Vandalism, security measure, or something else?

[Peter Duniho]

I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they
keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several
recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S. Air
Force" markings on the side had been torn up.

Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
defacement.

You can find a picture of one of the airplanes here:
http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg

(Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they
are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base).

Pete

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they
> keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several
> recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S.
Air
> Force" markings on the side had been torn up.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
> airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
> defacement.
>
> You can find a picture of one of the airplanes here:
> http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg
>
> (Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they
> are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base).
>
Look's like you're right.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm

As for the markings...there doesn't have to be a sensical reason, does
there?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they
> > keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several
> > recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S.
> Air
> > Force" markings on the side had been torn up.
> >
> > Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
> > airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
> > defacement.
> >
> > You can find a picture of one of the airplanes here:
> > http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg
> >
> > (Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they
> > are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base).
> >
> Look's like you're right.
>
> http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-141.htm
>
> As for the markings...there doesn't have to be a sensical reason, does
> there?
>
>

Yes, they're C-141s. It looks as if someone drove a forklift or
something through the fuselage. Perhaps the plane is beyond its fatigue
service life? Is that the way the USAF now marks aircraft that are
beyond their service life?

[Peter Duniho]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, they're C-141s. It looks as if someone drove a forklift or
> something through the fuselage. Perhaps the plane is beyond its fatigue
> service life? Is that the way the USAF now marks aircraft that are
> beyond their service life?

I dunno. But I don't think that would be it. The thing that's interesting
is that the damage is ONLY where the "U.S. Air Force" markings are. I don't
see the connection between fatigue service life and paint on the side of the
plane. Seems like you could just as easily chop off the wings, for example
(and that would make moving the hunk of metal around the storage yard a lot
easier).

Of course, if the goal was to remove the USAF markings, there are better
ways to do that as well.

As the post you quoted suggested, I guess there doesn't have to be a
"sensical [sic]" reason for targeting the USAF label specifically. But I
was hoping there was one. On the face of it, I don't see any rational
reason for attacking the airplanes that way, which is precisely why I was
hoping someone here would know the answer. :)

Pete

[Peter Gottlieb]

To show compliance with some treaty?


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
>
...
> > Yes, they're C-141s. It looks as if someone drove a forklift or
> > something through the fuselage. Perhaps the plane is beyond its fatigue
> > service life? Is that the way the USAF now marks aircraft that are
> > beyond their service life?
>
> I dunno. But I don't think that would be it. The thing that's
interesting
> is that the damage is ONLY where the "U.S. Air Force" markings are. I
don't
> see the connection between fatigue service life and paint on the side of
the
> plane. Seems like you could just as easily chop off the wings, for
example
> (and that would make moving the hunk of metal around the storage yard a
lot
> easier).
>
> Of course, if the goal was to remove the USAF markings, there are better
> ways to do that as well.
>
> As the post you quoted suggested, I guess there doesn't have to be a
> "sensical [sic]" reason for targeting the USAF label specifically. But I
> was hoping there was one. On the face of it, I don't see any rational
> reason for attacking the airplanes that way, which is precisely why I was
> hoping someone here would know the answer. :)
>
> Pete
>
>

[Chris Schmelzer]

In article >,
"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:

> To show compliance with some treaty?
>


Ahh, yeah, that big, we don't have many jet heavy lift vehicles to,
ummm, crash into your buildings treaty?

umm, probably not

[Peter Duniho]

"Chris Schmelzer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:
>
> > To show compliance with some treaty?
>
> [...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet. You
have a better theory?

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Chris Schmelzer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:
> >
> > > To show compliance with some treaty?
> >
> > [...] umm, probably not
>
> I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.
You
> have a better theory?

There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> [...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

[Mark and Kim Smith]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>"Chris Schmelzer" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>To show compliance with some treaty?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>[...] umm, probably not
>>>
>>>
>>I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.
>>
>>
>You
>
>
>>have a better theory?
>>
>>
>
>There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
>one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
>not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
>treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
>they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
>question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
>of the C-141.
>
>Brooks
>
>
>>
>>
Very obvious so mother Russia can verify from space. Leaves no doubt if
a B-52's wings are laying next to the fuselage.

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

Whoops, I take that back. All going to the furnace had their markings
painted over. Time to scratch my head a little more.

[Jake McGuire]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> Of course, if the goal was to remove the USAF markings, there are better
> ways to do that as well.

Like what?

You can't just spray paint the plane while it sits in the desert -
environmental regs are such these days that you need a paint hangar.
Even if you could, you'd probably need to send out two men with a
cherry picker and painting equipment, and spend at least half an hour
a plane.

If you just poke holes in the side of the plane with a forklift, on
the other hand, it'll take one guy five minutes a shot, not to mention
it'll let him work off a bit of aggression while he's at it.

> As the post you quoted suggested, I guess there doesn't have to be a
> "sensical [sic]" reason for targeting the USAF label specifically. But I
> was hoping there was one. On the face of it, I don't see any rational
> reason for attacking the airplanes that way, which is precisely why I was
> hoping someone here would know the answer. :)

The more that I think about it, the more I suspect it's removing the
markings in an unorthodox manner.

-jake

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Mark and Kim Smith
> wrote:

> After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
> down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
> along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
> make any buyer happy!

The wing spar (box?) problems wouldn't make any buyer happy either.

--
Bob Noel

[Kevin Brooks]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.
>
> I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You
prefer
> to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

No, I have no theory to propose, but the one that was put forth was a
non-starter. Why, is there something inherently wrong with debunking an
obviously incorrect theory? This was not a personal attack--it just pointed
out that the theory was unworkable.

Brooks
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jake McGuire" > wrote in message
om...
> Like what?

Sanding, stripping, beadblasting, etc.

> Even if you could, you'd probably need to send out two men with a
> cherry picker and painting equipment, and spend at least half an hour
> a plane.

I didn't say "faster". I said "better". Even in the picture I provided,
the markings are still relatively visible. Other planes, the damage missed
entire letters. And of course, there still begs the question of why the
markings would need to be removed. After all, it's just paint. It would be
trivial for someone to reproduce (i.e. forge) the markings. What value do
the markings have that the AF feels they can remove simply by poking holes
in them?

> The more that I think about it, the more I suspect it's removing the
> markings in an unorthodox manner.

I can tell by looking at the planes that they are removing the markings in
some manner (perhaps it's orthodox there). The question is, why remove the
markings at all, and why does punching holes in the airplane (which leaves
the markings essentially still there and readable) make more sense than
other methods (which could actually *remove* the markings, and which would
not leave the airframe damaged).

Somehow, it seems like the damage is intentional, not just a byproduct of
the method used. But I just don't see how this particular method solves any
problem worth solving.

Pete

[Mike Z.]

Peter,

I did the tour January 2nd and someone on the bus asked the same questions.

The docent used a lot more words, but said basically the markings are destroyed so that they don't turn up on ebay.

As far as the guillotined parts, I think he said they have to lie there for 90 days for treaty compliance.

Now don't ask me why, if those parts are so collectable, the gubmint doesn't sell them!

Mike Z

-
"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> I was in Tucson over the holidays. At the AFB there (Davis-Monthan), they
> keep a lot of aircraft in storage. At the south end of the base, several
> recent arrivals were parked near the fence. For some reason, the "U.S. Air
> Force" markings on the side had been torn up.
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
> airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
> defacement.
>
> You can find a picture of one of the airplanes here:
> http://www.nwlink.com/~peted/Davis-MonthanAirplanes.jpg
>
> (Bonus points for anyone who can remind me what kind of airplane they
> are...I want to say C-141, but I could be way off base).
>
> Pete
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Mike Z." > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Peter,
>
> I did the tour January 2nd and someone on the bus asked the same
questions.
>
> The docent used a lot more words, but said basically the markings are
> destroyed so that they don't turn up on ebay.

Weird. What's the stop someone from taking undamaged metal from the plane
and painting "U.S. Air Force" on it? Or do they just expect buyers to know
that the markings are damaged this way, and so know that anything like that
for sale must be a forgery? And what about the rest of the airplane? There
are any number of other parts collectors would be happy with. Why focus on
the markings?

Anyway, thanks for passing that along. It still doesn't make much sense to
me, but at least it explains the intent.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any idea why this was done? There were eight or ten
> airplanes, all the same make and model, all with the same kind of
> defacement.

This area happens to be the location of some rather sensitive equipment. Take a
good luck at the damage (I can't tell from the shot you posted, and it's only one
example). Were the holes punched through from the inside? If so, maybe someone
decided it was easier just to hit the demolition charges on the electronic gear
than to remove the stuff.

George Patterson
Love, n.: A form of temporary insanity afflicting the young. It is curable
either by marriage or by removal of the afflicted from the circumstances
under which he incurred the condition. It is sometimes fatal, but more
often to the physician than to the patient.

[John Keeney]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.
>
> I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You
prefer
> to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

It some cases the "theory" is so far from reasonable as to require it.

If you must have a "better" guess try go with this one: the planes no
longer belong to the Air Force but to a scrapper and the markings
that proclaimed them as such had to be defaced and some bubba
determined the quickest & easiest way to do so was by stabbing
some bit of a big machine through the markings.

[John Keeney]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jake McGuire" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Like what?
>
> Sanding, stripping, beadblasting, etc.
>
> > Even if you could, you'd probably need to send out two men with a
> > cherry picker and painting equipment, and spend at least half an hour
> > a plane.
>
> I didn't say "faster". I said "better". Even in the picture I provided,
> the markings are still relatively visible. Other planes, the damage
missed
> entire letters. And of course, there still begs the question of why the
> markings would need to be removed. After all, it's just paint. It would
be
> trivial for someone to reproduce (i.e. forge) the markings. What value do
> the markings have that the AF feels they can remove simply by poking holes
> in them?
>
> > The more that I think about it, the more I suspect it's removing the
> > markings in an unorthodox manner.
>
> I can tell by looking at the planes that they are removing the markings in
> some manner (perhaps it's orthodox there). The question is, why remove
the
> markings at all, and why does punching holes in the airplane (which leaves
> the markings essentially still there and readable) make more sense than
> other methods (which could actually *remove* the markings, and which would
> not leave the airframe damaged).

Large organizations, especially government ones, have rules to follow;
they follow those rules well past the point the reason for the rules apply
because "those are the rules."
I can easily imagine a rule that says before a plane can leave the grounds
under new ownership all markings declaring it US Air Force must be
obscured and this rule being enforced even for a trip across the street
to the chop shop.

> Somehow, it seems like the damage is intentional, not just a byproduct of
> the method used. But I just don't see how this particular method solves
any
> problem worth solving.
>
> Pete
>
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 12:17:36 GMT, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>In article >, Mark and Kim Smith
> wrote:
>
>> After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
>> down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
>> along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
>> make any buyer happy!

Parted out and melted down? The buyer wouldn't care.

Remember this is what they wanted to do to our old flying war birds.
I'd guess it basically means "This is marked for the scrap heap" and
has been rendered inoperable.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>The wing spar (box?) problems wouldn't make any buyer happy either.