Bush, Kerry, Airplanes

[Sam Byrams]

All this brings up several things.

One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did
not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand ,
fourteen months after UPT and has not flown as PIC or SIC since.
Neither military or elsewise. (Not counting the ride out to the boat
of late.)

Kerry learned to fly not at government expense and apparently has
done so for a number of years.

Now, mind you, I don't like Bush or Kerry as a candidate. Bush was
born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Kerry is also
apparently something of a rich kid, married Big Ketchup, Ivy League
(yecch), and to top it off is closely associated with a family I
detest and which makes my skin crawl for many reasons (not least of
which the same reason a certain baseball player hated them for every
day of the last 36 years of his life). I can tell you right now I'm
voting third party.

But-be honest-is there any reason I should prefer Bush over Kerry
from an aviation standpoint? Bush, a nonpilot as far as I'm concerned,
has done nothing for aviation in this country. Kerry isn't likely to
either, but how much worse could he be?

The other thing in all this discussion of what balls it takes to
strap on a single engine fighter, is the growing evidence that many
people are willing to pay a lot of money for the privilege. Once
reserved for places like Mojave, the warjet deal is penetrating down
to the backward Midwest. I saw a Sabre and a Hawker Hunter poking
their tails up among the Aztecs and King Airs at the local spam can
patch this week out here. My guess is it costs roughly five hundred
bucks an hour to fly a Sabre. And the civil warjet guys are killing
themselves at a rate that would have embarrassed the Air Force during
the glory days of "Every Man A Tiger".

In and of itself flying fighters is no more heroic than riding a
chopped Harley with the Hells Angels or wreck diving with open circuit
scuba gear. It's what one does, and why, that sometimes might be
heroic. But just climbing up there-if I hit the lottery and could get
the FAA to let me I'd buy-after working my way up a little-the wildest
fighter I could. Simply because it would be-this is 2004, Marilyn's
dead, and she'd be 78 anyway- the biggest ego blast in the world to
taxi up to the ramp at the local FBO in front of all those square-ass
Gulfstream and Lear crews. I know what the statistics are, and I don't
care. I suspect Bush Jr's motives were the same-booze, pussy and
kerosene!












Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >I believe that is the first time I have heard of the F-102 as a "safe
> >aircraft"! Were they really?
>
> As Ed Rasimus has said: "Every time you kick the tires and light the
> fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it can kill
> you--all by itself without help from an enemy."
> www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
>

[kontiki]

Sam Byrams wrote:
> All this brings up several things.

-clip-

You have to fight your tendency to view a presidential candidate
from the standpoint of aviation. Reagan was not pilot by any measure
but I would classify Kerry as farther away from Reagan (by any number
of measures) than Bush. You can't compare apples and oranges in any
meaningful way.

Bush is more of a statesman that Kerry but not much of one compared
to Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. It's all relative.... as for me,
I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Foster]

Or, think of it this way. Bush is an incompetent moron; Kerry isn't.
Bush's incompetence and ego got us into a war we shouldn't be in; Kerry
didn't.

etc., etc., etc.

kontiki wrote:
>
> Sam Byrams wrote:
>
>> All this brings up several things.
>
>
> -clip-
>
> You have to fight your tendency to view a presidential candidate
> from the standpoint of aviation. Reagan was not pilot by any measure
> but I would classify Kerry as farther away from Reagan (by any number
> of measures) than Bush. You can't compare apples and oranges in any
> meaningful way.
>
> Bush is more of a statesman that Kerry but not much of one compared
> to Teddy Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. It's all relative.... as for me,
> I'll be voting for the lesser of two evils.
>

[NW_PILOT]

And you think we are going to have another presidential election in this
country???? I think that bush will stop the election and I have said the
same thing in the past prior to the news reports on how he wants to know how
to delay an election incase of a terrorist attack. If there is an election
this year I will be very surprised. They have already taken away 45% of our
arms so we could not fight an unruly government if bush dose what I think he
is going to do. But I could be wrong.



"Sam Byrams" > wrote in message
om...
> All this brings up several things.
>
> One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did
> not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand ,
> fourteen months after UPT and has not flown as PIC or SIC since.
> Neither military or elsewise. (Not counting the ride out to the boat
> of late.)
>
> Kerry learned to fly not at government expense and apparently has
> done so for a number of years.
>
> Now, mind you, I don't like Bush or Kerry as a candidate. Bush was
> born on third base and thinks he hit a triple. Kerry is also
> apparently something of a rich kid, married Big Ketchup, Ivy League
> (yecch), and to top it off is closely associated with a family I
> detest and which makes my skin crawl for many reasons (not least of
> which the same reason a certain baseball player hated them for every
> day of the last 36 years of his life). I can tell you right now I'm
> voting third party.
>
> But-be honest-is there any reason I should prefer Bush over Kerry
> from an aviation standpoint? Bush, a nonpilot as far as I'm concerned,
> has done nothing for aviation in this country. Kerry isn't likely to
> either, but how much worse could he be?
>
> The other thing in all this discussion of what balls it takes to
> strap on a single engine fighter, is the growing evidence that many
> people are willing to pay a lot of money for the privilege. Once
> reserved for places like Mojave, the warjet deal is penetrating down
> to the backward Midwest. I saw a Sabre and a Hawker Hunter poking
> their tails up among the Aztecs and King Airs at the local spam can
> patch this week out here. My guess is it costs roughly five hundred
> bucks an hour to fly a Sabre. And the civil warjet guys are killing
> themselves at a rate that would have embarrassed the Air Force during
> the glory days of "Every Man A Tiger".
>
> In and of itself flying fighters is no more heroic than riding a
> chopped Harley with the Hells Angels or wreck diving with open circuit
> scuba gear. It's what one does, and why, that sometimes might be
> heroic. But just climbing up there-if I hit the lottery and could get
> the FAA to let me I'd buy-after working my way up a little-the wildest
> fighter I could. Simply because it would be-this is 2004, Marilyn's
> dead, and she'd be 78 anyway- the biggest ego blast in the world to
> taxi up to the ramp at the local FBO in front of all those square-ass
> Gulfstream and Lear crews. I know what the statistics are, and I don't
> care. I suspect Bush Jr's motives were the same-booze, pussy and
> kerosene!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cub Driver > wrote in message
>...
> > >I believe that is the first time I have heard of the F-102 as a "safe
> > >aircraft"! Were they really?
> >
> > As Ed Rasimus has said: "Every time you kick the tires and light the
> > fire in a single-engine, single-seat Century Series jet, it can kill
> > you--all by itself without help from an enemy."
> > www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm
> >

[C J Campbell]

Speaking strictly from an aviation standpoint, I don't think that either
Bush or Kerry is especially good for GA.

The Republican tax incentives for new plane purchases have been very good,
but they do have the side effect of depressing the prices of used airplanes.
You can expect these tax incentives to disappear under either
administration, although the Republicans are talking about extending them
one more year.

Estate taxes are another issue. Federal estate taxes have been reduced, at
least temporarily, but many states have adopted estate taxes of their own to
grab this money. Of course, the states will not repeal these taxes when the
federal tax goes back up. Kerry would make matters worse by repealing the
reductions immediately. This means that if you own an aviation business your
heirs will probably be forced to sell the business instead of continuing to
operate it.

Not that it matters all that much. The government is going to take about
half what you earn, no matter how you slice it. Income and estate taxes are
small fish. Most people have no idea how big a bite that Social Security,
payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, utility taxes, and all the other
hidden little taxes that they pay all up and down the distribution system
really adds up to. It doesn't matter what your income is. You end up giving
half of it to the government. The Republicans and Democrats only keep the
income tax around so that they can distract your attention from what you are
really paying. It gives them something to talk about during election years
and gives them the opportunity to pretend that there is really a difference
between the two parties.

Despite claims by some here to the contrary, both Bush and Kerry are wealthy
elitists and they both would have done pretty much the same thing in Iraq.
Bush is not nearly as stupid as painted by the Kerry camp and Kerry is not
nearly as bright. In fact, he may not be any smarter than Bush at all.
Neither is Kerry as well liked in Europe as portrayed. In the end, he would
have gone into Iraq alone, just like Bush, and the Republicans would be
having fits over it, just like the Democrats now. It was the same in
Vietnam. Johnson won the election by portraying Goldwater as a reckless war
hawk, but in the end he did everything Goldwater said he would do, and more.

The real reason that voter turnout is so low in this country is that most
people know that their vote doesn't make much difference one way or the
other.

[C J Campbell]

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in message
...
> And you think we are going to have another presidential election in this
> country???? I think that bush

Replace "Bush" with "Clinton" and you have a re-run of what many Republicans
were saying during the last election.

[kontiki]

Kerry is a PX hero and does a poor immitation of Bill Clinton.

Foster wrote:

> Or, think of it this way. Bush is an incompetent moron; Kerry isn't.
> Bush's incompetence and ego got us into a war we shouldn't be in; Kerry
> didn't.
>
> etc., etc., etc.
>

[kontiki]

Very well stated Sir. I could distill it down to its simplest terms:

The Demos (lead by Kerry) are running towards socialism while the
Repubs (lead by Bush) are jogging towards the same ultimate destination.

[C J Campbell]

"Foster" > wrote in message
...
> Or, think of it this way. Bush is an incompetent moron; Kerry isn't.
> Bush's incompetence and ego got us into a war we shouldn't be in; Kerry
> didn't.

Actually, Kerry has not made any such claims and for good reason: he has
gone on record too many times saying that Bush fooled him on various issues.
Kerry would probably just as soon his supporters did not make such a big
argument that Bush is stupid; it makes Kerry look even dumber than Bush. It
makes his supporters look even dumber than that, but of course they are too
stupid to realize it. :-)

[Jim Weir]

A British newscaster on BBC did it much simpler in trying to explain the
differences in our political parties:

The Republicans are very much like our...Conservatives.
The Democrats are very much like our...Conservatives.


Jim




kontiki >
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->Very well stated Sir. I could distill it down to its simplest terms:
->
->The Demos (lead by Kerry) are running towards socialism while the
->Repubs (lead by Bush) are jogging towards the same ultimate destination.
->



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Bob Noel]

In article >, kontiki
> wrote:

> Kerry ... does a poor immitation of Bill Clinton.

which could be considered something in waffle's favor.

--
Bob Noel

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
kontiki > wrote:

> Very well stated Sir. I could distill it down to its simplest terms:
>
> The Demos (lead by Kerry) are running towards socialism while the
> Repubs (lead by Bush) are jogging towards the same ultimate destination.
>
>

Neal Boortz (boortz.com) put it succintly on one of his radio show one
day: Today's Democrats are where the Socialists were in 1960, while
today's Republicans are where the Democrats were in 1960. The
Libertatians are where the Republicans were in 1960.

[Cub Driver]

> One, Bush learned to fly in the military at government expense, did
>not complete his assigned commitment, and flew, if I understand ,
>fourteen months after UPT

I'm glad you put in the qualification, because clearly you don't
understand. Bush learned to fly in a bit more than a year of full-time
service, 1968-69, was an active duty pilot until his unit transitioned
to a different aircraft in 1972, and fulfilled his military obligation
in every respect, serving six and one-half years in total, or somewhat
more than two years of active duty for training, as it is termed.
www.warbirdforum.com/bushf102.htm



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

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
wrote:

>If there is an election
>this year I will be very surprised.

Oh yes, I forgot. The black helicopters will swoop in and take over
Washington. Is that before or after the draft is reinstated?

Control K!

(I find, interestingly enough, that kill-filing these people almost
always results in 1 message being deleted. Evidently they are fakes.
Take a look at steven's email address, for example.)

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

[Jay Honeck]

> (I find, interestingly enough, that kill-filing these people almost
> always results in 1 message being deleted. Evidently they are fakes.
> Take a look at steven's email address, for example.)

Propagandists have no interest in being identified.

Still, it *is* fun (and, usually, pathetically easy) to debunk them...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

In rec.aviation.owning Cub Driver > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote:
>>If there is an election
>>this year I will be very surprised.
>
> Oh yes, I forgot. The black helicopters will swoop in and take over
> Washington. Is that before or after the draft is reinstated?

Of course, NW_PILOT's assesment is a litte alarmist, however
(interestingly enough), we presently DO have black helicopters patrolling
the Washington airspace and harassing general aviation. So, you never
know.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Sam Byrams wrote:

> But-be honest-is there any reason I should prefer Bush over Kerry
> from an aviation standpoint? Bush, a nonpilot as far as I'm concerned,
> has done nothing for aviation in this country. Kerry isn't likely to
> either, but how much worse could he be?

They are both going to be causing pop-up TFRs as they campaign all over
the country. I'm in Central North Carolina and when Edwards was picked
I thought "hmm, that will make flight planning around here more
interesting." NC was never a battleground state before so was usually
only graced with presidential presence when there was money to be
raised. We aren't used to having a lot of TFRs around here.

As far as I can tell, neither Bush nor Kerry really considers supporting
or oppressing GA to be much of a priority. I really doubt GA is on
either candidate's radar screen. They'll probably leave GA policy to
minions, who will probably be more politically ideological than the
bosses because they will be patronage political appointees.

We already know the views of Bush's people on this: security paranoid,
not real interested in due process (this doesn't just affect Gitmo
detainees, see the pilot insecurity rules), eager to privatize the
government including the FAA and FSS (would probably give the whole ATC
system to Halliburton if they could). But their tax cuts make it
easier to buy airplanes, which you may not be able to fly very much as a
result of their other policies.

On the other hand, a Kerry administration would probably keep FAA a
public service, would not be as paranoid with security, would push
localities to keep their airports from private developers, but their tax
and regulatory policies will probably make it harder to buy airplanes
which you would probably be able to fly more freely if you could buy one.

So as far as the presidential candidates and GA go, it's six of one,
half dozen of another. I don't think the interests of GA will be much
of a factor in determining my vote, and it probably shouldn't be for you
either. Most likely people will see it from the prism of their general
views. If you are a Republican you probably think Bush is better for
GA, and if you are a Democrat you probably think Kerry is.

So for everyone, it's going to come down to general philosophy. From
what I see on the newsgroups, GA pilots tend to be conservative and
Republican (my primary flight instructor was a Republican candidate for
U.S. Congress in 2002), which doesn't surprise me given that it's
probably a group that skews wealthier.

However, in my opinion Republican GA pilots are in total denial over how
much their hobby depends on government subsidies and government
intervention. The same people who demand less taxes or less regulation
in general are right there demanding that the feds do something about
the closure of Meigs field or put more subsidy into their local
municipal airport. Yeah, some try to feed their denial by fooling
themselves into thinking that the tax they pay on AVGAS funds it all
(even the ones that don't buy AVGAS say that :), but the reality is that
GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to
enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention.

That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't
already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm
not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy
and support while proclaiming that we need less government.

At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's
not even in the top 10 of importance.

[Jack]

Sam Byrams wrote:

> I know what the statistics are, and I don't
> care. I suspect Bush Jr's motives were the same
> booze, pussy and kerosene!

As a former fighter pilot (or "pilot who flew fighters", compared to
guys like Ed, et al) I wish to disassociate myself from that remark.

It was JP-4, Pussy, and booze -- in that order and with appropriate
nomenclature and capitalization, please.


Jack

[NW_PILOT]

hey, what's wrong with my e-mail address it is a valid e-mail & I am the
owner of the domain that I use when I post on UseNet and a few other places
ware spam originates and I can filter it.


"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:45:07 -0700, "NW_PILOT" >
> wrote:
>
> >If there is an election
> >this year I will be very surprised.
>
> Oh yes, I forgot. The black helicopters will swoop in and take over
> Washington. Is that before or after the draft is reinstated?
>
> Control K!
>
> (I find, interestingly enough, that kill-filing these people almost
> always results in 1 message being deleted. Evidently they are fakes.
> Take a look at steven's email address, for example.)
>
> 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

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jim Weir" > wrote in message
...
> A British newscaster on BBC did it much simpler in trying to explain the
> differences in our political parties:
>
> The Republicans are very much like our...Conservatives.
> The Democrats are very much like our...Conservatives.

Funny thing is, the Conservative party in the UK are a bit
out in the cold now that Labour (or "New Labour") have
adopted all their policies...

Paul

[Dude]

If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent us
in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders?


"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Or, think of it this way. Bush is an incompetent moron; Kerry isn't.
> > Bush's incompetence and ego got us into a war we shouldn't be in; Kerry
> > didn't.
>
> Actually, Kerry has not made any such claims and for good reason: he has
> gone on record too many times saying that Bush fooled him on various
issues.
> Kerry would probably just as soon his supporters did not make such a big
> argument that Bush is stupid; it makes Kerry look even dumber than Bush.
It
> makes his supporters look even dumber than that, but of course they are
too
> stupid to realize it. :-)
>
>

[Dude]

First off, after your Halliburton comment, you need not have told us your a
Dem. PUH-LEEZ.

Next...


>
> On the other hand, a Kerry administration would probably keep FAA a
> public service, would not be as paranoid with security, would push
> localities to keep their airports from private developers, but their tax
> and regulatory policies will probably make it harder to buy airplanes
> which you would probably be able to fly more freely if you could buy one.
>

Democratic candidates around here have ALWAYS been in league with the
developers who pad their campaign chests. In fact, many of the DEM
candidates ARE developers. This area is one where the GOP has been better.
They put property rights over big business in most cases. The airports
having been allowed to operate for years, now have legitimate easements over
the surrounding space.


> So as far as the presidential candidates and GA go, it's six of one,
> half dozen of another. I don't think the interests of GA will be much
> of a factor in determining my vote, and it probably shouldn't be for you
> either. Most likely people will see it from the prism of their general
> views. If you are a Republican you probably think Bush is better for
> GA, and if you are a Democrat you probably think Kerry is.
>
> So for everyone, it's going to come down to general philosophy. From
> what I see on the newsgroups, GA pilots tend to be conservative and
> Republican (my primary flight instructor was a Republican candidate for
> U.S. Congress in 2002), which doesn't surprise me given that it's
> probably a group that skews wealthier.
>

I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self
determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian
beliefs. The money comes from the same place.


> However, in my opinion Republican GA pilots are in total denial over how
> much their hobby depends on government subsidies and government
> intervention. The same people who demand less taxes or less regulation
> in general are right there demanding that the feds do something about
> the closure of Meigs field or put more subsidy into their local
> municipal airport. Yeah, some try to feed their denial by fooling
> themselves into thinking that the tax they pay on AVGAS funds it all
> (even the ones that don't buy AVGAS say that :), but the reality is that
> GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to
> enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention.
>

This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position is
that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government control
and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace were
more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside), then the buses would have
to merge with the cars. Commercial air travel would be much more expensive
and rare. This may not be good, but don't then place the costs of this
choice on the backs of GA. You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your
friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly open
airports can and do make profits, yet the they send their fuel taxes to the
government.

> That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't
> already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm
> not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy
> and support while proclaiming that we need less government.
>

Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related to
the national and major carriers. Don't blame me for using class B radar
service. I didn't create the need for the class B airspace - the big boys
did. If it were all GA, we could simply put up a slow fly zone, and see and
avoid.

> At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's
> not even in the top 10 of importance.
>

I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates had
better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support.

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Dude wrote:

> Democratic candidates around here have ALWAYS been in league with the
> developers who pad their campaign chests. In fact, many of the DEM
> candidates ARE developers. This area is one where the GOP has been better.

Now you're talking about local politics, which as you noted below is a
different issue. There are plenty of places, my home county included,
where there are plenty of local Democratic politicians who are
right-wing developer cronies, simply because Republicans never get
elected to local office so those "Democrats" are actually Republicans in
Democratic clothes IMO. If there were a viable Republican party in my
county, those people would be Republicans, but they register Democratic
to give themselves a chance to get elected. Also, since almost all of
the money in local races is developer money (around here anyway), it's
the rare politician of any party that can get elected without their support.

But on a national level, the Republicans are more likely to be the party
of the homebuilders and developers -- just look at where they put their
political donations; those people are not dumb with their money. But we
digress, as this thread is about national elections.

>> which doesn't surprise me given that it's
>>probably a group that skews wealthier.
>>
> I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self
> determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian
> beliefs.

There's that denial again. Given how much our government actively spends
and regulates to make GA as we know it possible, and given how heavily
GA pilots depend on government services and subsidies, it's just
laughable to say that GA pilots' Republican leaning comes from being a
more independent and self-determining group. Pilots are a wealthier
group who use their wealth to buy themselves some measure of
independence and self-determination, not to mention influence over how
government policies and spending are carried out to their benefit. But
we are no more independent and self-determining than the farmers who
collect their subsidy and price support checks and benefit from
market-limiting laws while calling themselves independent and
self-determining.

(and I will resist going into how silly it is to say that Republicans
are more self-determining, given their party's views on social issues
and regulation of private, personal behavior).

>>but the reality is that
>>GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to
>>enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention.
>>
> This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position is
> that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government control
> and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace were
> more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside),

Driving on highways? Well, there's another heavily subsidized activity,
and using that as a model does not do much to make your case that GA
could be successful without govt subsidy.

> You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your
> friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly open
> airports can and do make profits,

And how many of our Republican rec.aviation.owning pilots fly
exclusively into and out of airfields that are built and operated
without government subsidy, huh? Would there be such a market for GA
without thousands of subsidized airports to fly into and out of? Could
buddies' farm patches really sustain this industry that we depend on?

>>That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't
>>already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm
>>not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy
>>and support while proclaiming that we need less government.
>>
>
> Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related to
> the national and major carriers.

I disagree. I do agree that the national and major carriers are
subsidized, but so is GA if not more so on proportional basis. After
all, the national carriers pay ticket taxes and rent to airport
authorities and landing fees that GA generally doesn't pay. I would
gess that less than 10% of the airports in this country that are
federally subsidized will ever see a major commercial carrier land there.

> Don't blame me for using class B radar
> service.

Do you get weather briefings? Do you use radio navaids? Do you listen
to AWOS/ASOS broadcasts? Do you receive GPS signals, or have equipment
that reads GPS databases which are based on data that the U.S. Govt
provides free of charge to equipment manufacturers? Do you buy
navigation charts for a whole lot less than it costs to compile and
maintain them? Etc. etc.

>>At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's
>>not even in the top 10 of importance.
>>
> I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates had
> better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support.

On this we clearly agree.

[Sam Byrams]

>In '68 (not '72) public sentiment was divided.

Probably: by '72 it wasn't. You had a few hardasses and Birchers and
whatnot and everyone else was for getting out. I grew up in a
middle-sized town and one that was overwhelmingly 'AuH2064':yet even
the rednecks had serious questions by '72. Men in uniform-and even
then, although it was understood they were noncombatants, the
occasional female-were certainly not disrespectfully treated, but it
was expressed that we hoped the war would be over shortly -either way.


Bush got his training
slot when production for UPT was as high as it had been historically
since WW II. UPT was expanding from eight to eleven bases and capacity
at each site was increased. We were up to more than 5000 per year
input to UPT from all sources. (I was director of ATC Student Officer
Rated Assignments from 1970 to April 1972 and managing the program.)
>



>
> My Presidential vote isn't going to count anyway since my state is
>not remotely up for grabs and it's a winner-take-all state.

>>Since 48 out of 50 states are "winner-take-all" Electoral College
votes, your reasoning should get everyone to give up voting.

>>It would seem to this political scientist (BS, MPS, MSIR) that the
closeness of the last election in so many states would indicate that
the value of every citizen's vote is critically important.

Ours wasn't close. And this one will unquestionably be farther
apart-Kerry will do worse than Gore.

>>
> They both suck. If I voted on pure principle I couldn't even vote
>Libertarian-although they're closer. Kerry might really screw things
>up so bad people would have to pull their heads out and in the long
>run, like a dope bust,it might be beneficial for an addict.

>If you can't differentiate between the basic ideological positions of
the two parties, you shouldn't vote. Good choice.


I am aware of what their platforms say. I concede some may consider
them fundamentally different. I consider them basically similar in
that they both seek to encode their politicoreligious notions in the
law. In one case it's a recognized religion, the other is an implicit
one. In practice, they differ only by amount, not by real principle.

>
>>>Dr. Joe Bagadonutz, the wealthy proctologist buys a Mustang or even
>a
>MiG-17 and successfully takes off and lands. He isn't, by any stretch
>of the imagination, a fighter pilot. He isn't really, even that
lesser
>level, a pilot who flies fighters. He's simply an accident waiting to
>happen.
>
> He's equally likely to kill himself in a Bonanza for that matter.

The initial post was about flying "fighters". Yes, Bonanzas are
notorious for applying the principles of Darwin to doctors.

Actually some doctors are pretty good, even excellent, aviators.
Several aerobatic champions have been doctors. Same with other
professions. It is possible to become an excellent stick and rudder
pilot through civilian training if you have the time, money, and
drive. About the only thing you won't be able to learn as a civilian
is weapons delivery.

>
> The phrase far predates that book. It was the grinder call in the 50s
>era USAF and I can remember my uncle-who went through the air cadet
>program in the 50s-talking about it. Hated the culture of USAF where
>Fighter Pilots were gods-he was a C-133/C-130 pilot who dropped dead
>six weeks after retiring from TWA at 60 as a four striper.

>>With all due respect to your uncle, we never won a war by hauling
more
trash than the enemy. Trash haulers help, but only because they
provide the warriors at the pointy end of the spear with the bombs,
beans and bullets to kill the enemy.

He was no fighter pilot, but he was a good guy and he's missed. He'd
planned to get involved in the EAA Young Eagles program and had signed
up for a soaring rating when he dropped dead-not a heart attack per se
but an electrochemical heart problem. The ambulance got there five
minutes too late but the doctors said he might have been
brain-impaired anyway, so "maybe it was for the best."


>>Haven't seen Mason't book, but if he thinks the "Tiger" attitude got
replaced by something less, he's sadly mistaken. Warriors are
professionals, but they'd better have a healthy dose of attitude.


Mason's book-wriitten for young adults (young male adults-it was
fifteen years before females wore USAF wings)-portrays the USAF air
cadet programs as basically unalloyed aggressiveness designed to crank
out winning fighter jocks-at the expense of a certain casualty rate,
and notwithstanding that most grads went to tankers, transports,
bombers, helos, or ocasionally directly to IP school. As I remember
the big change_according to Mason_ was that flight training "later on"
took in people who were already officers, not needing the boot camp
mentality, and was vastly less tolerant of accidents. Also the T-38
Talon was a big challenge for people whose total experience consisted
of under 200 hours in the T-37.

This agrees with accounts of flight training by many other writers,
including Richard Bach and several of the early astronauts, who went
through 50s era USAF flight training.

Bottom line as far as politics- I personally don't like Bush, right
or wrong, and I can't support a Kennedy, which Kerry as well may be,
nor would I vote for someone that liberal even if he is an active
pilot. (In general I tend to prefer Reps to Dems, provided they are
not so fundamentalist they can't separate church from state.) I don't
agreee with everything John McCain says but I'd work for his election
over Kerry. Voting third party expresses my dissatisfaction, and if it
clearly throws the election either way so much the better.

[C J Campbell]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> If he gets fooled by the Bush administration, should we let him represent
us
> in dealings with truly professional diplomats and world leaders?
>

Exactly the point. That is why you won't see Kerry going around saying that
Bush is stupid and why he probably wishes his 'supporters' would stop saying
it, too.

[Jack]

Sam Byrams wrote:

> [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
> whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.

In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.


Jack

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack >
wrote:

>Sam Byrams wrote:
>
> > [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
> > whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.
>
>In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
>Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.
>

You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The
UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41
screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT
syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
prior to T-38 qualification.

The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
another 20 years at least.

Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with
about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in
Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the
occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food
paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.)


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

[Dude]

Okay, so we will stick to the national issues and drop the developer issue.
We both agree that the local pols are bought and paid for by whichever
party. In my opinion, this is the biggest political issue for pilots by
far. The national stuff just doesn't seem to be fixable through voting.

After writing my response, I am coming back to the top here to perhaps save
you time, and because I realize a key point. We are mostly in disagreement
based on my belief that you cannot fairly account a pro rata share to GA
users because most of what we use is forced on us due to the needs of other
users of the airspace. Since we are being accepted into the airspace as
secondary users, it is only appropriate that the accounting of costs keep
this in mind.

You can read the rest to get an idea what I mean, but we cannot have a
fruitful discussion without a mutual understanding of this concept.

> >>
> > I think its not the wealth, but the amount of independence and self
> > determination that skews this group towards Conservative and Libertarian
> > beliefs.
>
> There's that denial again. Given how much our government actively spends
> and regulates to make GA as we know it possible, and given how heavily
> GA pilots depend on government services and subsidies, it's just
> laughable to say that GA pilots' Republican leaning comes from being a
> more independent and self-determining group. Pilots are a wealthier
> group who use their wealth to buy themselves some measure of
> independence and self-determination, not to mention influence over how
> government policies and spending are carried out to their benefit. But
> we are no more independent and self-determining than the farmers who
> collect their subsidy and price support checks and benefit from
> market-limiting laws while calling themselves independent and
> self-determining.
>
> (and I will resist going into how silly it is to say that Republicans
> are more self-determining, given their party's views on social issues
> and regulation of private, personal behavior).

Pardon my overzealous snip, but...

It's not denial, its a disagreement on what the real costs are that are
PROPERLY attributal to GA. Your statement as "how we know it" is quite
telling. How we know it is as a system within a system that is preferential
to other users. Not as a system that treats each user as an equal.
Seriously, make a list of all the items and services that you do not pay for
that would not be there except for GA (No class B space, fewre towers,
smaller runways, less jetways, less need for Class A services, less need for
radar coverage at all, reduced frequencies, reduced radio coverage, etc.) .
Now, add the MARGINAL costs of your VOLUNTARY use of other services
(weather, IFR service, etc.). Unfortunately, government accounting will not
let you come close to figuring this out, but take an honest SWAG. If you
are a VFR pilot, you use almost ZERO other than weather. I would be happy
to have weather privatized (please no stones) as it can be had pretty
cheaply. Much of what we use as GA is a must have for military and
commercial flight. It's not fair, under the current preferential
environment to account to GA a prorata share. Period. I will not change my
mind until someone comes up with some numbers that do not represent the cost
of keeping me out of the way of Delta's airplanes.

Since you did not resist telling us about self determmination... throwing in
social issues is a straw dog, especially since I said that the people here
leaned conservative AND libertarian BECAUSE of those traits. Obviously, us
Libertarians's are all about self determination and independence. I think
you have different meanings in mind than I do for those words.

Besides, BOTH parties are now in a race to legislate values, and the left is
winning due to control of the courts.

Wow, that was a lot.


>
> >>but the reality is that
> >>GA is a pretty heavily subsidized activity that we would not be able to
> >>enjoy without significant government subsidy and intervention.
> >>
> > This is a whole nother ball of wax. Is it really denial? My position
is
> > that the only reason GA is dependent on the government is government
control
> > and interference put in place to favor the airlines. If our airspace
were
> > more like our highways (idiotic HOV lanes aside),
>
> Driving on highways? Well, there's another heavily subsidized activity,
> and using that as a model does not do much to make your case that GA
> could be successful without govt subsidy.
>
My understanding is that the transportation fund is kept in surplus to help
balance the budget. At any rate, the transportation system could easily be
self sufficient if it is not already, simply by curbing pork transportation
projects in favor of needed ones. This being a side issue, I doubt either
of us is running to find the numbers.

> > You can fly a piper cub off your farm to your
> > friend's farm at no cost to anyone else. Privately owned and publicly
open
> > airports can and do make profits,
>
> And how many of our Republican rec.aviation.owning pilots fly
> exclusively into and out of airfields that are built and operated
> without government subsidy, huh? Would there be such a market for GA
> without thousands of subsidized airports to fly into and out of? Could
> buddies' farm patches really sustain this industry that we depend on?
>

HA! I got you! You assume that those airports only exist due to subsidy.
However, small privately owned, public use airports are common. It is only
government interference and subsidized fields that compete for the business
that keep more private fields from being in existance. At any rate, if
properly managed, these airports are self sufficient. Otherwise, there
would not be any private, for profit, airports would there?

> >>That said, this wouldn't be enough to make me a Democrat if I weren't
> >>already one though. I just wouldn't fool myself into thinking that I'm
> >>not being a hypocrite by partaking of such massive government subsidy
> >>and support while proclaiming that we need less government.
> >>
> >
> > Seriously, I think the 'massive' part of the subsidy is really related
to
> > the national and major carriers.
>
> I disagree. I do agree that the national and major carriers are
> subsidized, but so is GA if not more so on proportional basis. After
> all, the national carriers pay ticket taxes and rent to airport
> authorities and landing fees that GA generally doesn't pay. I would
> gess that less than 10% of the airports in this country that are
> federally subsidized will ever see a major commercial carrier land there.
>

So we are guessing differently, that is fair enough. Lets look at some of
the examples.


> > Don't blame me for using class B radar
> > service.
>
> Do you get weather briefings?

Yes, but I can get much of that info free, or for a small charge. My use of
the system is more often than not due to a need to avoid weather AND
controlled air space. If it was not available, I might cancel a couple more
flights a year. I would be willing to pay a fee for it - now that it is
voluntary.

Do you use radio navaids?

Yes, when I am not allowed to fly direct. Get rid of the airspace controls,
and you can get rid of the navaids in my opinion. I am likely in the
minority here. I also use them for training, ad for IFR. I would be
curious what the costs of maintaining the VOR system is. Private airports
do pay for some or all of the costs of NDB and ILS.

Do you listen
> to AWOS/ASOS broadcasts?

I heard about a local municipal airport that didn't have the budget for a
new unit. Some local pilots simply pulled out their checkbooks when the
council was finally cornered into admitting the amount. The city refused do
to legal concerns, and later came up with the funds. These are worthwhile,
but once again, private airports have them, and I don't think the Feds are
paying for them.


Do you receive GPS signals, or have equipment
> that reads GPS databases which are based on data that the U.S. Govt
> provides free of charge to equipment manufacturers? Do you buy
> navigation charts for a whole lot less than it costs to compile and
> maintain them? Etc. etc.

An interesting question, and one worth looking into. How often do we REALLY
need new charts and updates? How accurate do GA pilots REALLY need them to
be? These costs are skewed by decisions made based on the needs of
commercial and military users. We are getting a free ride, but we pay in
other ways than cash - we get less priority in the system. If you want to
charge a pro rata share to GA, then you should make a product that meets our
needs, and tell the other users that they can pay more, or get it privately.

>
> >>At any rate GA is one of very many issues I base my vote on, and it's
> >>not even in the top 10 of importance.
> >>
> > I have to agree with you on national offices. However, local candidates
had
> > better pay attention to GA issues if they want my support.
>
> On this we clearly agree.

[Ron Parsons]

In article >,
Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:40:29 -0500, Jack >
>wrote:
>
>>Sam Byrams wrote:
>>
>> > [Mason's book claims] the T-38 Talon was a big challenge for people
>> > whose total experience consisted of under 200 hours in the T-37.
>>
>>In the mid and late 60's it would have been less than 100 hrs in the
>>Tweet for studs transitioning to the Talon, and nobody didn't like the T-38.
>>
>
>You've got that right. I had 132 hours in Tweets before Talons. The
>UPT syllabus dropped that to 120 with introduction of the T-41
>screening. No problems. Later with better simulators the total UPT
>syllabus was reduced to 188 hours with less than half of that coming
>prior to T-38 qualification.
>
>The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
>the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
>another 20 years at least.
>
>Easy to fly, no adverse characteristics. Reliable. I wound up with
>about 1500 hours in Talons, more than 1200 accrued as an instructor in
>Fighter Lead-In teaching new instructor candidates. (And taking the
>occasional recreational trip to ski in CO/UT, visit the sea-food
>paradises of FL or the sexpots of LSV.)

Preceded you a little bit. Did the T-34, Tweet & T-bird. Old T-bird had
a lot of inertia with full tips and a lot of slack in the stick.

There was a noticeable drop in instrument skills and ability to handle
older aircraft when the all Tweet/Talon guys started coming out the end
of the pipeline. They were just TOO easy to fly.

Our T-34/Tweet instructors were "civilian" at least technically. Mine
was actually one of those much reviled in another tread TANG types, in
fact became GWB's commander in the Deuce.

My best friend, then and now was another instant airman to lieutenant
guardsmen. A second guard classmate went on to command his state guard
with 2 stars on his shoulders. None of us saw Vietnam. All 3 of us
managed 30+ years of airline.

Beats working for a living.

--
Ron Parsons

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

What's this? a politcal rebuttal that is informed and well thought out
and not full of flames? What the heck happened to the usenet I've come
to know? Seriously, nice work Dude.

I agree that what you have written below is the crux of our disagreement
on this issue. You feel that GA would have flourished if left to its
own devices and that the infrastructure that we now use is more an
imposition to please the big lines than an essential part of our GA
experience. I believe that GA would never have been as widespread or as
successful as it is if it didn't have all that infrastructure to get a
relatively free ride off of. Fair enough, we just see it differently.

And we both agree on politicans of both parties at the local level being
bought and owned by development interests :(


Dude wrote:

> After writing my response, I am coming back to the top here to perhaps save
> you time, and because I realize a key point. We are mostly in disagreement
> based on my belief that you cannot fairly account a pro rata share to GA
> users because most of what we use is forced on us due to the needs of other
> users of the airspace. Since we are being accepted into the airspace as
> secondary users, it is only appropriate that the accounting of costs keep
> this in mind.

[Dude]

I enjoyed the discussion, CAVU 4U!


"TTA Cherokee Driver" > wrote in message
...
> What's this? a politcal rebuttal that is informed and well thought out
> and not full of flames? What the heck happened to the usenet I've come
> to know? Seriously, nice work Dude.
>
> I agree that what you have written below is the crux of our disagreement
> on this issue. You feel that GA would have flourished if left to its
> own devices and that the infrastructure that we now use is more an
> imposition to please the big lines than an essential part of our GA
> experience. I believe that GA would never have been as widespread or as
> successful as it is if it didn't have all that infrastructure to get a
> relatively free ride off of. Fair enough, we just see it differently.
>
> And we both agree on politicans of both parties at the local level being
> bought and owned by development interests :(
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> > After writing my response, I am coming back to the top here to perhaps
save
> > you time, and because I realize a key point. We are mostly in
disagreement
> > based on my belief that you cannot fairly account a pro rata share to GA
> > users because most of what we use is forced on us due to the needs of
other
> > users of the airspace. Since we are being accepted into the airspace as
> > secondary users, it is only appropriate that the accounting of costs
keep
> > this in mind.
>

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
> the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
> another 20 years at least.

I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
so think of what it does for a real pilot.

Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.

The USAF has been turning every cockpit into a glass cockpit. They
did the KC-135s that the ANG flies a couple of years ago, even.
That's real dedication to glass cockpits, I'd say.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>
>> The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
>> the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
>> another 20 years at least.
>
>I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)

That doesn't track. Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.

>with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
>think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
>told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
>so think of what it does for a real pilot.

Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
window.
>
>Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
>the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.

The glass mod does include a HUD.
>


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

[Brett]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
> >> the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
> >> another 20 years at least.
> >
> >I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>
> That doesn't track.

Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
inventory.

> Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
> SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
> either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
> AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
> NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.
>
> >with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
> >think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
> >told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
> >so think of what it does for a real pilot.
>
> Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
> window.
> >
> >Does the T-38 glass cockpit have a HUD? NASA did a cockpit upgrade on
> >the JSC T-38s, but I'm pretty sure it didn't include a HUD.
>
> The glass mod does include a HUD.
> >
>
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
> "When Thunder Rolled"
> Smithsonian Institution Press
> ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:33:39 -0400, "Brett" >
wrote:

>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
>> >> the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
>> >> another 20 years at least.
>> >
>> >I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>>
>> That doesn't track.
>
>Mary was at NASA, F/A-18's, SR-71's and T-38's have been and are in their
>inventory.
>
All the more reason to say it wasn't "B" models.


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

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:24:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
> >> the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
> >> another 20 years at least.
> >
> >I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>
> That doesn't track. Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
> SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
> either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
> AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
> NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.

Actually, he started flying helos in the USN, converted to F-4s, and
was sent to Dryden as Navy Liaison Officer. He left the USN and hired
on at Dryden, where he flew the F-8 DFBW, the B-52, the F-104, the
F-18, the F-18 HARV, and the SR-71. He was flying the last three
before he transferred to JSC to be a support pilot flying T-38s.

I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
it back or I could have checked.

> >with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
> >think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
> >told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
> >so think of what it does for a real pilot.
>
> Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
> window.

No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
and landing. The RSOs don't even do that.

I was referring to the F-18s and their HUDs. We have both research
F-18s and support F-18s, so the test pilots get most of their time in
them.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[john smith]

Welcome back, Mary!

Mary Shafer wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:24:07 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> > wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:35:10 -0700, Mary Shafer >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:36:59 -0600, Ed Rasimus
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The T-38 has been a great airplane for 42 years of training and with
>>>>the upgraded glass cockpit looks like it will be active in SUPT for
>>>>another 20 years at least.
>>>
>>>I have a friend who went from F-18s and SR-71s to T-38s (Bs, I think)
>>
>>That doesn't track. Was he on USN exchange? Was he flying "company"
>>SR-71? If he was USAF it isn't likely that he would have been flying
>>either, but then how did he get to T-38s? The only "B" models are
>>AT-38s, which are only flown by the SUPT fighter-leadin squadron. The
>>NASA, ATC/UPT Talons are all "A" models.
>
>
> Actually, he started flying helos in the USN, converted to F-4s, and
> was sent to Dryden as Navy Liaison Officer. He left the USN and hired
> on at Dryden, where he flew the F-8 DFBW, the B-52, the F-104, the
> F-18, the F-18 HARV, and the SR-71. He was flying the last three
> before he transferred to JSC to be a support pilot flying T-38s.
>
> I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
> but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
> it back or I could have checked.
>
>
>>>with conventional cockpits. He sure missed the HUD at first. I don't
>>>think he realized how much difference it made to him. I could have
>>>told him, though, because having a HUD greatly improves my piloting,
>>>so think of what it does for a real pilot.
>>
>>Did the SR-71 get a HUD? Dunno what there would be to see out the
>>window.
>
>
> No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
> crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
> and landing. The RSOs don't even do that.
>
> I was referring to the F-18s and their HUDs. We have both research
> F-18s and support F-18s, so the test pilots get most of their time in
> them.
>
> Mary
>

[Murphy]

> I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
> but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
> it back or I could have checked.
>

T-38N, modified version of the A model.

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 09 Sep 2004 04:29:03 GMT, "Murphy" > wrote:

> > I don't know what model the JSC T-38s are. I thought they were Bs,
> > but I'm apparently wrong. We had one for a while, but we had to give
> > it back or I could have checked.
> >
>
> T-38N, modified version of the A model.

And some of them were modified to chase the Shuttle back in the late
'70s, but not enough to make them into NT-38Ns, fortunately. We
didn't have to modify the F-104Ns and F-104Gs.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:13:20 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
>crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
>and landing.

How sad!


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

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Mike Dargan]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:13:20 -0700, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
>
>>No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
>>crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
>>and landing.
>
>
> How sad!

Aside from the curvature of the earth, what sort of sight seeing can you
do at 80,000'+?

Cheers

--mike
>
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford
> email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
> Expedition sailboat charters www.expeditionsail.com

[Bob Coe]

"Mike Dargan" > wrote
> Cub Driver wrote:
>> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>No need. You don't fly the SR-71 head-up but on the instruments. The
>>>crews say they rarely even look out the window except during takeoff
>>>and landing.
>>
>>
>> How sad!
>
> Aside from the curvature of the earth, what sort of sight seeing can you do at 80,000'+?

I'd probably put-up the EMP shields on the windows to block the
cosmic and ionizing radiation.

http://www.healthycrew.org/crewexp.shtml