB-106 (what, you couldn't use improvise and use Genie as an air-to-ground weapon? Fire to get an airburst over desired target?) -- The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. -Thucydides Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt" wrote: McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are wrong and you are right? Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4 nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F, G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions. The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111. I have never stated that the US Air Force EVER used the term FB-4. But we both know that the 4 comes at the end of a time that a Fighter/Bomber was classed just that way. Of course, it was also the first Multirolled Fighter that all others follow even today. But it's more than a bit of a stretch not to include it as a bomber as well as a fighter since it did both roles equally well depending on the loadout. BTW, Ed, the 404thk00ks also stated that there was nothing ever named with a FB yet there were more than a few. All I have stated is that the 4 met the criteria of a FB at the time it was introduced and even MD classed it as a FB originally. |
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 |