Re: P-51 question.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

JStONGE123 wrote:
> Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside
> the obvious no tail hook.....ect.


No tail hook. No extra heavy duty landing gear for carrier "landings". No
folding wing. No need.... the F6F was quite capable in its place.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Corey C. Jordan]

On 21 Aug 2003 00:48:18 GMT, (JStONGE123) wrote:

>Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside the obvious
>no tail hook.....ect.
>
>
>
>
>The Durango 95 purred away real horrorshow. A nice warm vibratey feeling all
>through your guttiwuts.

A modified P-51D WAS tested by the Navy. It did land aboard a carrier. At the
conclusion of the tests, the Navy elected not to employ a navalized Mustang
having several aircraft better suited to the task. Designated the ETF-51D, s/n
44-84900 was modified for the task.

My regards,

Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com

[[email protected]]

>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>JStONGE123 wrote:

>> Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside
>> the obvious no tail hook.....ect.

>No tail hook. No extra heavy duty landing gear for carrier "landings". No
>folding wing. No need.... the F6F was quite capable in its place.

And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.

-Mike Marron

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > writes:
> JStONGE123 wrote:
>> Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside
>> the obvious no tail hook.....ect.
>
>
> No tail hook. No extra heavy duty landing gear for carrier "landings". No
> folding wing. No need.... the F6F was quite capable in its place.

A liquid cooled engine, with all the plumbing and coolant requirments
that that entails. Wasn't it Admiral Apollo Souchek, or his brother
Zeus, who stated that "Putting a water-cooled engine on a carrier
aircraft is like putting an air-cooled engine in a submarine."

It should be noted that a P-51D was, in fact, fitted with a tailhook,
and did successfully complete a series of traps & takeoffs from a
carrier at sea, late in the war. North Americal also did the same
with a PBJ (Marine Corps B-25)

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[MLenoch]

>> Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII?

Stick and rudder wise.........the F6F was far easier to fly than the P-51.
After having flown one, you could easily see why the Hellcat was an ACE maker,
even if you were an Ensign!!
VL

[Guy Alcala]

JStONGE123 wrote:

> Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside the obvious
> no tail hook.....ect.

From "Duels in the Sky," by Eric Brown:

"Landing the Mustang required concentration, for at an approach speed of 105 mph
the view was bad, and high-rebound-ratio landing gear made a three-point landing
tricky. This state of affairs was exacerbated by the aircraft's lack of
directional stability on the landing run. The U.S. Navy abandoned the Mustang's
deck-landing trials on an aircraft carrier for this reason."

BTW, all USAAF fighters were fitted with catapult spools for at least a while in
the late war years, to allow them to be delivered to bases by flying them off
escort carriers, instead of having to crane them off.

Guy

[Dudley Henriques]

"Guy Alcala" > wrote in message
. ..
> JStONGE123 wrote:
>
> > Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside the
obvious
> > no tail hook.....ect.
>
> From "Duels in the Sky," by Eric Brown:
>
> "Landing the Mustang required concentration, for at an approach speed of
105 mph
> the view was bad, and high-rebound-ratio landing gear made a three-point
landing
> tricky. This state of affairs was exacerbated by the aircraft's lack of
> directional stability on the landing run. The U.S. Navy abandoned the
Mustang's
> deck-landing trials on an aircraft carrier for this reason."
>
> BTW, all USAAF fighters were fitted with catapult spools for at least a
while in
> the late war years, to allow them to be delivered to bases by flying them
off
> escort carriers, instead of having to crane them off.

Hi Guy;


HiGuy;


I would agree with Brown, but with a serious caveat !!!! 105 would be the
absolute minimum I'd use, and even that would be at the extreme low end of
the GW range for the airplane, say about 8000 lbs, which is real low for a
combat loaded Stang. At 12000lbs that final approach airspeed has to go up
to somewhere around 135mph or you're courting disaster in a Mustang.

About his comment on rollout, I personally consider the 51 to be just about
the best tailwheel fighter on rollout I've ever flown. It tracks straight as
an arrow. About the visibility problem; at full flaps, it's not all that
bad, but he's right about slowing it down. The more you slow it down on
final, the less you see. At 105, you wouldn't see much !!! :-)))
I agree with Brown generally though. The 51 is NOT the airplane to put on
the boat!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

[OXMORON1]

> Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside the
>obvious
>> > no tail hook.....ect.

Missed most of this thread, BUT the USN had decided to go with aircooled rather
than liquid cooled engines for various reasons.

Oxmoron1
MFE

[David Windhorst]

wrote:

> snip
>
>And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
>air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.
>
>-Mike Marron
>
>
At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
piston twins?

[[email protected]]

>David Windhorst > wrote:
wrote:

>>And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
>>air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.

>At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
>What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
>sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
>the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
>piston twins?

Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

Anyone?

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
wrote:

>>Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

>>Anyone?

>There's a lot to be said for redundancy, particularly over water.

This is true, but IIRC my Dad said that if his F-101B (for example)
needed both of its J-57's and should he lose an engine, often that
meant that it's time to eject. How long can the F-5, F-4, F-18, -14,
-15, Tornado, etc. fly on only one engine?

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>"All single engine aircraft go into automatic rough when
>out of sight of land". The is supposedly a true story, If
>it isn't, it should be. (grin)

An old wives tail, Art. I've flown thousands of miles over water in
single-engine planes and each flight was a non-event (well, except
for one time when the nosegear malfuctioned while flying down in the
Keys). Anyway, flying over water is safe enough. Crashing into the
water gets a little tedious at times, though.

-Mike Marron

[Andrew Chaplin]

wrote:
>
> >David Windhorst > wrote:
>
> >At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
> >What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
> >sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
> >the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
> >piston twins?
>
> Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.
>
> Anyone?

Since you open it to "anyone" I will point out that the RCAF was
disbanded on 1 February 1968 -- IT CEASED TO EXIST. Please see the
National Defence Act as amended by the Canadian Forces Reorganization
Act, especially Section 14.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/N-5/83413.html#section-14

The money-bag from which Canada buys its aircraft takes into account
many needs, one of which is survival over vast expanses of terrain
with small populations. Two engines would seem to be the ticket. This
significantly reduces the time that the land force spends traipsing
across the tundra looking for lost airmen.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
>> "Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>
>>> Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.
>
>>> Anyone?
>
>> There's a lot to be said for redundancy, particularly over water.
>
> This is true, but IIRC my Dad said that if his F-101B (for example)
> needed both of its J-57's and should he lose an engine, often that
> meant that it's time to eject. How long can the F-5, F-4, F-18, -14,
> -15, Tornado, etc. fly on only one engine?


A lot further than an F-16 with one out.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
> An old wives tail, Art. I've flown thousands of miles over water in
> single-engine planes and each flight was a non-event (well, except
> for one time when the nosegear malfuctioned while flying down in the
> Keys). Anyway, flying over water is safe enough. Crashing into the
> water gets a little tedious at times, though.


I've got a couple of hundred hours flying over water in single engines. My
theory has always been that the airplane doesn't know what it's over. Never
tried ditching, though I have managed to crash twice. And as I think about it,
I've had three engines quit over water (once at night). Luckily, I was able to
get a restart each time. No need for seatbelts; I had a cheeklock on the seat
that wouldn't quit.

As a matter of fact, I had a twin engine flameout in nighttime IFR conditions
over the Appalachian Mountains once. My fault, really... I fell asleep while I
was on the aux tanks. I woke up pretty damned quick after the first one quit.
Sad to say, the second one quit before I got the first one restarted. After I
got them both going again, I had time to marvel on how close I had them leaned.
You have to find the good wherever you can.

Now I work with HIV patients as a nurse, so I can be safe.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
...

> We all know that the Canucks never really did have an "air force"


This gave me a chuckle....and a fond memory of a good friend!!

I can just see you walking into Bader's inner office at 242 at Coltishall
during the BOB and saying this!!

Douglas wouldn't have known whether to buy you a drink and beg for more
planes and people, or hit you over the head with a tin leg!!!. Knowing him
like I did, I'd make a guess he'd bash you first with the tin leg, then pick
you up and offer you the drink!
:-))))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/CFI
Retired

[QDurham]

1950s P2V Neptunes. No jets. Alameda to Hawaii. 12 hour flight. Maybe 3
hours of "single engine time" during which if one engine goes, you're too heavy
with fuel to make land, but if you discharge enough fuel to stay airborne, you
haven't enough fuel to make land. Catch 22. There are a couple of
possibilities ("ground" effect for one) but essentially you are a single engine
aircraft - - with two engines. With greater than twice the chance of engine
failure. Scary.

Quent

[Ed Majden]

> wrote in message
...
> >Andrew Chaplin
> We all know that the Canucks never really did have an "air force"
> (the number of personnel in all branches of their military is approx.
> the size of the NYC police department!), but I digress...
>

More misinformed B.S. The RCAF was the fourth largest allied airforce
at the end of WWII. Quite an achievment for a country with a population of
around 12 million I would think. Check your history!

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> While peace-time redundancy is good--losing an engine due to a
> maintenance malfunction, the airplane is still recoverable, the
> situation changes in combat. My experience (and admittedly lots of
> things have changed since then), was that when the engine loss occurs
> due to battle damage, it won't be long before the engine sheds parts,
> throws turbine blades, starts a major fire, or whatever. That means
> losing the second engine and the situation then is identical to the
> single engine airplane.
>
>
> As for how long the listed aircraft can fly on one engine, I brought
> an F-4E with one engine shut-down due to a fire light home from the
> NVN/Laos border near Sam Neue, through an aerial refueling and back to
> Thailand where I recovered at Udorn. I cleaned the airplane off (the
> tanks had already been jettisoned earlier in the mission, and the
> racks went when the engine got shut down,) it it flew quite
> comfortably.


Ed, these two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. It seems to me if an
engine is shut down before it self destructs catastrophically, you're better off
with the second engine. If it flushes itself too quickly to catch, then you're
no worse off than in a single engine aircraft... flying the proverbial lead
sled.

Of course, there are aspects of flight where I'd just as soon just have a single
anyway, but that's been beat to death already.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Ed Rasimus]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> While peace-time redundancy is good--losing an engine due to a
>> maintenance malfunction, the airplane is still recoverable, the
>> situation changes in combat. My experience (and admittedly lots of
>> things have changed since then), was that when the engine loss occurs
>> due to battle damage, it won't be long before the engine sheds parts,
>> throws turbine blades, starts a major fire, or whatever. That means
>> losing the second engine and the situation then is identical to the
>> single engine airplane.
>>
>>
>> As for how long the listed aircraft can fly on one engine, I brought
>> an F-4E with one engine shut-down due to a fire light home from the
>> NVN/Laos border near Sam Neue, through an aerial refueling and back to
>> Thailand where I recovered at Udorn. I cleaned the airplane off (the
>> tanks had already been jettisoned earlier in the mission, and the
>> racks went when the engine got shut down,) it it flew quite
>> comfortably.
>
>
>Ed, these two paragraphs seem to contradict one another. It seems to me if an
>engine is shut down before it self destructs catastrophically, you're better off
>with the second engine. If it flushes itself too quickly to catch, then you're
>no worse off than in a single engine aircraft... flying the proverbial lead
>sled.

I don't think there's a contradiction. The first paragraph refers to
losing an engine due to battle damage. If you've take a hit in the
engine, even shutting it down won't stop it from spinning and in an
unbalanced or shattered condition it will still damage fuel tanks,
hydraulic lines, bulkheads, whatever. If it stops spinning (not
windmilling) then you've got a huge speedbrake on that side (note this
is before hi-bypass turbofans) and all bets are off on S/E
performance.

The second paragraph (despite the location) is a classic "peacetime"
engine shutdown. Nothing really wrong with the engine, simply a
precautionary shut-down due to a fire warning light, which in this
instance was a system malfunction, not a fire and not due to battle
damage.
>
>Of course, there are aspects of flight where I'd just as soon just have a single
>anyway, but that's been beat to death already.

There are a lot of factors in the equation, with excellent arguments
on both sides. Certainly with improved reliability and increased
performance of jet engines, the idea of fewer is better is taking
hold. While we won't soon see single engine jet-liners, take a look at
the latest generations from Boeing and AirBus--all are two-engine
types rather than three or four. 757, 767, 777 all doing quite nicely
on a pair rather than a handful of thrusters.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[[email protected]]

>Ed Majden"
> wrote in message

>>We all know that the Canucks never really did have an "air force"
>>(the number of personnel in all branches of their military is approx.
>>the size of the NYC police department!), but I digress...

>More misinformed B.S.

Granted, during their "glory days" more than 60 years ago the RCAF
served the allied war effort with distinction. However, since then the
"Forces Armees Canadiennes" has unfortunately all but whithered away
in favor of y'all's communistic pursuits such as socialized medicine
and other "misinformed B.S."

>The RCAF was the fourth largest allied airforce at the end of WWII.

You're welcome (the U.S. also left VNAF with the third largest air
force in the world at the end of the Vietnam war!)

>Quite an achievment for a country with a population of
>around 12 million I would think. Check your history!

Oh loosen up your G-suit there a bit, Colonel. Without British and
American aircraft, Canucks would have flown into combat against
the mighty Luftwaffe on the backs of honkin' Canadian Geese
(nowadays, squawkin' Trumpeter Swans?) And since WW2, the
only Canadian fighter to go into mass production was the Avro
"Clunk." Not exactly a remarkable or enviable achievement in
fighter design and production for a country with a population of
around 12 million.

-Mike (*honk*) Marron

[Ed Majden]

> Oh loosen up your G-suit there a bit. Without British and
> American aircraft, Canucks would have flown into combat against
> the mighty Luftwaffe on the backs of honkin' Canadian Geese
> (nowadays, squawkin' Trumpeter Swans?) And since WW2, the
> only Canadian fighter to go into mass production was the Avro
> "Clunk." Not exactly a remarkable or enviable achievement in
> fighter design and production for a country with a population of
> around 12 million.
>
> -Mike (*honk*) Marron
>
Granted, the aircraft flown by the RCAF during WWII were mostly of
British design along with some American types. Many were built in Canada.
As for the "clunk" CF-100 as you call it, it was probably the best
all-weather interceptor of its period. NATO asked Canada to send "clunks"
to Europe as they lacked night fighter capability in the early 1950's. AVRO
Canada also built one of the first jet airliners which unfortunately did not
go into production because of the Korean and Cold War, as all efforts went
into producing the CF-100 to provide early warning and intercept
capabilities of hostile aircraft coming in from the north. Fortunately for
all of us, this did not occur.
As for aircraft design, you forgetting the CF-105 AVRO Arrow.
Unfortunately, because of a "stupid" government decision, this cutting edge
interceptor never went into full production. This was partly a fault of the
US as they would not buy it as they were protecting their own aircraft
industry. Sadly, the prototypes were stupidly destroyed. Many of the
engineers on this project ended up at NASA making a considerable
contribution to the US Space efforts.
You should take you blinders off and stop getting your version of
history from Hollywood movies!

Ed (retired RCAF/CAF armament systems tech Radar)

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
> Well, that answers that. Twin-engined fighters can fly just fine with
> one engine shut down (the only twin I've flown that flies OK on one
> engine was the ol' Aero Commander).


Back in me flying days, I could execute a single engine ILS in a C-402 to ATP
standards. The missed approach was another beast altogether. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[[email protected]]

>"Ed Majden" > wrote:

>You should take you blinders off and stop getting your version of
>history from Hollywood movies!

And you should stick your maple-leaf colored blinders where
the sun don't shine. Like I said, the NYC police department has
more personnel than the entire "Forces Armees Canadiennes."

-Mike Marron

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-51 question.
>From:
>Date: 8/22/03 8:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Ed Majden"
> wrote in message
>
>>>We all know that the Canucks never really did have an "air force"
>>>(the number of personnel in all branches of their military is approx.
>>>the size of the NYC police department!), but I digress...
>
>>More misinformed B.S.
>
>Granted, during their "glory days" more than 60 years ago the RCAF
>served the allied war effort with distinction. However, since then the
>"Forces Armees Canadiennes" has unfortunately all but whithered away
>in favor of y'all's communistic pursuits such as socialized medicine
>and other "misinformed B.S."
>
>>The RCAF was the fourth largest allied airforce at the end of WWII.
>
>You're welcome (the U.S. also left VNAF with the third largest air
>force in the world at the end of the Vietnam war!)
>
>>Quite an achievment for a country with a population of
>>around 12 million I would think. Check your history!
>
>Oh loosen up your G-suit there a bit, Colonel. Without British and
>American aircraft, Canucks would have flown into combat against
>the mighty Luftwaffe on the backs of honkin' Canadian Geese
>(nowadays, squawkin' Trumpeter Swans?) And since WW2, the
>only Canadian fighter to go into mass production was the Avro
>"Clunk." Not exactly a remarkable or enviable achievement in
>fighter design and production for a country with a population of
>around 12 million.
>
>-Mike (*honk*) Marron
>

Men who have the courage and will to fight will always find a way. What the
Canadians achieved was the result of what was inside the men. What they flew
was secondary.. They were our brothers in arms and deserve the highest respect.
No one has a right to tear them down especially those who never did half as
much.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Men who have the courage and will to fight will always find a way. What the
>Canadians achieved was the result of what was inside the men. What they flew
>was secondary.. They were our brothers in arms and deserve the highest respect.
>No one has a right to tear them down especially those who never did half as
>much.

As usual, you've missed the point entirely. In any event, I wish I
was just 1/1000ths as brave as you, Art.

-Mike (I wish I wish!!)

[patrick savoie]

"ArtKramr" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> >Subject: Re: P-51 question.
<snip>>
> >Oh loosen up your G-suit there a bit, Colonel. Without British and
> >American aircraft, Canucks would have flown into combat against
> >the mighty Luftwaffe on the backs of honkin' Canadian Geese
> >(nowadays, squawkin' Trumpeter Swans?) And since WW2, the
> >only Canadian fighter to go into mass production was the Avro
> >"Clunk." Not exactly a remarkable or enviable achievement in
> >fighter design and production for a country with a population of
> >around 12 million.
> >
> >-Mike (*honk*) Marron
> >
>
> Men who have the courage and will to fight will always find a way. What
the
> Canadians achieved was the result of what was inside the men. What they
flew
> was secondary.. They were our brothers in arms and deserve the highest
respect.
> No one has a right to tear them down especially those who never did half
as
> much.
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Thank you Sir, on behalf of my predecessors and my comrades-in-arms,

From a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces

[[email protected]]

>"patrick savoie" > wrote:

[Kramer's non-sequiter's snipped]

>Thank you Sir, on behalf of my predecessors and my comrades-in-arms,

Whether you realize it or not, you're thanking him for playing
to the gallery. Hitler was a master at playing to the gallery (e.g:
persuading others to his point of view by appealing to their emotions
instead of presenting evidence to support his twisted views).

In other words, ask yourself the following question: if the RCAF was
the 4th largest after WW2, where does it rank NOW and why?

-Mike Marron

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-51 question.
>From: "patrick savoie"
>Date: 8/22/03 3:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>> >Subject: Re: P-51 question.
><snip>>
>> >Oh loosen up your G-suit there a bit, Colonel. Without British and
>> >American aircraft, Canucks would have flown into combat against
>> >the mighty Luftwaffe on the backs of honkin' Canadian Geese
>> >(nowadays, squawkin' Trumpeter Swans?) And since WW2, the
>> >only Canadian fighter to go into mass production was the Avro
>> >"Clunk." Not exactly a remarkable or enviable achievement in
>> >fighter design and production for a country with a population of
>> >around 12 million.
>> >
>> >-Mike (*honk*) Marron
>> >
>>
>> Men who have the courage and will to fight will always find a way. What
>the
>> Canadians achieved was the result of what was inside the men. What they
>flew
>> was secondary.. They were our brothers in arms and deserve the highest
>respect.
>> No one has a right to tear them down especially those who never did half
>as
>> much.
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>Thank you Sir, on behalf of my predecessors and my comrades-in-arms,
>
>From a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces
>
>


We band of brothers.....
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
>> Back in me flying days, I could execute a single engine ILS in a
>> C-402 to ATP standards.
>
> I'm impressed. Back in my flying days I could execute a single engine
> Back Course Localizer approach in a AC-500B while inverted and
> watching the needles through a mirror in a Cat 5 hurricane.

That only impressive up to a point. How was your landing? <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Tex Houston]

> wrote in message
...
> >"Ed Majden" > wrote:
>
> >You should take you blinders off and stop getting your version of
> >history from Hollywood movies!
>
> And you should stick your maple-leaf colored blinders where
> the sun don't shine. Like I said, the NYC police department has
> more personnel than the entire "Forces Armees Canadiennes."
>
> -Mike Marron


You're a rude *******, aren't you? Wrong, too.

Tex Houston

[patrick savoie]

> a écrit dans le message de
...
> >"patrick savoie" > wrote:
>
> [Kramer's non-sequiter's snipped]
>
> >Thank you Sir, on behalf of my predecessors and my comrades-in-arms,
>
> Whether you realize it or not, you're thanking him for playing
> to the gallery. Hitler was a master at playing to the gallery (e.g:
> persuading others to his point of view by appealing to their emotions
> instead of presenting evidence to support his twisted views).
>
> In other words, ask yourself the following question: if the RCAF was
> the 4th largest after WW2, where does it rank NOW and why?
>
> -Mike Marron
>


It ranks middle-to-low due to geo-political considerations ... much as the
USAF ranks high and now the Russion Federation's Air Force (I just can't
remember their new name) ranking is going down for political consideration.

In our one-global-power world everyone has a tendency to rank against the
strongest as opposed to comparing apples-to-apples (we are slightly behind
Australia who has the same large-country-with-small-population problem as
us) . Our population cannot sustain an Air Force such as the USAF (or even
US Naval Air) but then neither can most liberal democratic countries.

Talk to a few Flag participants (Red or Maple) about the abilities of the
Canadian Air Force you could be surprised. ...or look at number of sorties
performed by Canadians for DS1 or over Kosovo and compare that to the few
planes we actually had there ...

My point is that it can be surprising what a small Air Force can do with
motivated pilots & groundcrew even with outdated aircraft. Can we invade
another country? No but then we don't want too. Can we do our part in
coalition forces when our government decides it is in our best interest?
Yes. For a middle country like ours that is what counts.That's where we,
along with the past performance of our predecessors in the RCAF, can take
pride in our work.

Although we do not produce our own combat aircraft, we are participants in
almost all American combat aircraft production from screws & seals to
complete airframe components. 3/4 of all the A/F-18 A/B/C/D nose-barrel
portion of the airframe (where the radar & gun are located ... built in
Montreal) is just one example

We are a participant in the JSF, build components for the A/F-22 (that's how
the USAF identifies it now ... it's even written on their hangar in Nellis),
particpate in weapons production, etc... Somewhere along the way, our
manufacturers stopped fighting the giant American combat a/c & weapons
production system and simply joined it. I believe it benefitted both our
countries.

Pat

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: P-51 question.
>From: "patrick savoie"
>Date: 8/22/03 11:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
> a écrit dans le message de
...
>> >"patrick savoie" > wrote:
>>
>> [Kramer's non-sequiter's snipped]
>>
>> >Thank you Sir, on behalf of my predecessors and my comrades-in-arms,
>>
>> Whether you realize it or not, you're thanking him for playing
>> to the gallery. Hitler was a master at playing to the gallery (e.g:
>> persuading others to his point of view by appealing to their emotions
>> instead of presenting evidence to support his twisted views).
>>
>> In other words, ask yourself the following question: if the RCAF was
>> the 4th largest after WW2, where does it rank NOW and why?
>>
>> -Mike Marron
>>
>
>
>It ranks middle-to-low due to geo-political considerations ... much as the
>USAF ranks high and now the Russion Federation's Air Force (I just can't
>remember their new name) ranking is


Those who are serving in the military of their country should never allow
themselves to be put on the defensive by those who never served much of
anything.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[[email protected]]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Those who are serving in the military of their country should never allow
>themselves to be put on the defensive by those who never served much of
>anything.

Huh?

Hang it up Kramer, this discussion is obviously more than your puny
brain housing group is able to grasp and you're way, waaaay out of
your league!

(BTW, when you're ready to graduate from a "wannabe" to a real pilot,
my rates for flight instruction is $85/hr.)

-Mike Marron

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

wrote:
> (BTW, when you're ready to graduate from a "wannabe" to a real pilot,
> my rates for flight instruction is $85/hr.)


Jesus! Whatever happened to $18.50/hr ?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[[email protected]]

>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote:
wrote:

>>(BTW, when you're ready to graduate from a "wannabe" to a real pilot,
>>my rates for flight instruction is $85/hr.)

>Jesus! Whatever happened to $18.50/hr ?

Hey, what can I say...when you're good you're good!

;)

-Mike (damn good) Marron

[Ed Majden]

Re Mike Marron's comments:

I think Canada is holding its own on the fight on terrorism. We just
sent around 2000 troops to Afghanistan and have taken command of the Kaboul
region. We have troops on various other assignments. True we didn't go to
Iraq but that is partly a fault of the USA as they didn't get the UN on
board. The politics of this is complicated. The US is now asking for UN
help! You have been reading too much in what seems to be our left wing
press. If you broke down some of these polls by region, support for the US
is stronger as you head west. Quebec has always been a pacifict province.
Remember the conscription crisis in WWII. It is true that our military has
been drastically cut back. Very sad! This is NO reason to knock the present
serving members. They are doing one hell of a job with the equipment
provided. Governments change and so will this. I forgot to mention our
ships and aircraft patrolling the Gulf supporting the war on terrorism.
By the way, ask the people that were diverted to Canadian airports after
9/11 what they think of the Canadian reception. I think many of your
opinions would change if you talked to these folks. We could argue politics
but I don't think this newsgroup is the place to do it.

[John C. Baker]

In article >,
wrote:

> One poll indicated that 84-percent of Canadians believed America
> was actually to blame for 9/11.

Well, it depends on how the question was posed. Do I believe that
America was to blame for 9-11? Yes -- in the sense that the terrorists
were attacking the United States because of its Mid-East policies. That
doesn't necessarily mean I don't support those policies, nor does it
mean I support the terrorism.

[[email protected]]

>"John C. Baker" > wrote:

>Do I believe that America was to blame for 9-11? Yes -- in the sense
>that the terrorists were attacking the United States because of its
>Mid-East policies.

This crock of **** doesn't even deserve a valid response because
if it ain't flamebait, it damn sure oughta' be!

-Mike Marron

[Andrew Chaplin]

Ed Majden wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> > First you blame America for the demise of the AVRO CF-105 (because we
> > didn't subsidize YOUR aircraft industry) and now you blame the USA
> > for Canada's weaseling out of going to Iraq because we didn't get
> > the UN onboard>
> > -Mike Marron
> >
> I just pointed out that one of the reasons the Arrow was cancelled was
> that the USA would not buy it. Now lets look at the hard facts!
>
> Canada bought: USA bought
> F86
> Banshee
> T-33 ZIP
> CF-104
> CF-101
> CF-5
> CIM10B Bomarc
> C130 Herc
> CF-18
> and others!
>
> Now who is supporting who's aircraft industry!

The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
Now, that's not much, but it's a start.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[[email protected]]

>"Ed Majden" > wrote:
> wrote:

>>First you blame America for the demise of the AVRO CF-105 (because we
>>didn't subsidize YOUR aircraft industry) and now you blame the USA
>>for Canada's weaseling out of going to Iraq because we didn't get
>>the UN onboard

>I just pointed out that one of the reasons the Arrow was cancelled was
>that the USA would not buy it.

Perhaps you need to go back to "Marketing 101" then. Kinda'
stupid on Canada's part to waste all that time and money on designing,
production tooling, prototype development, flight testing etc.
on a very expensive aircraft evidently based on nothing more than
an assumption that the USA would buy your product.

>Now lets look at the hard facts!

>Canada bought: USA bought
> F86
>Banshee
>T-33 ZIP
>CF-104
>CF-101
>CF-5
>CIM10B Bomarc
>C130 Herc
>CF-18
>and others!

>Now who is supporting who's aircraft industry!

You flatter yourself. None of those mass produced American aircraft
required Canada's financial support. Furthurmore, many of those
aircraft were (and are) exported to other countries, not just Canada.

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

>Andrew Chaplin > wrote:

>The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
>Now, that's not much, but it's a start.

Good point. And truth be known, those are superb Canadian aircraft.

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

>av8r > wrote:

>Hi Mike

>Take a deep breathe...no deeper and lighten up on your verbal diatribe .

One of my buds actually sent me a Popeye t-shirt that sez, "I yam what
I yam."

>I would not put much credence in them polls. They were sponsored by the
>left wing bleeding heart socialist closet commie media. Hmmm...did I
>leave anything out???

>Don't blame the Canadian military for the sorry state they are in. It's
>the bloody politicians that are at fault. Man for man, they are as
>highly trained and motivated and not to mention as brave as you are
>going to find anywhere on this earth. I can attest from first hand
>experience having served beside them.

You make some good points there Chris, but I think you misunderstand.
In other words, if tripe like this doesn't **** you off then nothing
does:

************************************************** *****************

>"John C. Baker" > wrote:

>Do I believe that America was to blame for 9-11? Yes -- in the sense
>that the terrorists were attacking the United States because of its
>Mid-East policies.

************************************************** ******************


>I won't tell you how old I am, 'BUT', when I was learning to fly, I paid
>11 bucks an hour for a C-172 and 9 bucks an hour for a C-150 Aerobat.

I cost me more money to earn all my FAA pilot and mechanic
certificates and ratings than I even care to think about, however,
these days most of the flight instruction I give is in my own
N-numbered weightshift aircraft (e.g: known as a "trike"). It was
the first aircraft in it's category and class to be N-numbered
east of the Mississippi and is still the only certified aircraft of
it's type in existence in the entire Southeastern U.S.A. As a CFII,
I've paid my dues giving primary instruction so even at $85 per hour
(the going rate in these things, BTW) I often turn students away
preferring to fly solo and just go up and hang out with the birds
instead. Granted, $85 per hr. sounds like a lot of dough, but trust
me, I'm not exactly getting rich and couldn't care less if I train or
not.

>Cheers...Chris

Back 'atcha

>USAF Public Affairs Officer
>722nd SUS (ACC)
>DSN: 628-2663

-Mike Marron

[Thomas Schoene]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:

> The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
> Now, that's not much, but it's a start.

There are also some Dash-7s in US service for the Army's Airborne
Reconnaissance--Light and Dash-8s as an Air Force range monitoring aircraft.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Andrew Chaplin]

Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>
> > The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
> > Now, that's not much, but it's a start.
>
> There are also some Dash-7s in US service for the Army's Airborne
> Reconnaissance--Light and Dash-8s as an Air Force range monitoring aircraft.

I did not know that. I am surprised they bothered with the -7, it does
not seem to be the value for the money that the -8 is. (I have a bias,
I chartered a -7 for a trip by the House of Commons fisheries
committee -- it got rained on in Charlottetown (CYYG) and went bloody
u/s!)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message et>...
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>
> > The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
> > Now, that's not much, but it's a start.
>
> There are also some Dash-7s in US service for the Army's Airborne
> Reconnaissance--Light and Dash-8s as an Air Force range monitoring aircraft.

ARL actually stands for Airborne Reconnaissance Low; IIRC, they (or
almost all of them by now) are now called ARL-M (with M being
"multi-function", including a SAR along with the sensors). Initial
version was ARL-I (imaging only, and one of these was reportedly the
ARL that was lost over Columbia a year or two back)), followed by
ARL-C (COMINT), with the two ARL-C's reportedly upgraded to ARL-M. All
are sheduled to be replaced in the future by the Airborne Common
Sensor (ACS) program, likely to be based upon a twin jet such as a
Bombadier or Gulfstream based airframe.

Brooks

[Brian Colwell]

> wrote in message
...
> >"Ed Majden" > wrote:
>
> >You should take you blinders off and stop getting your version of
> >history from Hollywood movies!
>
> And you should stick your maple-leaf colored blinders where
> the sun don't shine. Like I said, the NYC police department has
> more personnel than the entire "Forces Armees Canadiennes."
>
> -Mike Marron
>
It would appear, Mike has been taking lessons on Canadian history from our
old friend John Tarver !!! :-))

BMC
>

[Thomas Schoene]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
om
> "Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> et>...
> > Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> >
> > > The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
> > > Now, that's not much, but it's a start.
> >
> > There are also some Dash-7s in US service for the Army's Airborne
> > Reconnaissance--Light and Dash-8s as an Air Force range monitoring
> > aircraft.
>
> ARL actually stands for Airborne Reconnaissance Low;

Yep, thanks for the correction.


--�
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Andrew Chaplin]

wrote:

> I dunno, but from where I'm sitting it looks like Tarver clones like
> you are multiplying like rabbits around here. Look at your nonsensical
> Tarveresque retort about "history" and ask yourself how it
> specifically relates to what I wrote about the number of personnel in
> Canada's armed services ****today****

Canada has about 52,000 effectives and another 7,000 (training and
medical holding lists, etc.) in their regular force. It has about
30,000 primary reservists.

How many are there serving full-time in the NYPD? Part-time?

> ...to be continued
>
> -Mike (Kuwait has more soldiers than Canada does!) Marron

They need more, their neighbours are far less considerate than ours.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[[email protected]]

>Andrew Chaplin > wrote:
wrote:

>>I dunno, but from where I'm sitting it looks like Tarver clones like
>>you are multiplying like rabbits around here. Look at your nonsensical
>>Tarveresque retort about "history" and ask yourself how it
>>specifically relates to what I wrote about the number of personnel in
>>Canada's armed services ****today****

>Canada has about 52,000 effectives and another 7,000 (training and
>medical holding lists, etc.) in their regular force. It has about
>30,000 primary reservists.

>How many are there serving full-time in the NYPD? Part-time?

I don't know, but according to "Law Enforcement News" (December
2001)...

55,000: The number of NYPD personnel who will undergo mandatory
psychological counseling to address post-traumatic stress stemming
from the World Trade Center attack.

>> ...to be continued

>> -Mike (Kuwait has more soldiers than Canada does!) Marron

>They need more, their neighbours are far less considerate than ours.

If only. If ONLY our neighbors were equally as considerate instead of
blaming us for the 9/11 attacks, refusing to support us in Iraq, etc.
etc.

-Mike Marron

[Andrew Chaplin]

wrote:

> I don't know, but according to "Law Enforcement News" (December
> 2001)...
>
> 55,000: The number of NYPD personnel who will undergo mandatory
> psychological counseling to address post-traumatic stress stemming
> from the World Trade Center attack.

Well, there seems to be something diluting the pool in that figure.
The NYPD page says there are 39,110 members budgeted for in 2003.
They're hiring, so presumably there are fewer than that.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/misc/pdfaq2.html#41

> >> -Mike (Kuwait has more soldiers than Canada does!) Marron
>
> >They need more, their neighbours are far less considerate than ours.
>
> If only. If ONLY our neighbors were equally as considerate instead of
> blaming us for the 9/11 attacks, refusing to support us in Iraq, etc.
> etc.

"If only" what -- the U.S. were less considerate of Canada? Where
would that get them? Would it produce some advantage? I think not.

Primo, no one in a foreign policy-making position in Canada has blamed
the U.S. government for 11 September.

Secundo, politics in Canada, as in the U.S., is the art of the
possible. Chrétien and his cabinet could not sell the idea of
involvement in Iraq to the public other than with the sanction of the
U.N.

The criticism of U.S. policy in Canada is little different from the
widely held dissenting opinions in the U.S., although I admit those
are not in the majority in the U.S. It's really only a difference of
degree.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Kevin Brooks]

Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message >...
> Thomas Schoene wrote:
> >
> > Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> >
> > > The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
> > > Now, that's not much, but it's a start.
> >
> > There are also some Dash-7s in US service for the Army's Airborne
> > Reconnaissance--Light and Dash-8s as an Air Force range monitoring aircraft.
>
> I did not know that. I am surprised they bothered with the -7, it does
> not seem to be the value for the money that the -8 is. (I have a bias,
> I chartered a -7 for a trip by the House of Commons fisheries
> committee -- it got rained on in Charlottetown (CYYG) and went bloody
> u/s!)

I'd suspect both money and timing influenced the choice of the 7. They
have actually been in service for many years now (from the very early
90's), with upgrades to sensor suites to keep them current. Since the
Army did not enter into RC-7 operations until well after Dash 7
production had ended, it is obvious that the aircraft were obtained
second-hand, and therefore cheaper than the still-in-production Dash 8
series. Not sure that performance entered into the equation; I found a
site listing Dash 8 max range as some 700 miles, but all I saw on the
RC-7 was a "7.5 hour max endurance".

Brooks

[Andrew Chaplin]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> I'd suspect both money and timing influenced the choice of the 7. They
> have actually been in service for many years now (from the very early
> 90's), with upgrades to sensor suites to keep them current. Since the
> Army did not enter into RC-7 operations until well after Dash 7
> production had ended, it is obvious that the aircraft were obtained
> second-hand, and therefore cheaper than the still-in-production Dash 8
> series. Not sure that performance entered into the equation; I found a
> site listing Dash 8 max range as some 700 miles, but all I saw on the
> RC-7 was a "7.5 hour max endurance".

The Trash-8 in CF service as a navigation trainer is listed as having
a 2,400-Km range (about 1,500 statute miles). The -7 is now retired
and so they don't put up performance figures, but I do know ours could
not fly from Gander (CYQX) to Ottawa (CYOW) without refuelling (about
1,700 Km great circle) when carrying only 17 pax and five crew.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[av8r]

Hi Kevin and Andrew

The De Havilland of Canada Dash-8M (CT-142) has a range of 1,025 miles
with 20 pax onboard.

The Dash-7 (CC-132) only has a range of 795 miles with 50 pax onboard.

Cheers...Chris

[Andrew Chaplin]

av8r wrote:
>
> Hi Kevin and Andrew
>
> The De Havilland of Canada Dash-8M (CT-142) has a range of 1,025 miles
> with 20 pax onboard.

Chris, any idea as to why there is a discrepancy between the figure
you posted and what is on the "airforce" web site? I presume yours
comes out of staff planning documents.
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1j_e.htm
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Kevin Brooks]

Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message >...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > I'd suspect both money and timing influenced the choice of the 7. They
> > have actually been in service for many years now (from the very early
> > 90's), with upgrades to sensor suites to keep them current. Since the
> > Army did not enter into RC-7 operations until well after Dash 7
> > production had ended, it is obvious that the aircraft were obtained
> > second-hand, and therefore cheaper than the still-in-production Dash 8
> > series. Not sure that performance entered into the equation; I found a
> > site listing Dash 8 max range as some 700 miles, but all I saw on the
> > RC-7 was a "7.5 hour max endurance".
>
> The Trash-8 in CF service as a navigation trainer is listed as having
> a 2,400-Km range (about 1,500 statute miles). The -7 is now retired
> and so they don't put up performance figures, but I do know ours could
> not fly from Gander (CYQX) to Ottawa (CYOW) without refuelling (about
> 1,700 Km great circle) when carrying only 17 pax and five crew.

Thanks. Apparently money was the ruling factor, then (and that website
I found that listed a 700 mile range for the DASH 8 with 50 pax must
have been quite a bit off, as another poster has also pointed out...).

Brooks

[James Linn]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
. ca...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" >
> > The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
> > Now, that's not much, but it's a start.
> > --
> > Andrew Chaplin
>
> That's true Andrew. They liked these STOLS so much, they even bought
> the company! Boeing I think. I'm not sure who owns it now.


Bzzzt try again.

Bombardier bought DeHavilland. They also bought Lear and Short and Canadair
and others. Not a few orders from US carriers either.


James Linn

[Ed Majden]

"James Linn" >
>
> Bzzzt try again.
>
> Bombardier bought DeHavilland. They also bought Lear and Short and
Canadair
> and others. Not a few orders from US carriers either.
>
>
James:
Boeing did in fact buy DeHaviland Canada Ltd. I guess they must have
sold it to Bombardier later. Can't remember the date Boeing bought it but
if you take the time to search the web you will find that this is true.
Ed

[Kevin Brooks]

Andrew Chaplin > wrote in message >...
> Ed Majden wrote:
> >
> > > wrote in message
> > > First you blame America for the demise of the AVRO CF-105 (because we
> > > didn't subsidize YOUR aircraft industry) and now you blame the USA
> > > for Canada's weaseling out of going to Iraq because we didn't get
> > > the UN onboard>
> > > -Mike Marron
> > >
> > I just pointed out that one of the reasons the Arrow was cancelled was
> > that the USA would not buy it. Now lets look at the hard facts!
> >
> > Canada bought: USA bought
> > F86
> > Banshee
> > T-33 ZIP
> > CF-104
> > CF-101
> > CF-5
> > CIM10B Bomarc
> > C130 Herc
> > CF-18
> > and others!
> >
> > Now who is supporting who's aircraft industry!
>
> The U.S. bought de Havilland Beavers, Caribous and Buffalos, IIRC.
> Now, that's not much, but it's a start.

And some Twin Otters as well.

Brooks

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message >...
> > wrote in message
> > First you blame America for the demise of the AVRO CF-105 (because we
> > didn't subsidize YOUR aircraft industry) and now you blame the USA
> > for Canada's weaseling out of going to Iraq because we didn't get
> > the UN onboard>
> > -Mike Marron
> >
> I just pointed out that one of the reasons the Arrow was cancelled was
> that the USA would not buy it. Now lets look at the hard facts!
>
> Canada bought: USA bought
> F86
> Banshee
> T-33 ZIP
> CF-104
> CF-101
> CF-5
> CIM10B Bomarc
> C130 Herc
> CF-18
> and others!
>
> Now who is supporting who's aircraft industry!

Uhmmm...did you notice that Canada's major programs over the past
thirty or more years have been commercial aircraft for a market
largely outside Canada? Do you *really* think Canada, with its paltry
defense budgets, can or even should be trying to develop major combat
aircraft? Your last effort there, the CF100, was sold to exactly how
many foreign air forces? One, IIRC (Belgium).

OTOH...you wonder who is supporting who's aircraft industry? From
Bombardiers own website:

"The Arlington, Virginia-based airline (US Air), seventh-largest in
the U.S., placed a firm order for sixty 50-seat CRJ200 and twenty-five
75-seat dual class CRJ700 Series 705 jets. The transaction also
includes rights for 90 re-confirmable orders plus 100 options. US
Airways could acquire up to 275 Bombardier CRJ aircraft under terms of
the contract, announced May 12, 2003."

That is just one airline--many others operate Bombardier products as
well.

A little swing through that website would show you that the US
purchases one heck of a lot of aircraft from Canada (even the
Department of Justice has a CRJ)--probably more than are sold in the
other direction?

Brooks

[John C. Baker]

In article >,
wrote:

> >Do I believe that America was to blame for 9-11? Yes -- in the sense
> >that the terrorists were attacking the United States because of its
> >Mid-East policies.
>
> This crock of **** doesn't even deserve a valid response because
> if it ain't flamebait, it damn sure oughta' be!

Oh Good Lord. It's not flamebait. Like I said in my original post (which
you used selective editing to cut down), thinking that Al Qaeda attacked
the U.S. because of American policies does not imply a moral judgement.

Why was the US attacked, if not because some ****head terrorist
disagreed with our policies? Are you so blinded as to think we were
attacked just for the hell of it? All I'm saying is I doubt uncle Osama
would have put us in his sights if not for our support of Israel and
troops in Saudi Arabia. Geez.

[Ed Majden]

"Kevin Brooks" >
> Bombardiers own website:
>
> "The Arlington, Virginia-based airline (US Air), seventh-largest in
> the U.S., placed a firm order for sixty 50-seat CRJ200 and twenty-five
> 75-seat dual class CRJ700 Series 705 jets. The transaction also
> includes rights for 90 re-confirmable orders plus 100 options. US
> Airways could acquire up to 275 Bombardier CRJ aircraft under terms of
> the contract, announced May 12, 2003."
>
Who sold us the following: 707, 747, 757, 737, 727, DC-9, DC-8, L1011, and
others that I can't think of the numbers right now. Bombardier jets are
popular with the airlines now because they can't fill the seats of the big
body jets like the 747, 767, etc. Civilian airlines are there to make
"money" and they shop for the most practical and least expensive product.
The country that makes them is irrelevant. They are out to make a buck for
their share holders. If they don't do that it's curtains for them! A lot
of the US Airlines were given loan guarantees by our Government so they
would buy Canadian. They even got censored for that by the WTO. All
countries do this just as your government subsidizes you agricultural
industry. Free Trade my ASS!

[[email protected]]

>"Ed Majden" > wrote:
>>"Kevin Brooks wrote:

>>Bombardiers own website:

>>"The Arlington, Virginia-based airline (US Air), seventh-largest in
>>the U.S., placed a firm order for sixty 50-seat CRJ200 and twenty-five
>>75-seat dual class CRJ700 Series 705 jets. The transaction also
>>includes rights for 90 re-confirmable orders plus 100 options. US
>>Airways could acquire up to 275 Bombardier CRJ aircraft under terms of
>>the contract, announced May 12, 2003."

>Who sold us the following: 707, 747, 757, 737, 727, DC-9, DC-8, L1011, and
>others that I can't think of the numbers right now. Bombardier jets are
>popular with the airlines now because they can't fill the seats of the big
>body jets like the 747, 767, etc. Civilian airlines are there to make
>"money" and they shop for the most practical and least expensive product.
>The country that makes them is irrelevant. They are out to make a buck for
>their share holders. If they don't do that it's curtains for them! A lot
>of the US Airlines were given loan guarantees by our Government so they
>would buy Canadian. They even got censored for that by the WTO. All
>countries do this just as your government subsidizes you agricultural
>industry. Free Trade my ASS!

And you're more full of **** than a brontasaurus with NO ass, Ed!

Like I said, you really do need to go back to Marketing 101 because:

1) Regional jets (not just Bombardier) were rapidly gaining in
popularity even when the majors were in their heyday still packing
'em in like sardines before 9/11...

2) You continue to flatter yourself. None of either the civilian mass
produced American aircraft you clicked off above OR the military
aircraft you mentioned in a previous post required Canada's financial
support. Furthurmore, many of those U.S. aircraft were (and are)
exported to other countries, not just Canada....

3) With regards to the AVRO CF-105, you have to admit that it was
incredibly stupid on Canada's part to waste all that time and money
on designing, production tooling, prototype development, flight
testing etc. based on nothing more than an assumption that the USA
would buy your product.

-Mike Marron

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Ed Majden" > writes:
>
> > wrote in message
>> First you blame America for the demise of the AVRO CF-105 (because we
>> didn't subsidize YOUR aircraft industry) and now you blame the USA
>> for Canada's weaseling out of going to Iraq because we didn't get
>> the UN onboard>
>> -Mike Marron
>>
> I just pointed out that one of the reasons the Arrow was cancelled was
> that the USA would not buy it. Now lets look at the hard facts!
>
> Canada bought: USA bought
> F86
> Banshee
> T-33 ZIP
> CF-104
> CF-101
> CF-5
> CIM10B Bomarc
> C130 Herc
> CF-18
> and others!

Erm - Canada built their own Sabres. While the Mk 2s and 4s were
pretty much straight F-86Es, (And, in fact the USAF bought 60 Canadair
built Mk 2s as F-86Es), the 5s and 6s were, aguably, the best Day
Fighter Sabres, with teh extra oomph of the Orenda Orenda engines.
They also built a huge raft of Sabres for the RAF, which provided them
with their only effective swept wing fighters until the Hunters
finally got into service.

Tha Canadians also built their own T-33s, as well. The biggest
difference between a Canadian T-33 and the Lockheed built ones was the
substitution of a Rolls Nene for the J33. A little more performance,
abd a lot simpler to get started.

They also built their own -104s. These were uniquely configured,
being pure Nuclear Strike aircraft. No guns, no Sirewinders, and no
conventional bombs. They also built a bunch of F-104Gs for NATO.

Nost of those airplanes were built with U.S. contributions of MBAP
funds. (As were Hunters, Mysteres and Canberras)

It seems to me that the U.S> did a lot of, if not propping
up. encouragement of the Canadian Aviation Industry.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[[email protected]]

wrote:

>>David Windhorst > wrote:
wrote:
>
>>>And no round engine. Lots of good reasons why the USN preferred
>>>air-cooled over liquid-cooled engines.
>
>>At what point did the USN decide they preferred twin-engined a/c?
>>What's the evolution of that philosophy? Did it come out of the
>>sometimes questionable reliability of early turbine powerplants? Before
>>the advent of jets, was there ever any similar preference expressed for
>>piston twins?
>
>Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.
>
>Anyone?
>
>-Mike Marron

I've heard it mentioned that the reason for that is the
comparatively much greater distances between available airports
in Canada mandating the added reliability of twins.
--

-Gord.

[Ed Majden]

"Peter Stickney" >
> Erm - Canada built their own Sabres. While the Mk 2s and 4s were
> pretty much straight F-86Es, (And, in fact the USAF bought 60 Canadair
> built Mk 2s as F-86Es), the 5s and 6s were, aguably, the best Day
> Fighter Sabres, with teh extra oomph of the Orenda Orenda engines.
> They also built a huge raft of Sabres for the RAF, which provided them
> with their only effective swept wing fighters until the Hunters
> finally got into service.
>
> Tha Canadians also built their own T-33s, as well. The biggest
> difference between a Canadian T-33 and the Lockheed built ones was the
> substitution of a Rolls Nene for the J33. A little more performance,
> abd a lot simpler to get started.
>
> They also built their own -104s. These were uniquely configured,
> being pure Nuclear Strike aircraft. No guns, no Sirewinders, and no
> conventional bombs. They also built a bunch of F-104Gs for NATO.
>
> Nost of those airplanes were built with U.S. contributions of MBAP
> funds. (As were Hunters, Mysteres and Canberras)
>
> It seems to me that the U.S> did a lot of, if not propping
> up. encouragement of the Canadian Aviation Industry.
>
> --
> Pete Stickney

True. That's part of the defence procurement agreements between
friendly governments. All the above were built under licence so both
countries benefited by this cooperation. I don't know where you people get
the idea I'm anti American. I served with the American forces with NATO and
NORAD. Some of my best friends are Americans and my niece is married to a
US sailor. Much of what I have pointed out has been distorted by Marion's
hostile attitude toward Canada!

Ed

[[email protected]]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
wrote:

>>Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.

>>Anyone?

>I've heard it mentioned that the reason for that is the
>comparatively much greater distances between available airports
>in Canada mandating the added reliability of twins.

The USAF's 317th FIS based at Elmendorf AFB (Anchorage, AK) flew
single-engine fighters (F-102's) for 12-years.

-Mike Marron

[[email protected]]

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
wrote:

>>The question remains, how long can an CF-18 (or other contemporary
>>twin-engined fighters) operate on a single engine? Until it runs out
>>of gas?

>I'm having trouble understanding your question Mike...are you
>suggesting that some twins can't do that?...if that's so then
>what's the point of adding a second engine?.

Question answered already Gord, (see below...)

***

From: Ed Rasimus
Subject: Re: P-51 question.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2003-08-22

As for how long the listed aircraft can fly on one engine, I brought
an F-4E with one engine shut-down due to a fire light home from the
NVN/Laos border near Sam Neue, through an aerial refueling and back to
Thailand where I recovered at Udorn. I cleaned the airplane off (the
tanks had already been jettisoned earlier in the mission, and the
racks went when the engine got shut down,) it it flew quite
comfortably.

No F-5 experience, but in simulated single engine flight, the T-38 was
equally comfortable. The service ceiling dropped to around 20,000
feet, but it flew well and was quite capable of single engine
approaches and go-arounds without a lot of heavy breathing. Never shut
an engine down in flight in more than 1400 hours of Talon time.

***

-Mike Marron

[Ed Majden]

> wrote in message
...
> >"Ed Majden" > wrote:
>
> >True. That's part of the defence procurement agreements between
> >friendly governments. All the above were built under licence so both
> >countries benefited by this cooperation. I don't know where you people
get
> >the idea I'm anti American. I served with the American forces with NATO
and
> >NORAD. Some of my best friends are Americans and my niece is married to
a
> >US sailor. Much of what I have pointed out has been distorted by Marion's
> >hostile attitude toward Canada!
>
> Me...hostile towards Canada? Nah...
>
> -Mike (So, when are you guys going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron
>
I'm too dammed old and besides I served my time, 28 years of it! Why
aren't you over there serving your country??????
Ed

[[email protected]]

>"Ed Majden" > wrote:
> wrote:

>>Me...hostile towards Canada? Nah...

>> -Mike (So, when are you guys going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron

>I'm too dammed old and besides I served my time, 28 years of it!

Maybe that explains why it's so tough keeping you focused and
on-topic. Note that " you guys" in my sentence above clearly
distinguishes between singular (e.g: one) and plural (e.g: more than
one). In other words, Ed, since I have to spell it out for you, "you
guys" meant Canada, not YOU.

>Why aren't you over there serving your country??????

See above.

-Mike (So, when is CA-NA-DUH going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>
> In message >, Peter Stickney
> > writes
> >That being said, even when you strip the myth off it, the Arrow was an
> >amazing project. There are only 3 countries which have built and
> >flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S., the Soviet Union, and
> >Canada. That's danged good.
>
> What about the Tornado F.3?
>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

And the English Electric Lightnings?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Andrew Chaplin
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>> What about the Tornado F.3?

>And the English Electric Lightnings?

I was thinking of interceptors that had a loiter capability and long
patrol range, as well as climb rate and dash speed.

France gets included with the Mirage if "take off, get to altitude,
shoot at something, go home" is the mission profile :)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Greg Hennessy]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:30:51 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
> wrote:

>

>
>And the English Electric Lightnings?

Excellent for intercepting something bombing the airfield perimeter.


greg


--
$ReplyAddress =~ s#\@.*$##; # Delete everything after the '@'
Alley Gator. With those hypnotic big green eyes
Alley Gator. She'll make you 'fraid 'em
She'll chew you up, ain't no lie

[Kevin Brooks]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message >...
> "Kevin Brooks" >
> > Bombardiers own website:
> >
> > "The Arlington, Virginia-based airline (US Air), seventh-largest in
> > the U.S., placed a firm order for sixty 50-seat CRJ200 and twenty-five
> > 75-seat dual class CRJ700 Series 705 jets. The transaction also
> > includes rights for 90 re-confirmable orders plus 100 options. US
> > Airways could acquire up to 275 Bombardier CRJ aircraft under terms of
> > the contract, announced May 12, 2003."
> >
> Who sold us the following: 707, 747, 757, 737, 727, DC-9, DC-8, L1011, and
> others that I can't think of the numbers right now. Bombardier jets are
> popular with the airlines now because they can't fill the seats of the big
> body jets like the 747, 767, etc. Civilian airlines are there to make
> "money" and they shop for the most practical and least expensive product.
> The country that makes them is irrelevant. They are out to make a buck for
> their share holders. If they don't do that it's curtains for them! A lot
> of the US Airlines were given loan guarantees by our Government so they
> would buy Canadian. They even got censored for that by the WTO. All
> countries do this just as your government subsidizes you agricultural
> industry. Free Trade my ASS!

Snipping away the parts you don't like does not make them go away. And
you are as full of fecal matter as the proverbial Christmas turkey in
regards to this subject--over the past ten years, for example, the
volume and cost of aircraft such as the DASH 8 and CRJ purchased from
Canada probably far outstrips both values for Boeing products heading
northwards (you forgot that Airbus also supplies canadian airlines,
not to mention those Airbus transports operated by the RCAF?).

Brooks

[[email protected]]

>Andrew Chaplin wrote:
>>Paul J. Adam wrote:
>>>Peter Stickney wrote:

>>>There are only 3 countries which have built and
>>>flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S.,
>>>the Soviet Union, and Canada. That's danged good.

>>What about the Tornado F.3?

>And the English Electric Lightnings?

I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Peter was referring to
the YF-12A, MiG-25, and Canada's White Elephant (Arrow).

-Mike Marron

[Andrew Chaplin]

Greg Hennessy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:30:51 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >And the English Electric Lightnings?
>
> Excellent for intercepting something bombing the airfield perimeter.

Ah, but Peter Stickney's description was "Supersonic Heavy
Interceptors" -- no mention of range. ;^) But your point is taken.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

wrote:
>
> >Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> >>Paul J. Adam wrote:
> >>>Peter Stickney wrote:
>
> >>>There are only 3 countries which have built and
> >>>flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S.,
> >>>the Soviet Union, and Canada. That's danged good.
>
> >>What about the Tornado F.3?
>
> >And the English Electric Lightnings?
>
> I could be wrong, but it appears to me that Peter was referring to
> the YF-12A, MiG-25, and Canada's White Elephant (Arrow).

Probably. However, I suspect that the EE programme was nearly as
challenging as Avro Canada's.

For those interested in Arrow-analia, one of the surviving pieces of
the Arrow programme is a cutaway of the Velvet Glove missile which,
when I last checked, was in use as a training aid at the School of
Artillery.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > writes:
> In message >, Peter Stickney
> > writes
>>That being said, even when you strip the myth off it, the Arrow was an
>>amazing project. There are only 3 countries which have built and
>>flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S., the Soviet Union, and
>>Canada. That's danged good.
>
> What about the Tornado F.3?

A bit short-legged, and, well, I'd say tht an Interceptor shouldn't
have to go into reheat to keep up with a Tu-95. :)

A dashed good missile platform, though.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Andrew Chaplin > writes:
> "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>>
>> In message >, Peter Stickney
>> > writes
>> >That being said, even when you strip the myth off it, the Arrow was an
>> >amazing project. There are only 3 countries which have built and
>> >flown Supersonic Heavy Interceptors. The U.S., the Soviet Union, and
>> >Canada. That's danged good.
>>
>> What about the Tornado F.3?

> And the English Electric Lightnings?

Heavy interceptor implies long range area intercept, rather than Point
Defence. Lightnings are very exciting, but a reheat takeoff is a
double emoergeny declaration - Low Fuel, and a Fire on Board. (Well,
in the reheat burner, anyway, usually). The Lightning was a great
performer, but it was really limited to a profile of "CLimb straight
up tp 50,000', shoot the missiles, and glide home."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Andrew Chaplin > writes:
> Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:30:51 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
>> > wrote:
>> >And the English Electric Lightnings?
>>
>> Excellent for intercepting something bombing the airfield perimeter.
>
> Ah, but Peter Stickney's description was "Supersonic Heavy
> Interceptors" -- no mention of range. ;^) But your point is taken.

True, I should have been more explicit. A Heavy Interceptor is
something lang-ranged and reliable enough that nobody would be nervous
about sending them up over the Tundra, or the Artic Ocean. Candiadtes
in that category would be the Tu-128, MiG-25, F-101, F-106, F-4, the
CF-105, the YF-12, and the didn't get built F-108. I;m actually a bit
leery about the YF-12. Blackbirds don't take well to sitting on an
alert pad, waiting to scramble. It takes a lot of time & effort to
prep one for a flight.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Scott Peterson]

(JStONGE123) wrote:

>Why was the P-51 not used on aircraft carriers during WWII? Beside the obvious
>no tail hook.....ect.

Actually it was tested in early 1944. One P-51D was modified at the
factory with strengthened inboard wing panels, a taller fin and
rudder, strengthening of the upper wing panels. It was tested making
simulated deck landings quite successfully.

Another P-51D was fitted with a tail hook and some strengthening in
the tail area. Test catapult launches in Philadelphia were so
successful that follow up tests were canceled.

In November 1944, flight tests were conducted off of Norfolk using the
USS Shangrila. 5 landings and takeoffs were conducted. The takeoffs
were using 700' mark, 600' mark and 250' mark. All successful.

With the aircraft at max gross weight, the run out on landing was 82'.

North American did a series of design studies designated P-51H that
included an arrestor hook and folding wingtips.

Comparative trials were flown between the Corsair F4U-1 and 1A and a
P-51B. The most telling points, the Corsair had the same range as the
Mustang but twice the firepower. The Corsair was faster than the P-51B
up to 24,500 feet. Above that the Mustang had the edge.

The Corsairs had a better climb rate to 20,000 feet and better level
flight acceleration.

Anyway, there's quite a bit more to the critiques, but the bottom line
was that the Navy elected to stay with the aircraft it was already
using in spite of the fact that the Mustang did show a lot of promise.

There's quite a bit of information about this in "The North American
Mustang" by M.J. Hardy.

I've put two pictures of the plane landing on the Shangrila at
http://home.mindspring.com/~scottp4/p51/





Scott Peterson


Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.

[[email protected]]

wrote:

>>"Ed Majden" > wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>>Me...hostile towards Canada? Nah...
>
>>> -Mike (So, when are you guys going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron
>
>>I'm too dammed old and besides I served my time, 28 years of it!
>
>Maybe that explains why it's so tough keeping you focused and
>on-topic. Note that " you guys" in my sentence above clearly
>distinguishes between singular (e.g: one) and plural (e.g: more than
>one). In other words, Ed, since I have to spell it out for you, "you
>guys" meant Canada, not YOU.
>
>>Why aren't you over there serving your country??????
>
>See above.
>
>-Mike (So, when is CA-NA-DUH going to join the US in Iraq?) Marron

Maroon?!?...hostile towards Canada?!?...don't be silly Ed...he's
just plain hostile...probably under endowed and mad at the
world...

Gord(who served 26 years)Beaman

(wonder how many the maroon served?)

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Majden
> writes
>"Gord Beaman" >
>> Maroon?!?...hostile towards Canada?!?...don't be silly Ed...he's
>> just plain hostile...probably under endowed and mad at the
>> world...
>>
>> Gord(who served 26 years)Beaman
>>
>> (wonder how many the maroon served?)
>
> I should know better than to respond to Marron's postings!

Mr Marron does tend to know his stuff - which doesn't prevent him from
****ing people off. Mr Beaman, likewise, has demonstrated a very
interesting depth of expertise and research. I don't know Mr Majden as
well yet, but I've seen no reason to question his competence or
knowledge.

Can't we all just get along? This is a political squabble, with no
relationship to technical experience or understanding. It does not
relate to technical fact. It's possible to ignore someone's political
pronouncements while still appreciating their experience and knowledge.

(I know I'm wasting oil on troubled waters, but I've appreciated all
three combatants' postings... hate to lose good facts over a squabble)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> Can't we all just get along? This is a political squabble, with no
> relationship to technical experience or understanding. It does not
> relate to technical fact. It's possible to ignore someone's political
> pronouncements while still appreciating their experience and knowledge.

Nope. The relationship is like that of the English and Irish with out
the aspects that necessarily involve an analogue of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, i.e. a sibling rivalry.

> (I know I'm wasting oil on troubled waters, but I've appreciated all
> three combatants' postings... hate to lose good facts over a squabble)

(With catalyst and open flame) Cheers!
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Mike Marron]

>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>Mr Marron does tend to know his stuff - which doesn't prevent him from
>****ing people off.

Well, unlike a few of these wishy washy old RCAF fartblossoms
around here (who **** ME off) at least I'm consistent. Like their
quasi-socialist leader, Gord and his Canuck cohorts opinions on
matters regarding everything from national security to marketing
101 swing back and forth more than a Clydesdales balls on a hot
summer day!

-Mike Marron

[Andrew Chaplin]

Mike Marron wrote:

> Like their
> quasi-socialist leader, Gord and his Canuck cohorts opinions on
> matters regarding everything from national security to marketing
> 101 swing back and forth more than a Clydesdales balls on a hot
> summer day!

And your familiarity with the phenomenon on which to base your simile
comes from your close association with horses' arses. :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[[email protected]]

"Ed Majden" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" >
>> Maroon?!?...hostile towards Canada?!?...don't be silly Ed...he's
>> just plain hostile...probably under endowed and mad at the
>> world...
>>
>> Gord(who served 26 years)Beaman
>>
>> (wonder how many the maroon served?)
>
> I should know better than to respond to Marron's postings! The
>un-informed and ignorant **** me off! Where and with who did you serve your
>26 years. I was with the RCAF and CAF.
>Ed
>

Same Ed, 6 yrs in Greenwood as AET, F/E on Lancs and Neptunes...6
in Downsview F/E on C-119's...6 in Ottawa (Uplands) F/E on
Cosmopolitans then 8 in Summerside F/E on Argus. I've been
retired for 36 yrs now.

You?.
--

-Gord.

[Ed Majden]

"Gord Beaman"
> Same Ed, 6 yrs in Greenwood as AET, F/E on Lancs and Neptunes...6
> in Downsview F/E on C-119's...6 in Ottawa (Uplands) F/E on
> Cosmopolitans then 8 in Summerside F/E on Argus. I've been
> retired for 36 yrs now.
>
> You?.
> --
Gord:
Enlisted in 1958 and trained as an AST later called RST. First ops
station, St.Huberts on Cf-100 Mk-5's, Greenwood for six months (Torpedos and
Argus), Bagotville for six months CF-100 MK-5's. Then to 2(F)Wing France on
CF-100's Mk-4's.. (They were beefing up I Air Div because of the Berlin Wall
crisis), 3(F)Wing Germany ( We assembled the first CF-104's when they were
flown over in Hercs), then Cold Lake on CF-104's, 447 SQN LaMacaza on
CIM10B Bomarcs, North Bay on CIM10B Bomarcs, then Comox on the CF-101B.
Last few months in NavCom Labs in support of the Aurora and 442 SAR Sqn
after the Voodoo was phased out of service. Retired in 1986.
Ed

[patrick savoie]

Your time in St-Hubert & Bagotville was with which unit? Was it with 433 ...
I'm with 433 right now in Bagotville.

What trade was RST?

Pat

"Ed Majden" > a écrit dans le message de
. ca...
>
> "Gord Beaman"
> > Same Ed, 6 yrs in Greenwood as AET, F/E on Lancs and Neptunes...6
> > in Downsview F/E on C-119's...6 in Ottawa (Uplands) F/E on
> > Cosmopolitans then 8 in Summerside F/E on Argus. I've been
> > retired for 36 yrs now.
> >
> > You?.
> > --
> Gord:
> Enlisted in 1958 and trained as an AST later called RST. First ops
> station, St.Huberts on Cf-100 Mk-5's, Greenwood for six months (Torpedos
and
> Argus), Bagotville for six months CF-100 MK-5's. Then to 2(F)Wing France
on
> CF-100's Mk-4's.. (They were beefing up I Air Div because of the Berlin
Wall
> crisis), 3(F)Wing Germany ( We assembled the first CF-104's when they were
> flown over in Hercs), then Cold Lake on CF-104's, 447 SQN LaMacaza on
> CIM10B Bomarcs, North Bay on CIM10B Bomarcs, then Comox on the CF-101B.
> Last few months in NavCom Labs in support of the Aurora and 442 SAR Sqn
> after the Voodoo was phased out of service. Retired in 1986.
> Ed
>
>

[av8r]

Hi Ed

No. 413 'Tusker' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 MK. 5 at R.C.A.F.
Station Bagotville from the 1st of May 1957 to the end of December 1961.

No. 432 'Black Cougar' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 Mk. 5 at R.C.A.F.
Station Bagotville from June 1956 to the 15th of October 1961.

Cheers...Chris

[Ed Majden]

"av8r"
> Hi Ed
>
> No. 413 'Tusker' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 MK. 5 at R.C.A.F.
> Station Bagotville from the 1st of May 1957 to the end of December 1961.
>
> No. 432 'Black Cougar' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 Mk. 5 at R.C.A.F.
> Station Bagotville from June 1956 to the 15th of October 1961.
>
> Cheers...Chris
>

Chris:
Thanks. Now I remember. We didn't belong to the squardrons, as we went
to Central Servicing. Central Maintenance, and Labs. We worked on any
Squadron aircraft. When I first went overseas we belonged to a squadron. I
was with 423 at 2(F)Wing but when we got the CF-104's we went to this
central manpower pool system and you were assigned as base personnel. I
think they are again back to the squadron system as it is better for moral.
I think the USAF has a neat system! Your assigned to an airplane with its
aircrew. Better communication this way between the aircrew and ground crew.
I think the Snowbirds operate this way. The crew chief gets his name on the
aircraft along with the pilot an nav if there is one.
Ed
Ed

[[email protected]]

wrote:

>>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote:
wrote:
>
>>>Good questions. The RCAF seems to prefer twin-engined fighters too.
>
>>>Anyone?
>
>>I've heard it mentioned that the reason for that is the
>>comparatively much greater distances between available airports
>>in Canada mandating the added reliability of twins.
>
>The USAF's 317th FIS based at Elmendorf AFB (Anchorage, AK) flew
>single-engine fighters (F-102's) for 12-years.
>
>-Mike Marron
>
No doubt but I guess that the gov't just prefers twins when
available for the reason I mentioned. I'm sure that bush pilots
flew singles all over the north desolation for a lot more years
than that too but I'm also sure that they'd have preferred twins.
You use what you have to I guess.
--

-Gord.

[patrick savoie]

You had the same trade as my father. He also worked in the radar lab in what
he called the "White House" near the tower, but when he was there it was for
CF-101 Voodoos. The M&W Techs (Munitions & Weapons) worked on their trailers
downstairs. Now that building is used by the Telecommunication guys.

Now all Canadian Air Force trade have been amalgamated.
Aeroengine Techs, Airframe Techs, some Instrument & Electrical Techs and
most Armament Techs (armourers) are now Aviation Techs.
All Intetgral Systems Techs, Communication & Radar Techs, most Instrument &
Electrical Techs and some Armament Techs (armourers) are now Avionics Techs.

I started as an Armament Tech, was forcefully converted to Aviation Tech and
then remustered to Avionics Tech ... so I pretty much work on the same kind
of systems you did ... just a slightly newer a/c ... but I also load
armament.

As you can see .... the Air Force trades keep changing but overall the work
is the same. Keep them flying & fighting!

Pat

"Ed Majden" > a écrit dans le message de
. ..
>
> "patrick savoie"
> > Your time in St-Hubert & Bagotville was with which unit? Was it with 433
> ...
> > I'm with 433 right now in Bagotville.
> >
> > What trade was RST?
> >
>
> Pat
> I was there for six months in 1961 after St.Hubert's phased out the
> CF100. AST was Armament Systems later called RST, Radar Systems. We were
> originally under the Armament Officer but after amalgamation with Radar
Air
> we were under Avionics. Before I got out, this became ComRadarSystems.
Now
> I think they just call it Avionics. I can't remember what CF100 Sqn was
> there, I worked in the radar lab in the Armament building. We were
upstairs
> and the M&W's were down stairs. In St. Hubert's we worked for 425 and 416
> Squadrons.
> Ed
>
>

[patrick savoie]

We have a CF-100 guarding the gate in Bagotville, along with a CF-5, CF-101,
Sabre, H19 helicopter, T-33 and, believe it or not, a MIG-19 from the Czech
republic!

I believe the CF-100 has a No. 413 'Tusker' AW (F) Squadron paint scheme ...
I'll check it out tomorrow.

Pat

"av8r" > a écrit dans le message de
...
> Hi Ed
>
> No. 413 'Tusker' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 MK. 5 at R.C.A.F.
> Station Bagotville from the 1st of May 1957 to the end of December 1961.
>
> No. 432 'Black Cougar' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 Mk. 5 at R.C.A.F.
> Station Bagotville from June 1956 to the 15th of October 1961.
>
> Cheers...Chris
>

[patrick savoie]

In the CF-18 world maintenance personnel are directly part of Squadron. It
is not the same in other fleets. I know the Herc maintenance is centralized.
For sure squadron with their own maint pers usually have better moral, also
it helps a lot to have the maint pers close to the Ops pers. For us it helps
to know the history of our a/c .. hard to do that with central maint.

As for being assigned to a specific a/c. That only works for the servicing
crew in the USAF and isn't always set in stone. Maint pers do work on other
a/c, they just have a direct responsibility for the a/c they are assigned
too. With the manpower shortage in the CAF I don't believe assigning someone
to a specific a/c would work for us.

Pat

"Ed Majden" > a écrit dans le message de
. ca...
>
> "av8r"
> > Hi Ed
> >
> > No. 413 'Tusker' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 MK. 5 at R.C.A.F.
> > Station Bagotville from the 1st of May 1957 to the end of December 1961.
> >
> > No. 432 'Black Cougar' AW (F) Squadron flew the CF-100 Mk. 5 at R.C.A.F.
> > Station Bagotville from June 1956 to the 15th of October 1961.
> >
> > Cheers...Chris
> >
>
> Chris:
> Thanks. Now I remember. We didn't belong to the squardrons, as we
went
> to Central Servicing. Central Maintenance, and Labs. We worked on any
> Squadron aircraft. When I first went overseas we belonged to a squadron.
I
> was with 423 at 2(F)Wing but when we got the CF-104's we went to this
> central manpower pool system and you were assigned as base personnel. I
> think they are again back to the squadron system as it is better for
moral.
> I think the USAF has a neat system! Your assigned to an airplane with its
> aircrew. Better communication this way between the aircrew and ground
crew.
> I think the Snowbirds operate this way. The crew chief gets his name on
the
> aircraft along with the pilot an nav if there is one.
> Ed
> Ed
>
>

[Andrew Chaplin]

Ed Majden wrote:

> Do a google search for the "Comox Air Museum". The base entrance has
> Knight Hawk One, a CF-101 Voodoo from 409 Squadron at the main gate. The
> Air Park has a number of aircraft including a Czech Mig 21. They traded a
> Tudor for a Vampire and are in the process or restoring a Spitfire. Too bad
> they don't have a Lancaster as they flew out of Comox in an antisub patrol
> mode before they got the Neptune. They have a CF-100, Vertol H21, Argus.
> T-33, CF104, Tudor, Dakota, Tracker, etc. Quite a nice indoor museum also.
> Well worth a visot if your ever out to the west coast. I guess they need a
> Neptune and a Canso Flying boat. Hard to find these days I guess.
> Ed
> >

A "Tudor"? Was it one of these:
http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/VanTilborg/2799.htm? ;^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

Ed Majden wrote:

> Wow! Unfortunately, no. The Canadair Tudor was the primary dual place
> jet trainer for the RCAF/CAF. It has been replaced by the British Hawk jet
> trainer. The Snowbirds, the air force aerobatic air demonstration team
> still fly the Tudor in a 9 plane formation. They often visit airshows in
> the USA. Have a look at the Comox site for a pic. I bet they wish they had
> your Tudor on display. Never seen one of these! You could also do a search
> for the "Snowbirds Air Demonstration Team".
> Cheers:
> Ed

You over-looked my ;^), Ed. I was pointing out that the CT-114 was the
"Tutor", not the "Tudor" -- one a/c is a named for a type of teacher,
the other, for a bunch of Welsh thugs (Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward
VI, Bloody Mary and Elizabeth) who sat on the throne of England after
the Wars of the Roses.

BTW, Avro also built a "Tutor" as a replacement for their 504K during
the 1930s.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[patrick savoie]

Hello

Don't want to nitpick but it is the CT-144 Tutor, not Tudor (see
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1f_e.htm ). Built by Canadair in
St-Laurent (Montreal). Used for a long time as primary jet trainer and also
Malasia bought some as close interdiction a/c. Now only used by the Snowbirs
Air Demo team (see
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/15wing/squadron/431_e.asp ) but many of the
old airframes are used in our training school to teach basic a/c maint so
all the young techs get to know these well.

With the present flight training system in place for the CAF there is a
buisness consortium that supplies a/c (Hawks, see
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1p_e.htm and
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/15wing/squadron/2cffts_e.asp), facilities
and maint .... only the pilots are military.


"Ed Majden" > a écrit dans le message de
. ca...
>
> "Andrew Chaplin"
> > A "Tudor"? Was it one of these:
> > http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/VanTilborg/2799.htm? ;^)
> > --
>
> Wow! Unfortunately, no. The Canadair Tudor was the primary dual
place
> jet trainer for the RCAF/CAF. It has been replaced by the British Hawk
jet
> trainer. The Snowbirds, the air force aerobatic air demonstration team
> still fly the Tudor in a 9 plane formation. They often visit airshows in
> the USA. Have a look at the Comox site for a pic. I bet they wish they
had
> your Tudor on display. Never seen one of these! You could also do a
search
> for the "Snowbirds Air Demonstration Team".
> Cheers:
> Ed
>
>

[Ed Majden]

"Andrew Chaplin"
> You over-looked my ;^), Ed. I was pointing out that the CT-114 was the
> "Tutor", not the "Tudor" -- one a/c is a named for a type of teacher,
> the other, for a bunch of Welsh thugs (Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward
> VI, Bloody Mary and Elizabeth) who sat on the throne of England after
> the Wars of the Roses.
>
I thought that was probably the case! ;-) A typo,just not paying
attention to my typing!

Ed