Chop shop...

http://tinyurl.com/37sf4h

http://video.ap.org/v/Legacy.aspx?f=1148593&g=31e4a0fe-149d-437a-8fa6-bc39c8f82a0f&p=ENAPus_ENAPus&t=s1179980883147&rf=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wwmt.com%2f&fg=tool&partner=en-ap

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
> Chop shop...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/37sf4h
>
> http://video.ap.org/v/Legacy.aspx?f=1148593&g=31e4a0fe-149d-437a-8fa6-bc39c8f82a0f&p=ENAPus_ENAPus&t=s1179980883147&rf=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wwmt.com%2f&fg=tool&partner=en-ap

Dang, that is painful to watch.

I sure hope they keep a few of them around for private collections. It sure
is nice to be able to see a F-4 at an air show, and the private owners are
the only way to make that happen.

I hope that my grandkids can see a F-14 flying, in 15 years, but if they
crunch them all up, that won't happen.

I realize there is concern about them falling into enemy hands. Couldn't
they just put a self destruct on them, so they could blow them up if the
enemy got ahold of one? <g>
--
Jim in NC

>
> I sure hope they keep a few of them around for private collections. It sure
> is nice to be able to see a F-4 at an air show, and the private owners are
> the only way to make that happen.

It may be too difficult to keep the highly computerized fighters
flying for private citizens. I would hope not, but it seems unlikely
that we will see these in private hands.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> >
>> I sure hope they keep a few of them around for private collections. It
>> sure
>> is nice to be able to see a F-4 at an air show, and the private owners
>> are
>> the only way to make that happen.
>
> It may be too difficult to keep the highly computerized fighters
> flying for private citizens. I would hope not, but it seems unlikely
> that we will see these in private hands.

There are a LOT of people out there, military and civilian, that have spent
several years of their life working on, and maintaining these computerized
beasts. It seems likely that there would be a large enough talent pool to
keep them flying. If parts are needed, that would be more difficult, but
not an insurmountable problem, I would think.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > >
> >> I sure hope they keep a few of them around for private collections. It
> >> sure
> >> is nice to be able to see a F-4 at an air show, and the private owners
> >> are
> >> the only way to make that happen.
> >
> > It may be too difficult to keep the highly computerized fighters
> > flying for private citizens. I would hope not, but it seems unlikely
> > that we will see these in private hands.
>
> There are a LOT of people out there, military and civilian, that have
spent
> several years of their life working on, and maintaining these computerized
> beasts. It seems likely that there would be a large enough talent pool to
> keep them flying. If parts are needed, that would be more difficult, but
> not an insurmountable problem, I would think.
>

The real issue is that if these planes are so dangerous then why did we stop
using them? Or, conversly, why are we scared of them? Are a few
operational planes that big of a threat?

"Tom Conner" > wrote in message nk.net...

>
> The real issue is that if these planes are so dangerous then why did we stop
> using them? Or, conversly, why are we scared of them? Are a few
> operational planes that big of a threat?
>
>

Apparently Iran still has quite a few operational F-14s with all the goodies.

"Tom Conner"> wrote

> The real issue is that if these planes are so dangerous then why did we
> stop
> using them? Or, conversly, why are we scared of them? Are a few
> operational planes that big of a threat?

Because they are EXPENSIVE to maintain. The huge plane to fly the huge
radar is not needed for air superiority. The Super F-18 can do the job for
much less.
--
Jim in NC

On 2007-07-02, Morgans > wrote:
> Dang, that is painful to watch.

The machines sort of made me think of those scenes in the desert in
natural history programmes, with the lions tearing apart a zebra that
they've caught.

> I hope that my grandkids can see a F-14 flying, in 15 years, but if they
> crunch them all up, that won't happen.

It's highly unlikely - at least, for an ex US F-14 (or US ally), since
they must all be made unairworthy. There may be a few static display.

The irony of the situation is the warbird of tomorrow's airshows will
be mostly ex-Soviet or British, with very little US hardware. It'll look
almost like the Soviets won the cold war to the airshow atendee of the
future.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Dylan Smith wrote:
>
> The irony of the situation is the warbird of tomorrow's airshows will
> be mostly ex-Soviet or British, with very little US hardware. It'll look
> almost like the Soviets won the cold war to the airshow atendee of the
> future.
>

I think the real irony is that these airplanes are still capable of such
a serious threat that they have to be trashed. That speaks volumes
about retired hardware. <G>

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
t...
> Chop shop...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/37sf4h
>
> http://video.ap.org/v/Legacy.aspx?f=1148593&g=31e4a0fe-149d-437a-8fa6-bc39c8f82a0f&p=ENAPus_ENAPus&t=s1179980883147&rf=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wwmt.com%2f&fg=tool&partner=en-ap
>
>

Does anyone know how much the scrap metal from on is worth?

--
Danny Deger

NASA offered me $15,000 to take down my web site. Take a look and see why.
www.dannydeger.net

>

Danny Deger > wrote:
> "Blueskies" > wrote in message
> t...
> > Chop shop...
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/37sf4h
> >
> > http://video.ap.org/v/Legacy.aspx?f=1148593&g=31e4a0fe-149d-437a-8fa6-bc39c8f82a0f&p=ENAPus_ENAPus&t=s1179980883147&rf=http%3a%2f%2fwww.wwmt.com%2f&fg=tool&partner=en-ap
> >
> >

> Does anyone know how much the scrap metal from on is worth?

It depends on condition, quatity, alloy, etc, and varies day to day,
but a rough rule of thumb would be on the order of $0.25/lb for
aluminum and $0.10/lb for steel.

An F-14 weighs about 40,000 lb and assuming a 50-50 mix of steel
and aluminum by weight gives about $7,000 minus the labor to get
it to scrap.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Blueskies wrote:
>> The real issue is that if these planes are so dangerous then why did we stop
>> using them? Or, conversly, why are we scared of them? Are a few
>> operational planes that big of a threat?
>
>Apparently Iran still has quite a few operational F-14s with all the goodies.

It is unlikely that any of Iran's F-14s remained operational for more than
a few months (if at all) after the Grumman crews bugged out. There's no
record of any of them having flown since the Shah abdicated in 1979. I saw
an interview with one of the Grumman engineers that had been in Iran. He
said that there were only a few operational before they left, there were no
Iranian personal trained to maintain them, and they made a few
"modifications" before leaving to prevent them from being put into service.

Without the parts, specialized maintenance equipment and trained personnel,
it's doubtful that any of them flew. Their complete absence during the
Iran/Iraq war would tend to support that theory.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

Blueskies wrote:
>> The real issue is that if these planes are so dangerous then why did we stop
>> using them? Or, conversly, why are we scared of them? Are a few
>> operational planes that big of a threat?
>
>Apparently Iran still has quite a few operational F-14s with all the goodies.

It is unlikely that any of Iran's F-14s remain operational with any of the
real goodies (i.e. the Phoenix system). Most of the original fleet was
cannabalized for parts during the Iran/Iraq war. With the absence of
technical support, it is thought that the (very) few that have been spotted
over the last 20 yrs. may have been refitted with Soviet engines and weapons
systems in the late 80s/ early 90s.

The Iranian aircraft industry is probably capable enough to keep reengined
airframes flying indefinitely, armed with simple Sparrow and Sidewinder
missiles. But, it's unlikely that any of the Phoenix missile technology has
been operational since the Iran/Iraq war.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

JGalban wrote:
>>> The real issue is that if these planes are so dangerous then why did we stop
>>> using them? Or, conversly, why are we scared of them? Are a few
>>> operational planes that big of a threat?
>>
>>Apparently Iran still has quite a few operational F-14s with all the goodies.
>
> It is unlikely that any of Iran's F-14s remained operational for more than
>a few months (if at all) after the Grumman crews bugged out.

Forget that one. Bad info. Just got an email from a Navy pal, see my
other post.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200707/1

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Blueskies wrote:
>>> The real issue is that if these planes are so dangerous then why
>>> did we stop using them? Or, conversly, why are we scared of them?
>>> Are a few operational planes that big of a threat?
>>
>> Apparently Iran still has quite a few operational F-14s with all the
>> goodies.
>
> It is unlikely that any of Iran's F-14s remained operational for
> more than a few months (if at all) after the Grumman crews bugged
> out. There's no record of any of them having flown since the Shah
> abdicated in 1979. I saw an interview with one of the Grumman
> engineers that had been in Iran. He said that there were only a few
> operational before they left, there were no Iranian personal trained
> to maintain them, and they made a few "modifications" before leaving
> to prevent them from being put into service.
>
> Without the parts, specialized maintenance equipment and trained
> personnel, it's doubtful that any of them flew. Their complete
> absence during the Iran/Iraq war would tend to support that theory.
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

According to this site, "An Iranian Tomcat scored a kill against an Iraqi
Mirage F1 as late as the spring of 1988."

http://www.iiaf.net/aircraft/jetfighters/F14/f14.html