Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam

Subject: Bush Flew Fighter Jets During Vietnam
From: (WalterM140)
Date: 7/9/2004 3:53 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

I believe that is the first time I have heard of the F-102 as a "safe
aircraft"! Were they really?


Compared to flying F-105's to Route Package Six, they were very safe when
compared to flying an F-102 over Houston.

Walt


There was no flak over Houston. Well hardly any. ((:-))



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:53:48 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

I believe that is the first time I have heard of the F-102 as a "safe
aircraft"! Were they really?


Compared to flying F-105's to Route Package Six, they were very safe when
compared to flying an F-102 over Houston.

Non-responsive.

Absent the folks shooting at you and the fact that Air Intercept
is usually a regime thats less hazardous inherently than moving
mud, both are equally hazardous.

High powered jets will kill you for any number of seemingly
minor lapses in concentration, judgement, or luck.

And things like "Route Package Six" were part of the problem in
Vietnam. Why fergawdsake, set up predictable in/out routes for
raids. Apparently this is what happened for a long time.
Meant the NVA could set up their SAMs and AAA along those routes
and concentrate their fire.

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

And things like "Route Package Six" were part of the problem in
Vietnam. Why fergawdsake, set up predictable in/out routes for
raids. Apparently this is what happened for a long time.
Meant the NVA could set up their SAMs and AAA along those routes
and concentrate their fire.

Mosquito bombers en route to Berlin in 44-45 had set approach routes, well
known to aircrews and flak gunners alike. The three routes were so well
travelled that even the Jerries referred to approaching bogies as "stranger on
(train) Platform 3". Anti-Mosquito units were deliberately stationed on top of
the three arriving "railroad" routes...

Glad to see we learned from that little mistake...

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Its always better to lose -an- engine, not -the- engine.

nt (Krztalizer) wrote in
:

And things like "Route Package Six" were part of the problem in
Vietnam. Why fergawdsake, set up predictable in/out routes for
raids. Apparently this is what happened for a long time.
Meant the NVA could set up their SAMs and AAA along those routes
and concentrate their fire.

Mosquito bombers en route to Berlin in 44-45 had set approach routes,
well known to aircrews and flak gunners alike. The three routes were
so well travelled that even the Jerries referred to approaching bogies
as "stranger on (train) Platform 3". Anti-Mosquito units were
deliberately stationed on top of the three arriving "railroad"
routes...

Glad to see we learned from that little mistake...

A friend of mine did two tours in A4s in Vietnam. Mention that
particular idiocy to him and steam starts pouring out his ears.
Anybody know what the dumbasses who thought that one up were
thinking. Was it an effort to deconflict or just plain stupidity
at high elevels. Even worse was it the politicians trying to run the
war at a tactical level?

IBM

__________________________________________________ _____________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source

High powered jets will kill you for any number of seemingly
minor lapses in concentration, judgement, or luck.

I have huge respect for a 65 hp, high wing, 39 mph stall speed J-3
Piper Cub. Any airplane can kill you, though the Cub is probably the
least effective pilot-killer in the business.

Crikey, only three weeks ago I was tying it down, and the dang thang
put me in the emergency room with seven stitches on the outside of my
scalp and a tied-off vein on the inside. ("Who would have thought the
old man had so much blood in him?")


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! weblog www.vivabush.org

In message , Cub Driver
writes
I have huge respect for a 65 hp, high wing, 39 mph stall speed J-3
Piper Cub. Any airplane can kill you, though the Cub is probably the
least effective pilot-killer in the business.

Crikey, only three weeks ago I was tying it down, and the dang thang
put me in the emergency room with seven stitches on the outside of my
scalp and a tied-off vein on the inside. ("Who would have thought the
old man had so much blood in him?")

Ouch! Hope it's healing well.

What happened? Did your scalp lose an argument with the prop?

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

On 10 Jul 2004 00:27:24 GMT, "ian maclure" wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:53:48 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

I believe that is the first time I have heard of the F-102 as a "safe
aircraft"! Were they really?


Compared to flying F-105's to Route Package Six, they were very safe when
compared to flying an F-102 over Houston.

Nice of Walt to provide us a comment about driving 105's to RP VI.
But, flying Deuces day or night, in any kind of weather, mostly out
over the Gulf in a cockpit you could barely see out of and with an
under-powered J-57 doing the pushing was not a piece of cake.

Non-responsive.

Absent the folks shooting at you and the fact that Air Intercept
is usually a regime thats less hazardous inherently than moving
mud, both are equally hazardous.

High powered jets will kill you for any number of seemingly
minor lapses in concentration, judgement, or luck.

And things like "Route Package Six" were part of the problem in
Vietnam. Why fergawdsake, set up predictable in/out routes for
raids. Apparently this is what happened for a long time.
Meant the NVA could set up their SAMs and AAA along those routes
and concentrate their fire.

Willy Sutton was asked why he robbed banks. "That's where the money
is" was his answer. Why did we us the routes we did? Because they led
to the targets. NVN is a small country. The targets of meaning are
clustered in a smaller area of flat land and coastal plains. If you
start from A and go to B, there are only so many ways to get there. In
the days before GPS, visual nav means finding landmarks like Yen Bai,
the "dog pecker", Thud Ridge, Phantom Ridge and the "porkchop" to use
as pilotage checkpoints.

There were a lot of variations within the theme. We could get to Hanoi
from Thud Ridge, crossing from Laos and back out via Laos; or from
Laos and out to the Gulf; or from the Gulf and back out feet wet; or
from the Gulf and out via Laos. But, eventually you have to get over
the target and that's where the defenses are.



IBM

_________________________________________________ ______________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
The Worlds Uncensored News Source


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"ian maclure" wrote in message ...
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:53:48 +0000, WalterM140 wrote:

I believe that is the first time I have heard of the F-102 as a "safe
aircraft"! Were they really?


Compared to flying F-105's to Route Package Six, they were very safe when
compared to flying an F-102 over Houston.

Non-responsive.

Absent the folks shooting at you and the fact that Air Intercept
is usually a regime thats less hazardous inherently than moving
mud, both are equally hazardous.

IOW, if you don't consider the factors that make one more hazardous,
they are equally hazaradous? Or are you just saying that any risk
differential was largely independent of the type of aircraft being
flown?

One should probably also factor in quality of maitenance domestically
vs in theater.

Didn't the 102 have the downward firing ejection seat that
made low-level ejections, er, problematic?

--

FF

Fred the Red Shirt ) writes:

Didn't the 102 have the downward firing ejection seat that
made low-level ejections, er, problematic?

Nah, it was "up and out" on the F-102.

But it wasn't equipped with the "zero/zero" ejection seats that
today's aircraft have - so low level ejections -were- problematic.

But then, F-102s tended to spend very little time at low altitudes.
Take offs and landings were pretty much the extent of that.

--


"Cave ab homine unius libri"

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...

Didn't the 102 have the downward firing ejection seat that
made low-level ejections, er, problematic?


No, it did not. I believe you're thinking of the early F-104.