Fly Boy ?????

[Grantland]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote:

>"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...
>> Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal
>about old
>> man Bush???
>>
>
>
>
>
>And why is his wife's picture on your one dollar bills ?
pfff
>
It's his mother. He married his mother. She was the compatible
bearer - to spawn the Bush Jnr! Endless rows of Illuminati prote vats
and hideous failed experiments. Only the mother would suppoert the
early clones, don't you see? Don't you seeee???
wally

[Autocollimator]

Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal about old
man Bush???

[Gordon]

>
>Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal about
>old
>man Bush???

The place he was shot down was a cannabalistic hell - everyone that went down
over Chichi Jima died in their a/c or got murdered by their captors, with two
exceptions. One was flown to Japan for interrorgation, the other was George
Bush. He pushed out to face the sea in his raft while everyone else allowed
themselves to be captured. He alone returned, for whatever fate intended. The
book "Flyboys" is intensely interesting and gives a lot of insight into why the
other airmen were eaten by the Japanese officers, to strengthen their fighting
spirit. The depravity of the murders, often by Japanese soldiers who had
become friends with their victims, is well explained by comments by all
participants. Its horrifying as well as enlightening - and you finish the book
feeling that Bush was not saved by chance alone.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/20/03 4:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal about
>>old
>>man Bush???
>
>The place he was shot down was a cannabalistic hell - everyone that went down
>over Chichi Jima died in their a/c or got murdered by their captors, with two
>exceptions. One was flown to Japan for interrorgation, the other was George
>Bush. He pushed out to face the sea in his raft while everyone else allowed
>themselves to be captured. He alone returned, for whatever fate intended.
>The
>book "Flyboys" is intensely interesting and gives a lot of insight into why
>the
>other airmen were eaten by the Japanese officers, to strengthen their
>fighting
>spirit. The depravity of the murders, often by Japanese soldiers who had
>become friends with their victims, is well explained by comments by all
>participants. Its horrifying as well as enlightening - and you finish the
>book
>feeling that Bush was not saved by chance alone.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
>"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
>"Nothing but my forehead, sir."


Yeah. War is hell.

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 10/20/03 4:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>From: (Gordon)
>>Date: 10/20/03 4:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>>
>>>Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal about
>>>old
>>>man Bush???
>>
>>The place he was shot down was a cannabalistic hell - everyone that went
>down
>>over Chichi Jima died in their a/c or got murdered by their captors, with
>two
>>exceptions. One was flown to Japan for interrorgation, the other was George
>>Bush. He pushed out to face the sea in his raft while everyone else allowed
>>themselves to be captured. He alone returned, for whatever fate intended.
>>The
>>book "Flyboys" is intensely interesting and gives a lot of insight into why
>>the
>>other airmen were eaten by the Japanese officers, to strengthen their
>>fighting
>>spirit. The depravity of the murders, often by Japanese soldiers who had
>>become friends with their victims, is well explained by comments by all
>>participants. Its horrifying as well as enlightening - and you finish the
>>book
>>feeling that Bush was not saved by chance alone.
>>
>>v/r
>>Gordon
>><====(A+C====>
>> USN SAR Aircrew
>>
>>"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
>>"Nothing but my forehead, sir."
>
>
>Yeah. War is hell.
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>


Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a sales
job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.

[Dave Kearton]

"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...
> Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal
about old
> man Bush???
>




And why is his wife's picture on your one dollar bills ?




Cheers



Dave Kearton

[Ron]

>
>Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a
>sales
>job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.

Art, I think you are a bit better than that. Just because you are not a fan of
the Bushes, does not mean you should denegrate the author of the book. I see
no reason to attack the author like that.



Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Erik Pfeister]

"Ron" < wrote in message
> >
> >Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a
> >sales
> >job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.
>
> Art, I think you are a bit better than that. Just because you are not a
fan of
> the Bushes, does not mean you should denegrate the author of the book. I
see
> no reason to attack the author like that.
>
> Ron
> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter


If you ignore the jealous old fart he will go away.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Erik Pfeister"
>Date: 10/20/03 6:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ron" < wrote in message
>> >
>> >Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a
>> >sales
>> >job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.
>>
>> Art, I think you are a bit better than that. Just because you are not a
>fan of
>> the Bushes, does not mean you should denegrate the author of the book. I
>see
>> no reason to attack the author like that.
>>
>> Ron
>> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
>
>If you ignore the jealous old fart he will go away.
>
>
>
..
I .have nothing to be jealous about. How about you? I didn't see you around
when the **** hit the fan.


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

[Ron]

>> >
>> >Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a
>> >sales
>> >job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.
>>
>> Art, I think you are a bit better than that. Just because you are not a
>fan of
>> the Bushes, does not mean you should denegrate the author of the book. I
>see
>> no reason to attack the author like that.
>>
>> Ron
>> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
>
>If you ignore the jealous old fart he will go away.
>
>

I really admire Art greatly for what he accomplished and what he went through
during the war, and especially how he had been putting his stories and photos
up for all to see and learn about.

That cheap shot at the author of the book, was a bit beneath him in my
opinion..




Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Ron)
>Date: 10/20/03 7:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>> >
>>> >Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a
>>> >sales
>>> >job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.
>>>
>>> Art, I think you are a bit better than that. Just because you are not a
>>fan of
>>> the Bushes, does not mean you should denegrate the author of the book. I
>>see
>>> no reason to attack the author like that.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>>
>>
>>If you ignore the jealous old fart he will go away.
>>
>>
>
>I really admire Art greatly for what he accomplished and what he went through
>during the war, and especially how he had been putting his stories and photos
>up for all to see and learn about.
>
>That cheap shot at the author of the book, was a bit beneath him in my
>opinion..
>
>
>
>
>Ron
>Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
He was very well paid for it.



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

[Bill Silvey]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote in
message
> "Autocollimator" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big
>> deal about old man Bush???
>>
>
>
>
>
> And why is his wife's picture on your one dollar bills ?

You fool, that's Chelsea Clinton.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Stephen Harding]

ArtKramr wrote:

> (Gordon)
> >
> >>The place he was shot down was a cannabalistic hell - everyone that went down
> >>over Chichi Jima died in their a/c or got murdered by their captors, with two
> >>exceptions. One was flown to Japan for interrorgation, the other was George
> >>Bush. He pushed out to face the sea in his raft while everyone else allowed
> >>themselves to be captured. He alone returned, for whatever fate intended. The
> >>book "Flyboys" is intensely interesting and gives a lot of insight into why the
> >>other airmen were eaten by the Japanese officers, to strengthen their fighting
> >>spirit. The depravity of the murders, often by Japanese soldiers who had
> >>become friends with their victims, is well explained by comments by all
> >>participants. Its horrifying as well as enlightening - and you finish the book
> >>feeling that Bush was not saved by chance alone.
>
> Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a sales
> job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.

Because the subject of the book is a prominent political figure, the possibility
of embellishment for political benefit is certainly there for any writing.

However, I would think you would have to read the book in order to make any such
judgment.

I haven't read it (sounds like a good book), so I can't offer my opinion, but I
get the impression you haven't either.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Grantland wrote:

> "Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>
> >"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
> >
> >And why is his wife's picture on your one dollar bills ?
> pfff
> >
> It's his mother. He married his mother. She was the compatible
> bearer - to spawn the Bush Jnr! Endless rows of Illuminati prote vats
> and hideous failed experiments. Only the mother would suppoert the
> early clones, don't you see? Don't you seeee???

What??!!! No reference to Jews??!!!

You're slipping.


SMH

[Cub Driver]

>Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal about old
>man Bush???

Gosh, I don't know.

Lessee. He became ambassador to China, head of the Central
Intelligence Agency, president of the United States ...

No, nothing in there would explain why anyone would be more interested
in him than in, say, Art Kramer.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On 20 Oct 2003 23:42:29 GMT, (Gordon) wrote:

>The
>book "Flyboys" is intensely interesting and gives a lot of insight into why the
>other airmen were eaten by the Japanese officers, to strengthen their fighting
>spirit.

I didn't realize that Bush 41 came so close to being eaten!

I became interested in cannibalism when I was researching Col TSUJI
Masanobu, who was involved in killing an American airman on the
China-Burma border toward the end of the war, and cooking and serving
up his liver to the officers' mess. This was apparently an
indisputable act, with the airman's name known to the Japanese (but
not traced in American records, alas). I posted my notes at
www.warbirdforum.com/tsuji.htm

There was another well-known incident. The Ambon Islands? sticks in my
mind. Perhaps that was near where Bush 41 went down.

(I would think that the Bushes would be rather hard to chew on!
Nothing like as tasty as, say, a Clinton or even a Gore.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[tscottme]

Cub Driver > wrote in message
...
>
> >Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal
about old
> >man Bush???
>
> Gosh, I don't know.
>
> Lessee. He became ambassador to China, head of the Central
> Intelligence Agency, president of the United States ...
>
> No, nothing in there would explain why anyone would be more interested
> in him than in, say, Art Kramer.
>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

Seems to me this book pales in comparison to the Kennedy family
worshipping done by many in this country. Notice the book about GB 41
comes out after he's retired from politics. It seems that the last
thing GWB would want during an election is a close association with his
dad. His dad is known for 2 things, "read my lips" and leaving Saddam
in power. Wasn't GHWB the youngest Navy pilot of WWII?

--

Scott
--------
"Interestingly, we started to lose this war only after the embedded
reporters pulled out. Back when we got the news directly from Iraq,
there was victory and optimism. Now that the news is filtered through
the mainstream media here in America, all we hear is death and
destruction and quagmire..." Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2003/091703.htm

[Cub Driver]

>Seems to me this book pales in comparison to the Kennedy family
>worshipping done by many in this country. Notice the book about GB 41
>comes out after he's retired from politics. It seems that the last
>thing GWB would want during an election is a close association with his
>dad. His dad is known for 2 things, "read my lips" and leaving Saddam
>in power. Wasn't GHWB the youngest Navy pilot of WWII?

You don't understand. Hero-worshipping military men is repugnant if
done by Republicans, perfectly acceptable if done by Democrats. (Back
in 1992 I offered a pact to a local Democrat: that I would write Colin
Powell's name onto the New Hampshire presidential preference ballot if
she would do the same on her ballot. She said: "Oh! I could *never*
vote for a military man!" So ... guess who is the local chair of the
Wesley Clark campaign today?)

Bush 41 is not the albatross that many think. The media tell you that
he lost the election (a close one) because of a recession and a war
that turned out badly (in that Saddam remained in power). What they do
not tell you is that Ross Perot got 15 percent of the popular vote.
Where would those votes have gone if Perot had not been in the race?
And do you see a Perot on the horizon today?

I rather doubt Bush 41 was the youngest USN pilot of WWII, though he
was certainly just a boy. No doubt there were many young men who lied
about their ages and who became pilots.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 10/20/03 11:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Because the subject of the book is a prominent political figure, the
>possibility
>of embellishment for political benefit is certainly there for any writing.

Why wan't this book written ten years ago?. Or 5 years ago? Why now just before
an election?
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 10/21/03 2:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>Thousands flew in the air war in WW II. What the hell is the big deal about
>old
>>man Bush???
>
>Gosh, I don't know.
>
>Lessee. He became ambassador to China, head of the Central
>Intelligence Agency, president of the United States ...
>
>No, nothing in there would explain why anyone would be more interested
>in him than in, say, Art Kramer.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford
>email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
>

Not very good at any of those jobs.

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 10/21/03 4:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:

>Bush 41 is not the albatross that many think. The media tell you that
>he lost the election (a close one) because of a recession and a war
>that turned out badly (in that Saddam remained in power).

Yeah it is all the fault of the press.

> rather doubt Bush 41 was the youngest USN pilot of WWII, though he
>was certainly just a boy

Weren't we all. Big deal.




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

[Gordon]

>
>Lets assume that half of it is true.

Well, I have to give him greater credit than that - the author had access to
all of the war crimes trial records and assembled a well-researched book that I
haven't seen anyone tear apart yet. His prose is a bit over the top at times,
like when he talks of the sights and smells on a carrier in the context of the
WWII Essex class boats, and he mentions the smell of "jet fuel". A few small
mistakes like that, plus a writer likes to overuse phrases, but the end result
is well written book about a ghastly moment in human history. WEB Griffin and
other professional historians were impressed, and I think the book is worth a
read, if you don't mind a few unpleasant mental images. I came away with it
with a better understanding of George H.W. Bush as a man. No such revelations
are waiting to be revealed about his son - I believe that he will be remembered
quite harshly by history.

>But I think the wirters were doing a
>sales
>job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.

I couldn't confuse the two men and nothing either of them could say would
change my opinion of the current administration. I believe that politicians
should be required to wear similar coveralls to race-car drivers, with all of
their sponsors listed or represented by garrish logos. Our president has
obliterated our country's reputation in the world, and the majority of the
world and a good part of our own citizenry know it. I love my country and
can't believe how much one presidency has altered the world's perception of us.

v/r
Gordon

[Erik Pfeister]

"


>Gosh, I don't know.
> >
> >Lessee. He became ambassador to China, head of the Central
> >Intelligence Agency, president of the United States ...
> >
> >No, nothing in there would explain why anyone would be more interested
> >in him than in, say, Art Kramer.
> >
> >all the best -- Dan Ford
> >email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9
> >
>
> Not very good at any of those jobs.
>
> Arthur Kramer

Nor qualified.

On 20 Oct 2003 23:42:29 GMT, (Gordon) wrote:

>The
>book "Flyboys" is intensely interesting and gives a lot of insight into why
the
>other airmen were eaten by the Japanese officers, to strengthen their
fighting
>spirit.

I didn't realize that Bush 41 came so close to being eaten!

He also never met Monica Lewinsky!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/21/03 7:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031021102249.19539.00

>I couldn't confuse the two men and nothing either of them could say would
>change my opinion of the current administration. I believe that politicians
>should be required to wear similar coveralls to race-car drivers, with all of
>their sponsors listed or represented by garrish logos. Our president has
>obliterated our country's reputation in the world, and the majority of the
>world and a good part of our own citizenry know it. I love my country and
>can't believe how much one presidency has altered the world's perception of
>us.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
>
>


Y'know, I've always liked you Gordon. (grin)



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

[Gordon]

>
>I didn't realize that Bush 41 came so close to being eaten!
>

He was one short swim away from an island that was populated by soldiers led by
officers that felt eating the liver of an enemy was beneficial to their health.
That belief didn't explain eating other body parts, notably the thigh meat,
but the bottom line is that Bush paddled out - the other airmen paddled in, not
knowing that their choice was fatal.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Gordon]

>Y'know, I've always liked you Gordon.
>

Thanks, Art. When I lived in Austin, folks seemed amazed I didn't follow Bush
around like one of his flock. My bumper sticker, "I didn't vote for his daddy
either" was rather unpopular and earned me quite a few 1/2 peace signs during
my time there.

v/r
Gordon

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/21/03 7:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>
>>I didn't realize that Bush 41 came so close to being eaten!
>>
>
>He was one short swim away from an island that was populated by soldiers led
>by
>officers that felt eating the liver of an enemy was beneficial to their
>health.
> That belief didn't explain eating other body parts, notably the thigh meat,
>but the bottom line is that Bush paddled out - the other airmen paddled in,
>not
>knowing that their choice was fatal.
>
>v/r
>Gordon


Bush escaped death and so did Kennedy. But you don't win wars that way. You win
wars by attacking the enemy and burning his black heart out leaving his nation
a smoking burning ruin. Screw the "heroics" of the politicians. I'd rather hear
the stories of the men who got the job done, many who never came home. The
exploits of both Bush and Kennedy are weak tea when compared to better men who
helped destroy the enemy, many who now lie in foreign graves..My friends among
them.



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

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
> >From: (Gordon)
> >Date: 10/21/03 7:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>
> >>I didn't realize that Bush 41 came so close to being eaten!
> >>
> >
> >He was one short swim away from an island that was populated by soldiers
led
> >by
> >officers that felt eating the liver of an enemy was beneficial to their
> >health.
> > That belief didn't explain eating other body parts, notably the thigh
meat,
> >but the bottom line is that Bush paddled out - the other airmen paddled
in,
> >not
> >knowing that their choice was fatal.
> >
> >v/r
> >Gordon
>
>
> Bush escaped death and so did Kennedy. But you don't win wars that way.
You win
> wars by attacking the enemy and burning his black heart out leaving his
nation
> a smoking burning ruin. Screw the "heroics" of the politicians. I'd rather
hear
> the stories of the men who got the job done, many who never came home. The
> exploits of both Bush and Kennedy are weak tea when compared to better men
who
> helped destroy the enemy, many who now lie in foreign graves..My friends
among
> them.
>

Now I have no axe to grind one way or the other but this seems
a little harsh. As best I recall Bush did get the job done, he was
no politician at the time, just another carrier pilot and he left a few
of his friends behind too. Including his rear gunner and radioman
neither of whom was rescued after they were shot down.

This guy flew 58 combat missions Art, I'd say he did his share.

Keith

[Gordon]

>> Bush escaped death and so did Kennedy. But you don't win wars that way.
>You win
>> wars by attacking the enemy and burning his black heart out leaving his
>nation
>> a smoking burning ruin.

The island of Chichi Jima had more troops than the citadel of Iwo Jima, and was
vastly easier to defend - luckily it was bypassed and we only bombed it as it
would undoubtably have been the most costly US invasion of the war. To attack
the critical radio relay stations and other facilities, carrier planes had to
come into a sort of bowl, with only one exit, out a narrow cleft that opened to
the sea. The Japanese had the ability to fire in a near 180 degree field,
knowing in advance that every attacker would have to flee through that pass -
guns were trained to fire down upon any such trespasser. One flight of three
Avengers were all destroyed, other groups hitting the same target collided in
the cramped confines of this bowl, leading to one of the more famous WWII
aviation images, the Avenger in flight, minus the outer 1/2 of its port wing.
Bush went down into the same firestorm of flak, pressed home his attacks and
was rewarded with multiple strikes on his own aircraft, including fatal hits.
Whatever he became later in life, Bush Sr. was in the middle of a shooting war
and he was doing his part.

>Screw the "heroics" of the politicians. I'd rather
>hear
>> the stories of the men who got the job done, many who never came home.

Well, the book Flyboys is not about Bush nearly so much as it is the story of
the other airmen, officer and enlisted, that were executed on Chichi Jima
during that time. They endured unbelievable cruelty and the Japanese relished
in punishing these captives for every bombing strike. The war crimes files
that are now open allowed the author to include statements of admission and
other interviews from the Japanese officers and soldiers, many of whom were
every bit as horrified by the actions of their commanders. In each case, the
demise of the individual airman is recorded and Japanese statements tie up the
details. Bush's somewhat miraculous recovery in the often-seen submarine SAR
footage is only a sidelight in a book that concentrates itself on telling the
story of Floyd and Jimmy and all the other heroes who gave their all on that
wretched little island.

v/r
Gordon

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>Date: 10/21/03 8:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>Now I have no axe to grind one way or the other but this seems
>a little harsh. As best I recall Bush did get the job done, he was
>no politician at the time, just another carrier pilot and he left a few
>of his friends behind too. Including his rear gunner and radioman
>neither of whom was rescued after they were shot down.
>
>This guy flew 58 combat missions Art, I'd say he did his share.
>
>Keith
>
>

Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is one of
those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was a famous
footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17 pilot. His plane was
severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and survived. But not a single one
of hsd crew did. There were accusations that he lost his nerve and bailed
before his crew could get out. And they all died because of his cowardice.
Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was always that
lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever I hear of a pilot
that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it brings back the memory of
that WW II incident.
And there many of us who will never forget it.


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

[Stephen Harding]

ArtKramr wrote:


> Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is one of
> those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was a famous
> footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17 pilot. His plane was
> severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and survived. But not a single one
> of hsd crew did. There were accusations that he lost his nerve and bailed
> before his crew could get out. And they all died because of his cowardice.
> Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was always that
> lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever I hear of a pilot
> that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it brings back the memory of
> that WW II incident.
> And there many of us who will never forget it.

Surely there were many aircraft with two or more crew where only one got
out during all of WWII, PTO, CBI, ETO, MTO!

You surely aren't going to label them all "cowards" by definition are
you?

Most people that went into concentration camps never made it out. There
was certainly stealing and back stabbing and sucking up to the SS by at
least some camp members. Does that imply anyone who survived did so via
underhanded means?

I think you're being *way* overly harsh in this judgment, and I also
think your distaste for the Bush clan is driving your judgment.


SMH

[Erik Pfeister]

> ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> > Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is
one of
> > those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was a
famous
> > footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17 pilot. His
plane was
> > severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and survived. But not a
single one
> > of hsd crew did. There were accusations that he lost his nerve and
bailed
> > before his crew could get out. And they all died because of his
cowardice.
> > Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was
always that
> > lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever I hear of a
pilot
> > that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it brings back the memory
of
> > that WW II incident.
> > And there many of us who will never forget it.

As usual Dum-dum got it wrong again.

Tom Harmon of Michigan was the supposed culprit.

It was a B-25 not a B-17 as the "legend in his own mind" writes!

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is one of
> those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was a famous
> footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17 pilot. His plane was
> severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and survived. But not a single one
> of hsd crew did. There were accusations that he lost his nerve and bailed
> before his crew could get out. And they all died because of his cowardice.
> Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was always that
> lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever I hear of a pilot
> that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it brings back the memory of
> that WW II incident.
> And there many of us who will never forget it.
>
> Arthur Kramer


You really should have been a politician.

You can write a neat bit of character assasination and still be able to
deny having done it because you never mentioned his name.

Just ----- amazing!

Dave

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Erik Pfeister"
>Date: 10/21/03 2:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>> ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is
>one of
>> > those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was a
>famous
>> > footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17 pilot. His
>plane was
>> > severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and survived. But not a
>single one
>> > of hsd crew did. There were accusations that he lost his nerve and
>bailed
>> > before his crew could get out. And they all died because of his
>cowardice.
>> > Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was
>always that
>> > lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever I hear of a
>pilot
>> > that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it brings back the memory
>of
>> > that WW II incident.
>> > And there many of us who will never forget it.
>
>As usual Dum-dum got it wrong again.
>
>Tom Harmon of Michigan was the supposed culprit.
>
>It was a B-25 not a B-17 as the "legend in his own mind" writes!
>
>
>

Did you fly the B-17 or the B-25?


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 10/21/03 1:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
>> Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is one
>of
>> those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was a famous
>> footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17 pilot. His plane
>was
>> severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and survived. But not a single
>one
>> of hsd crew did. There were accusations that he lost his nerve and bailed
>> before his crew could get out. And they all died because of his cowardice.
>> Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was always
>that
>> lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever I hear of a
>pilot
>> that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it brings back the memory of
>> that WW II incident.
>> And there many of us who will never forget it.
>
>Surely there were many aircraft with two or more crew where only one got
>out during all of WWII, PTO, CBI, ETO, MTO!
>
>You surely aren't going to label them all "cowards" by definition are
>you?
>
>Most people that went into concentration camps never made it out. There
>was certainly stealing and back stabbing and sucking up to the SS by at
>least some camp members. Does that imply anyone who survived did so via
>underhanded means?
>
>I think you're being *way* overly harsh in this judgment, and I also
>think your distaste for the Bush clan is driving your judgment.
>
>
>SMH


Everything you say is true and I can't argue with any of it. But every time I
hear of where only a pilot survived and anenire crew was lost, I can't help but
think back.But maybe when one is aircrew it means a lot more than if one never
set foot in a plane or flew a mission. You can understand that can't you?

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

[Stephen Harding]

ArtKramr wrote:

> Everything you say is true and I can't argue with any of it. But every time I
> hear of where only a pilot survived and anenire crew was lost, I can't help but
> think back.But maybe when one is aircrew it means a lot more than if one never
> set foot in a plane or flew a mission. You can understand that can't you?

I suppose such a thought could linger in one's mind.

I know guilt at being a lone survivor of terrible events can sometimes drive
a person to suicide. "Why did I survive when everyone around me died?"

I remember reading "recent" (1980's) analysis of evidence from the Little
Big Horn battle site in Montana after a prairie fire cleared the area, that
indicated one soldier *almost* escaped being killed along with Custer and
his command.

Fragments of his body and that of his horse, were found quite a distance
away from the main battle site.

Had he survived, can you imagine the insinuations that fellow would have had
to endure for the remainder of his life, justly or not?


SMH

[Cub Driver]

>Why wan't this book written ten years ago?. Or 5 years ago? Why now just before
>an election?

Art, you're being ridiculous. Why wasn't every book written ten years
ago?

Perhaps the author wasn't out of school then?

Besides, "Flyboys" evidently isn't about Bush 43 or even about Bush
41. It's primarily about seven American fliers captured, murdered, and
eaten off Chichi Jima.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

> he mentions the smell of "jet fuel".

That's a good one. I suppose he means diesel fuel for the ship.

I'm reading "The Village" by Bing West, about a USMC squad in a
village in Vietnam. Several times Mr. West refers to grenades as "hand
bombs", and it's not because he doesn't know better. He was a platoon
leader in Vietnam. I assume he decided to make things easier for the
modern reader.

West is the guy who wrote the splendid account of the marines in Iraq,
"The March Up". http://tinyurl.com/rv6q


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Now I have no axe to grind one way or the other but this seems
>a little harsh.

Yes, after all these years, I flushed Art down the toilet as a result
of this thread. He took 64 messages with him! And I clean out my
message software every day.

r.a.m. will certainly be easier to read from now on.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Erik Pfeister]

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
>
> >Now I have no axe to grind one way or the other but this seems
> >a little harsh.
>
> Yes, after all these years, I flushed Art down the toilet as a result
> of this thread.

Took you long enough!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 10/21/03 10:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> Everything you say is true and I can't argue with any of it. But every time
>I
>> hear of where only a pilot survived and anenire crew was lost, I can't help
>but
>> think back.But maybe when one is aircrew it means a lot more than if one
>never
>> set foot in a plane or flew a mission. You can understand that can't you?
>
>I suppose such a thought could linger in one's mind.
>
>I know guilt at being a lone survivor of terrible events can sometimes drive
>a person to suicide. "Why did I survive when everyone around me died?"
>
>I remember reading "recent" (1980's) analysis of evidence from the Little
>Big Horn battle site in Montana after a prairie fire cleared the area, that
>indicated one soldier *almost* escaped being killed along with Custer and
>his command.
>
>Fragments of his body and that of his horse, were found quite a distance
>away from the main battle site.
>
>Had he survived, can you imagine the insinuations that fellow would have had
>to endure for the remainder of his life, justly or not?
>
>
>SMH


Yes.There are always questions.

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Cub Driver
>Date: 10/22/03 3:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>>Now I have no axe to grind one way or the other but this seems
>>a little harsh.
>
>Yes, after all these years, I flushed Art down the toilet as a result
>of this thread. He took 64 messages with him! And I clean out my
>message software every day.
>
>r.a.m. will certainly be easier to read from now on.
>
>all the best -- Dan Ford


Terriible loss for me. I don't know if I can ever survive so severe a tragedy.
(yawn)

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

[Stephen Harding]

Cub Driver wrote:

> Yes, after all these years, I flushed Art down the toilet as a result
> of this thread. He took 64 messages with him! And I clean out my
> message software every day.
>
> r.a.m. will certainly be easier to read from now on.

To each his own, but I think you'll be missing some good stuff by not
reading Art.

Always need to read him in context and in character, which should be
well known to all here by now.

Although he can be awfully harsh at times (e.g. this thread), I see it
as a time portal on attitudes that seem to have been largely replaced in
modern American society.

With Art, you flew what you had, even if it wasn't the best, or someone
somewhere was screwing up, or you weren't feeling good, or you were
experiencing mental weakness. Just do the job and stop complaining.
"Collateral damage"? Tough luck! Life is cruel!

Not that the military is limp kneed now days, but there seems to be a
lack of endurance for the task. Always someone at fault for something
not being perfect. Perhaps it was always so, but is now done more openly.

I saw some soldiers in Iraq complaining about being stuck there too
long. One claimed during an ABC interview that the Army "had lied to
him". He wasn't going to reup as a result.

For me, Art is a relict of a time when a people were united to do a
tough and dirty job, and just simply went to it. No excuses, no belly
aching, no one else's fault, and extremely unforgiving to anyone who
wasn't towing the line.

Overall, I think it is fortunate for the nation that we have had people
with such attitudes. Just seems so anachronistic now days, and certainly
very harsh at times.

I think r.a.m would lose a lot if Art flew off somewhere else and never
posted here again.


SMH

[Chris Mark]

>From: Cub Driver look

>Mr. West refers to grenades as "hand
>bombs", and it's not because he doesn't know better. He was a platoon
>leader in Vietnam. I assume he decided to make things easier for the
>modern reader.

Or his editor did. On a book I am working on in every instance where I wrote
"radial" engine, some genius changed it to "circular."


Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Stephen Harding
>Date: 10/22/03 7:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> Yes, after all these years, I flushed Art down the toilet as a result
>> of this thread. He took 64 messages with him! And I clean out my
>> message software every day.
>>
>> r.a.m. will certainly be easier to read from now on.
>
>To each his own, but I think you'll be missing some good stuff by not
>reading Art.
>
>Always need to read him in context and in character, which should be
>well known to all here by now.
>
>Although he can be awfully harsh at times (e.g. this thread), I see it
>as a time portal on attitudes that seem to have been largely replaced in
>modern American society.
>
>With Art, you flew what you had, even if it wasn't the best, or someone
>somewhere was screwing up, or you weren't feeling good, or you were
>experiencing mental weakness. Just do the job and stop complaining.
>"Collateral damage"? Tough luck! Life is cruel!
>
>Not that the military is limp kneed now days, but there seems to be a
>lack of endurance for the task. Always someone at fault for something
>not being perfect. Perhaps it was always so, but is now done more openly.
>
>I saw some soldiers in Iraq complaining about being stuck there too
>long. One claimed during an ABC interview that the Army "had lied to
>him". He wasn't going to reup as a result.
>
>For me, Art is a relict of a time when a people were united to do a
>tough and dirty job, and just simply went to it. No excuses, no belly
>aching, no one else's fault, and extremely unforgiving to anyone who
>wasn't towing the line.
>
>Overall, I think it is fortunate for the nation that we have had people
>with such attitudes. Just seems so anachronistic now days, and certainly
>very harsh at times.
>
>I think r.a.m would lose a lot if Art flew off somewhere else and never
>posted here again.
>
>
>SMH


Thanks for the kind words. It is nice to be appreciated which doesn't happen
often. But you are right, those were days of hard discipline, hard tasks to be
done and no excuses were accepted. Don't ask for sympathy or pity because
there was none available. Wheb it was announced that you were going back to the
Rhur Valley for the 3rd straight time after heavy l.osses previously you just
girtted your teeth and kept your mouth shut .If you tried to complain to
another guy chances are he would turn his back on you and walk away. It's bad
luck to talk about stuff like that before a mission. But I am fully aware that
very frew on ntyhis NG havce any iodea of the relaities then. And I make
allowances. What I will never do is hold back what I see to be the truth
regardless of how politically correct this NG gets..There is always the
killfile for anyone who doesn't like it.
Thanks again for the kind words. I appreciate it. One further comment. When a
crew has to hit the silk, the pilot is not the first to go, he is always the
last to go. Thus the questions.

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

[Marc Reeve]

Stephen Harding > wrote:

> ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> > Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is
> > one of those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was
> > a famous footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17
> > pilot. His plane was severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and
> > survived. But not a single one of hsd crew did. There were accusations
> > that he lost his nerve and bailed before his crew could get out. And
> > they all died because of his cowardice.

> > Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was
> > always that lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever
> > I hear of a pilot that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it
> > brings back the memory of that WW II incident. And there many of us who
> > will never forget it.
>
> Surely there were many aircraft with two or more crew where only one got
> out during all of WWII, PTO, CBI, ETO, MTO!
>
I should point out that GWHB was not the only member of his crew who
bailed out. He was merely the only survivor. (There were two bailouts
reported but only one "good chute")

The Avenger was noted for being a difficult plane to bail out of,
especially for the turret gunner & radioman, neither of whom had room to
wear their chutes while at their duty station. There has been
speculation that GHWB would have been better off ditching, as the
Avenger was a great floater (snarky comment - and he'd done it twice
before), but we'll never know whether or not the damage given to his
plane made that impossible.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Gordon]

>One further comment. When a
>crew has to hit the silk, the pilot is not the first to go, he is always the
>last to go. Thus the questions.
>

Agree - and for many years, the question about Bush's crew bothered me a lot.
The book addresses what happened and Bush's 'survivor guilt', but I agree, if
the pilot returns and none of his crew does, its a problem. I know of a
Mosquito Nav that discovered he was in an unpiloted a/c after his chicken****
pilot had bailed out on him after a nearby flak explosion. The Nav eventually
made it out and walked out of Luftgau 17B some months later. Upon returning to
the UK for debrief, he was surprised to pass his "pilot" in the hall en route
to the inquest - the pilot saw him and bolted, bleating, "but I thought you
were dead!!" I'd have hunted McCallum down and shot him, personally. LMF my
ass, this guy was a coward down to his cells. Opposite is when another Mossie
took a terminal hit at 33,000' and the escape hatch jammed. The pilot stayed
in down to 6 grand, waiting on the Nav to escape and only at that point did he
direct the Nav to follow him out the top hatch (the pilot had to be out of his
seat for the Nav to use his overhead hatch). In that case, the pilot perished,
while his Nav hit the ground after two swings in his 'chute.

I do agree - if your crew doesn't make it back, the pilot generally shouldn't
either.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Tarver Engineering]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Bush 41 is not the albatross that many think. The media tell you that
> he lost the election (a close one) because of a recession and a war
> that turned out badly (in that Saddam remained in power). What they do
> not tell you is that Ross Perot got 15 percent of the popular vote.
> Where would those votes have gone if Perot had not been in the race?
> And do you see a Perot on the horizon today?

The Democratic Primary is a quagmire.

> I rather doubt Bush 41 was the youngest USN pilot of WWII, though he
> was certainly just a boy. No doubt there were many young men who lied
> about their ages and who became pilots.

A lucky fellow, either way.

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Marc Reeve)
>Date: 10/22/03 11:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>

>There has been
>speculation that GHWB would have been better off ditching, as the
>Avenger was a great floater (snarky comment - and he'd done it twice
>before), but we'll never know whether or not the damage given to his
>plane made that impossible.
>
> -Marc
>--
>Marc Reeve


That's true. We will never know.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/22/03 11:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>One further comment. When a
>>crew has to hit the silk, the pilot is not the first to go, he is always the
>>last to go. Thus the questions.
>>
>
>Agree - and for many years, the question about Bush's crew bothered me a lot.
>
>The book addresses what happened and Bush's 'survivor guilt', but I agree, if
>the pilot returns and none of his crew does, its a problem. I know of a
>Mosquito Nav that discovered he was in an unpiloted a/c after his chicken****
>pilot had bailed out on him after a nearby flak explosion. The Nav
>eventually
>made it out and walked out of Luftgau 17B some months later. Upon returning
>to
>the UK for debrief, he was surprised to pass his "pilot" in the hall en route
>to the inquest - the pilot saw him and bolted, bleating, "but I thought you
>were dead!!" I'd have hunted McCallum down and shot him, personally. LMF my
>ass, this guy was a coward down to his cells. Opposite is when another
>Mossie
>took a terminal hit at 33,000' and the escape hatch jammed. The pilot stayed
>in down to 6 grand, waiting on the Nav to escape and only at that point did
>he
>direct the Nav to follow him out the top hatch (the pilot had to be out of
>his
>seat for the Nav to use his overhead hatch). In that case, the pilot
>perished,
>while his Nav hit the ground after two swings in his 'chute.
>
>I do agree - if your crew doesn't make it back, the pilot generally shouldn't
>either.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
>"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
>"Nothing but my forehead, sir."


Anyone with combat experience is familiar with the pilot goes last tradition.
Once you hear that the pilot suivived but the crew was lost a few hundred
thousand aircrew all get their suspicions aroused. It is the normal natural
response for those with combat experience. Only inexperienced wannabees would
look at it any other way.
..

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

[ArVa]

"Gordon" > a écrit dans le message de
...
.. Opposite is when another Mossie
> took a terminal hit at 33,000' and the escape hatch jammed. The pilot
stayed
> in down to 6 grand, waiting on the Nav to escape and only at that point
did he
> direct the Nav to follow him out the top hatch (the pilot had to be out of
his
> seat for the Nav to use his overhead hatch). In that case, the pilot
perished,
> while his Nav hit the ground after two swings in his 'chute.
>

There was also this Free French pilot of the Normandie-Niémen squadron, on
the russian front. As he was approaching a new airfield at the end of a
relocation flight, his Yak had a major engine malfunction. Despite formal
orders from both French and Russians officers to jump and save his life, he
refused to bail out and therefore abandon his Russian mechanic he was
transporting in the rear tank of his plane. Both perished.

His name was Maurice De Seynes.

ArVa

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "ArVa"
>Date: 10/22/03 3:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Gordon" > a écrit dans le message de
...
>. Opposite is when another Mossie
>> took a terminal hit at 33,000' and the escape hatch jammed. The pilot
>stayed
>> in down to 6 grand, waiting on the Nav to escape and only at that point
>did he
>> direct the Nav to follow him out the top hatch (the pilot had to be out of
>his
>> seat for the Nav to use his overhead hatch). In that case, the pilot
>perished,
>> while his Nav hit the ground after two swings in his 'chute.
>>
>
>There was also this Free French pilot of the Normandie-Niémen squadron, on
>the russian front. As he was approaching a new airfield at the end of a
>relocation flight, his Yak had a major engine malfunction. Despite formal
>orders from both French and Russians officers to jump and save his life, he
>refused to bail out and therefore abandon his Russian mechanic he was
>transporting in the rear tank of his plane. Both perished.
>
>His name was Maurice De Seynes.
>
>ArVa
>
>
A name to remember.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Chris Mark]

From: Art Kramer:

>>One further comment. When a
>>crew has to hit the silk, the pilot is not the first to go, he is always the
>>last to go. Thus the questions.
>>

Here's an example of how, except for some luck, the pilots would have bailed
out and the three crewmen in back would have gone down with the ship (from an
unpublished memoir):

"Our approach to Piombino Harbor was from the south. I guess one of the things
that the weatherman did not count on was that the wind blew in the opposite
direction from our attack approach and we were heading into the wind instead of
going with it. This obviously meant that our ground speed had been cut down
considerably, leaving us sitting ducks for Germans fire. As we made our IP and
turned for the bomb run, the flak started. It was terribly accurate, no
brackets, just hits.
Surprisingly, no one aboard our ship was even scratched, amazing in
itself! Others in our formation were not so lucky. Our box [of six planes] lost
3 aircraft over the target that day, two got back to Corsica and one was
missing at sea. The two that made it back were so badly battered they were
junked and used for spare parts.
The enemy flak was very accurate and we were in the lead element. One, two
and three. The German 88's had us nailed! The lead ship nosed over and went
down, the number two aircraft made a sharp diving left turn and it never did
recover from that dive while we banked abruptly making a diving right turn and
finally did pull out close to a hundred feet off the ocean.
There were three of us gunners in the back, behind the bomb bay, of this
model B-25. The tail gunner, radio gunner, and the top turret gunner. So when I
climbed over the bomb bay to see what was going on up front I really startled
the pilots a lot. One cannot see the pilots from the back of the ship unless
you literally climb over the bomb bay to the front. It seems that they had
punched the bail out bell but it had been shot out and didn't work. Since they
thought all the gunners had bailed out over the target they were preparing to
bail out themselves and were very surprised to see me.
We headed in limping fashion toward Corsica. The red flashes and bangs
meant the flak bursts had been close and they certainly were, as inspection of
our ship bore out upon landing. One engine, ailerons and rudder controls had
been shot out as well as the hydraulic system controlling the lowering of our
wheels. When I tried to use the emergency system by manually pumping the wheels
down, it didn't work either so we made a wheels up landing. We flew back from
Italy on a single, sputtering, smoking engine.
As we approached the downwind end of the field this remaining engine gave
up and the pilot had to bring her straight in or else. The last thing I
remember seeing (before ducking into my crash landing position), was another
B-25 landing on the metal runway heading directly toward us and looking like we
were going to crash. Our pilot really took care of us that day with much skill
and daring. But I have often thought about if I had delayed a few seconds
before crawling forward to see what was up."



Chris Mark

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 10/22/03 5:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>From: Art Kramer:
>
>>>One further comment. When a
>>>crew has to hit the silk, the pilot is not the first to go, he is always
>the
>>>last to go. Thus the questions.
>>>
>
>Here's an example of how, except for some luck, the pilots would have bailed
>out and the three crewmen in back would have gone down with the ship (from an
>unpublished memoir):
>
>"Our approach to Piombino Harbor was from the south. I guess one of the
>things
>that the weatherman did not count on was that the wind blew in the opposite
>direction from our attack approach and we were heading into the wind instead
>of
>going with it. This obviously meant that our ground speed had been cut down
>considerably, leaving us sitting ducks for Germans fire. As we made our IP
>and
>turned for the bomb run, the flak started. It was terribly accurate, no
>brackets, just hits.
> Surprisingly, no one aboard our ship was even scratched, amazing in
>itself! Others in our formation were not so lucky. Our box [of six planes]
>lost
>3 aircraft over the target that day, two got back to Corsica and one was
>missing at sea. The two that made it back were so badly battered they were
>junked and used for spare parts.
> The enemy flak was very accurate and we were in the lead element. One,
>two
>and three. The German 88's had us nailed! The lead ship nosed over and went
>down, the number two aircraft made a sharp diving left turn and it never did
>recover from that dive while we banked abruptly making a diving right turn
>and
>finally did pull out close to a hundred feet off the ocean.
> There were three of us gunners in the back, behind the bomb bay, of this
>model B-25. The tail gunner, radio gunner, and the top turret gunner. So when
>I
>climbed over the bomb bay to see what was going on up front I really startled
>the pilots a lot. One cannot see the pilots from the back of the ship unless
>you literally climb over the bomb bay to the front. It seems that they had
>punched the bail out bell but it had been shot out and didn't work. Since
>they
>thought all the gunners had bailed out over the target they were preparing to
>bail out themselves and were very surprised to see me.
> We headed in limping fashion toward Corsica. The red flashes and bangs
>meant the flak bursts had been close and they certainly were, as inspection
>of
>our ship bore out upon landing. One engine, ailerons and rudder controls had
>been shot out as well as the hydraulic system controlling the lowering of our
>wheels. When I tried to use the emergency system by manually pumping the
>wheels
>down, it didn't work either so we made a wheels up landing. We flew back from
>Italy on a single, sputtering, smoking engine.
> As we approached the downwind end of the field this remaining engine
>gave
>up and the pilot had to bring her straight in or else. The last thing I
>remember seeing (before ducking into my crash landing position), was another
>B-25 landing on the metal runway heading directly toward us and looking like
>we
>were going to crash. Our pilot really took care of us that day with much
>skill
>and daring. But I have often thought about if I had delayed a few seconds
>before crawling forward to see what was up."
>
>
>
>Chris Mark

Great story Chris. Did the pilots check the gunners on the intercom before
they assumed they had bailed out?

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

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
(Chris Mark) wrote:

> >From: Cub Driver look
>
> >Mr. West refers to grenades as "hand
> >bombs", and it's not because he doesn't know better. He was a platoon
> >leader in Vietnam. I assume he decided to make things easier for the
> >modern reader.
>
> Or his editor did. On a book I am working on in every instance where I wrote
> "radial" engine, some genius changed it to "circular."

Maybe your editor is using the same software package that some major
newspapers have been using that does suggests word substitutions in some
cases, ostensibly to improve readability (or something). Unfortunately,
one example of its behavior was to suggest replacing every occurance of
the word "black" with "African-American".

Or so the story goes.

[Gordon]

I think he lived up to his responsibility to the helpless passenger - thanks
for sharing his story, Arva

[Gordon]

>> Or his editor did. On a book I am working on in every instance where I
>wrote
>> "radial" engine, some genius changed it to "circular."
>
>Maybe your editor is using the same software package that some major
>newspapers have been using that does suggests word substitutions in some
>cases, ostensibly to improve readability (or something). Unfortunately,
>one example of its behavior was to suggest replacing every occurance of
>the word "black" with "African-American".
>
>Or so the story goes.

My first version of Word would offer some of the most amazing substitutions -
for every use of "penal", it would offer "penis" and similar faux-pasian words.

G

[Dav1936531]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>
>
>Anyone with combat experience is familiar with the pilot goes last tradition.
Once you hear that the pilot suivived but the crew was lost a few hundred
thousand aircrew all get their suspicions aroused. It is the normal natural
response for those with combat experience. Only inexperienced wannabees would
look at it any other way.
>Arthur Kramer

This has been an interesting thread,,,,,but........

I can't get one particular piece of footage out of my head. It is the film of
that silver (non painted) B-24 somewhere over Italy (I think, but my memory is
starting to really suck) taking a flak hit right around the number 2 engine
with the almost instant crumpling of the wing right at that engine. The plane
IMMEDIATELY begins its fall as the gas tank ruptures and fire breaks out at the
wing root.

Within 4 or 5 seconds, this aircraft was in a death spiral, probably with
enough G force to pin most of the crew against their compartment walls.

There wasn't a damn thing this pilot could do to "fly" this airplane...he was
merely a passenger soon after the wing separated and control was completely
lost.

I can only imagine that the pilot called a bailout, and after that it was
"every man for himself" because this plane WAS NOT flying anymore. If anybody
got out of it alive, I'd certainly be surprised.

Now, IF the pilot got out and was the only one to survive that incident, I
guess it would seem sort of suspect to the rest of the unit's guys with respect
to the "pilot goes last tradition", but in the actual course of events, "stuff"
happened....and happened really, really fast. I'd say anybody who wasn't out of
that aircraft within ten or fifteen seconds (max) probably died in it.

To second guess the decisions of any person caught in such a circumstance,
wherein life changed in the blink of an eye, could possibly result in a
slanderous injustice to that person......although, when all is considered in a
war zone wherein death, mutilation, and crippling are occurring on an
industrial scale, a slander is the pettiest of an injustice one can suffer.

Just an observation.
Dave

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Dav1936531)
>Date: 10/22/03 8:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: (ArtKramr)
>
>>
>>Anyone with combat experience is familiar with the pilot goes last
>tradition.
>Once you hear that the pilot suivived but the crew was lost a few hundred
>thousand aircrew all get their suspicions aroused. It is the normal natural
>response for those with combat experience. Only inexperienced wannabees would
>look at it any other way.
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>This has been an interesting thread,,,,,but........
>
>I can't get one particular piece of footage out of my head. It is the film of
>that silver (non painted) B-24 somewhere over Italy (I think, but my memory
>is
>starting to really suck) taking a flak hit right around the number 2 engine
>with the almost instant crumpling of the wing right at that engine. The plane
>IMMEDIATELY begins its fall as the gas tank ruptures and fire breaks out at
>the
>wing root.
>
>Within 4 or 5 seconds, this aircraft was in a death spiral, probably with
>enough G force to pin most of the crew against their compartment walls.
>
>There wasn't a damn thing this pilot could do to "fly" this airplane...he was
>merely a passenger soon after the wing separated and control was completely
>lost.
>
>I can only imagine that the pilot called a bailout, and after that it was
>"every man for himself" because this plane WAS NOT flying anymore. If anybody
>got out of it alive, I'd certainly be surprised.
>
>Now, IF the pilot got out and was the only one to survive that incident, I
>guess it would seem sort of suspect to the rest of the unit's guys with
>respect
>to the "pilot goes last tradition", but in the actual course of events,
>"stuff"
>happened....and happened really, really fast. I'd say anybody who wasn't out
>of
>that aircraft within ten or fifteen seconds (max) probably died in it.
>
>To second guess the decisions of any person caught in such a circumstance,
>wherein life changed in the blink of an eye, could possibly result in a
>slanderous injustice to that person......although, when all is considered in
>a
>war zone wherein death, mutilation, and crippling are occurring on an
>industrial scale, a slander is the pettiest of an injustice one can suffer.
>
>Just an observation.
>Dave


True. But he still would be suspect since most would not know the details fo
the loss. When a crew is lost and only a pilot survives, questions will be
asked no matter what.

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

[Chris Mark]

From Art Kramer:

>>To second guess the decisions of any person caught in such a circumstance,
>>wherein life changed in the blink of an eye, could possibly result in a
>>slanderous injustice to that person......although, when all is considered in
>>a
>>war zone wherein death, mutilation, and crippling are occurring on an
>>industrial scale, a slander is the pettiest of an injustice one can suffer.
>>
>>Just an observation.
>>Dave
>
>True. But he still would be suspect since most would not know the details fo
>the loss. When a crew is lost and only a pilot survives, questions will be
>asked no matter what.

On March 20, 1945 on a mission to Campo, near the Austrian border, B25J
#327487 received a direct hit by an 88MM shell and went down. Crew included
Mack Coneglio, Granger McKinnan, Racetlo and Zawestowski. Mack (pilot) was the
sole survivor and spent the remainder of the war in Mooseburg Prison Camp.
So instances of only the pilot surviving as a matter of luck did occur. Of
course, in most cases no one knew who--if any--of a crew that went down over
enemy territory survived. They just weren't around anymore.


Chris Mark

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr@ao

>Did the pilots check the gunners on the intercom before
>they assumed they had bailed out?

Intercom hors de combat.


Chris Mark

[George Z. Bush]

Is it just me, or am I the only one offended by the title "Fly Boy"? Anybody
ever hear of an 18 or 19 year old infantryman called an Infantry Boy, or
Infantry Kid? Or a 17 year old Marine Child?

Fly Boy indeed. They were men grown old before their time making life and death
decisions, and not always the right ones. To call them "Boys" trivializes what
they went through.

Call me sensitive, but I'm really offended by that title.

George Z.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "George Z. Bush"
>Date: 10/23/03 6:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Is it just me, or am I the only one offended by the title "Fly Boy"? Anybody
>ever hear of an 18 or 19 year old infantryman called an Infantry Boy, or
>Infantry Kid? Or a 17 year old Marine Child?
>
>Fly Boy indeed. They were men grown old before their time making life and
>death
>decisions, and not always the right ones. To call them "Boys" trivializes
>what
>they went through.
>
>Call me sensitive, but I'm really offended by that title.
>
>George Z.
>
>


It was part of the English language. We were all called Fly Boys since the
earliest days of WW II. Your objejctions come 65 years too late.


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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 10/22/03 10:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>From: artkramr@ao
>
>>Did the pilots check the gunners on the intercom before
>>they assumed they had bailed out?
>
>Intercom hors de combat.
>
>
>Chris Mark

Might of known.

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

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Erik Pfeister"
>Date: 10/20/03 6:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Ron" < wrote in message
>> >
>> >Lets assume that half of it is true.But I think the wirters were doing a
>> >sales
>> >job to engrandise the Bush name for the next election.
>>
>> Art, I think you are a bit better than that. Just because you are not a
>fan of
>> the Bushes, does not mean you should denegrate the author of the book. I
>see
>> no reason to attack the author like that.
>>
>> Ron
>> Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
>
>
>If you ignore the jealous old fart he will go away.
>
>
>
Sounds to me llike you are the jealous fart.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Erik Pfeister"
>Date: 10/21/03 2:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>> ArtKramr wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Let me tell you a story about a long forgotten incident in WW II. It is
>one of
>> > those things that have never been discussed on this NG. There was a
>famous
>> > footblall player, a famous All American who became a B-17 pilot. His
>plane was
>> > severely damaged by flack and he bailed out and survived. But not a
>single one
>> > of hsd crew did. There were accusations that he lost his nerve and
>bailed
>> > before his crew could get out. And they all died because of his
>cowardice.
>> > Noithing was ever proven and he was not prosecuted. But there was
>always that
>> > lingering doubt. And this haunted him all his life. Whenever I hear of a
>pilot
>> > that made it out, but the crew were all lost, it brings back the memory
>of
>> > that WW II incident.
>> > And there many of us who will never forget it.
>
>As usual Dum-dum got it wrong again.
>
>Tom Harmon of Michigan was the supposed culprit.
>
>It was a B-25 not a B-17 as the "legend in his own mind" writes!
>
>
But you don't deny the fact that the son of a bitch bailed out and his crew
perished do you?

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Chris Mark)
>Date: 10/22/03 10:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>From Art Kramer:
>
>>>To second guess the decisions of any person caught in such a circumstance,
>>>wherein life changed in the blink of an eye, could possibly result in a
>>>slanderous injustice to that person......although, when all is considered
>in
>>>a
>>>war zone wherein death, mutilation, and crippling are occurring on an
>>>industrial scale, a slander is the pettiest of an injustice one can suffer.
>>>
>>>Just an observation.
>>>Dave
>>
>>True. But he still would be suspect since most would not know the details
>fo
>>the loss. When a crew is lost and only a pilot survives, questions will be
>>asked no matter what.
>
>On March 20, 1945 on a mission to Campo, near the Austrian border, B25J
>#327487 received a direct hit by an 88MM shell and went down. Crew included
>Mack Coneglio, Granger McKinnan, Racetlo and Zawestowski. Mack (pilot) was
>the
>sole survivor and spent the remainder of the war in Mooseburg Prison Camp.
>So instances of only the pilot surviving as a matter of luck did occur. Of
>course, in most cases no one knew who--if any--of a crew that went down over
>enemy territory survived. They just weren't around anymore.
>
>
>Chris Mark

True. But that small lingering doubt always wll remain since the pilot is
responsible for his crew.



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

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
>
> It was part of the English language. We were all called Fly Boys since the
> earliest days of WW II. Your objejctions come 65 years too late.
>
> Arthur Kramer


The only dictionary I can find it in is the the OED, which lists it as
U.S. Slang applied specifically to Pilots.

My 1958 unabridged Websters doesn't even list it.

I have heard it used as a derogatory term in both military and civilian
aviation circles during the 50s through to the 90s. Although I do seem
to recall it being used in some popular songs, literaure and newsmedia
in the 40s.


Dave

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr@a

>That small lingering doubt always wll remain since the pilot is
>responsible for his crew.

Can't get away from that. When I heard the story of Bush 41 surviving while
his crew perished I experienced a mental "Hmmm," but never went beyond that,
not knowing the details. I caught the author of "Flyboys" on C-Span recently
and listened to his presentation, as a result of which I ordered through our
local library the book, which hasn't come in yet. I hope it will clear up
doubts about what happened with Bush, as well as explain Japanese actions. The
author seems to have spent as much time looking at Japanese motives from the
Japanese perspective as looking at the American side--something that's pretty
rare.
But I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. War is full of queer
turns of fate. I'm reminded of the story of Lee McAllister, pilot of a B-25
shot down while on a mission to knock out a bridge over the Adige in the
Lagarina Valley. He was the last man out. He kept the plane on an even keel as
its load of WP (for dumping on the flak guns surrounding the bridge) burned so
that everyone could get out. Then he didn't have the easiest time getting out
himself. As a result, while the rest of his crew landed close together and
were quickly rounded up by the Germans and herded into PoW camps where they
survived the war, he came down some distance away and was rescued by Italian
partisans. Lucky him, right? Except that after a few desperate weeks on the
run, the Germans caught him. The gestapo tortured him for days to force him to
tell details of the partisan operation. He defied them, revealing nothing. So
they put a pistol to the back of his head, shot him and dumped his body along a
roadside. Details of his fate only emerged years after the war. He was just a
kid from Salem, Ore. who had a rotten run of luck. One of so very many.


Chris Mark

[Gordon]

>When I heard the story of Bush 41 surviving while
>his crew perished I experienced a mental "Hmmm," but never went beyond that,
>not knowing the details.

As a Navy backseater, I think we all went HMMMMMM when we heard the story the
first time.

>I caught the author of "Flyboys" on C-Span recently
>and listened to his presentation, as a result of which I ordered through our
>local library the book, which hasn't come in yet. I hope it will clear up
>doubts about what happened with Bush, as well as explain Japanese actions.
>The
>author seems to have spent as much time looking at Japanese motives from the
>Japanese perspective as looking at the American side--something that's pretty
>rare.

Your assessment is spot-on. The book does exactly this: it gives historical
background to the imperial "climate" that the Japanese faced from European and
American expansion in Asia, giving it as the main reason for the Japanese
military's climb to power and ultimate defeat. It gives an unflinching look
into how we were viewed by the Japanese, and just as importantly, why we were
seen that way. It was a grisly, horrible little book that I think deserves a
read, if only to answer the questions about Bush and the Japanese motivation
for what happened on Chichi Jima and other hellish places to die in the
Pacific.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/23/03 9:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>When I heard the story of Bush 41 surviving while
>>his crew perished I experienced a mental "Hmmm," but never went beyond that,
>>not knowing the details.
>
>As a Navy backseater, I think we all went HMMMMMM when we heard the story the
>first time.
>
>>I caught the author of "Flyboys" on C-Span recently
>>and listened to his presentation, as a result of which I ordered through our
>>local library the book, which hasn't come in yet. I hope it will clear up
>>doubts about what happened with Bush, as well as explain Japanese actions.
>>The
>>author seems to have spent as much time looking at Japanese motives from the
>>Japanese perspective as looking at the American side--something that's
>pretty
>>rare.
>
>Your assessment is spot-on. The book does exactly this: it gives historical
>background to the imperial "climate" that the Japanese faced from European
>and
>American expansion in Asia, giving it as the main reason for the Japanese
>military's climb to power and ultimate defeat. It gives an unflinching look
>into how we were viewed by the Japanese, and just as importantly, why we were
>seen that way. It was a grisly, horrible little book that I think deserves a
>read, if only to answer the questions about Bush and the Japanese motivation
>for what happened on Chichi Jima and other hellish places to die in the
>Pacific.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>

Had he ditched they may have all come out alive.

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

[Gordon]

>
>Had he ditched they may have all come out alive.

Certainly possible - the author goes to great pains to establish that Bush
himself still harbors doubt as to whether he did the right thing. He had an
aircraft that was barely controllable and any water landing would have been a
crash, not a ditch, and few Avenger crewmen survived in either event. Bush
states that he flew it in a manner that would slip the tail enough to the side
that his crew could get the escape door open without having to fight the
slipstream for as long as he safely could - he got no return call from the crew
and the aircraft was failing, so he left it. I don't know what else he could
have done, but at least one of his guys parachuted out, only to die in his
attempt. Having evaluated Bush's statements with a rather jaundiced crewman's
perspective, I'd say that Bush probably did all he could under that particular
set of circumstances. The fact that his decision still tortures him a lifetime
later leads me to believe he will never be comfortable with his choices that
day, but I think he was simply lucky to be alive.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Had he ditched they may have all come out alive.
>

Or they all may have died.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 10/23/03 11:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time

>ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Had he ditched they may have all come out alive.
>>
>
>Or they all may have died.
>
>

Less chance of that as experience has shown us.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...
>
> Less chance of that as experience has shown us.
>

What is your experience in ditching the TBM?

[Jack]

in article , ArtKramr at
wrote on 2003/10/23 12:19:


> Had he ditched they may have all come out alive.

My Uncle ditched an Avenger after running out of gas due to a
battled-damaged carrier and bad DF steer preventing a timely recovery.

His crew survived. He did not.

Tough way to win a DFC.



Jack

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Autocollimator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Less chance of that as experience has shown us.
> >
>
> What is your experience in ditching the TBM?

More to the point, what did the manufacturer have to say on that subject?

George Z.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> More to the point, what did the manufacturer have to say on that subject?
>

I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
behavior than would the manufacturer.

[OXMORON1]

Steven asked:

[Ron]

>e, but at least one of his guys parachuted out, only to die in his
>attempt. Having evaluated Bush's statements with a rather jaundiced
>crewman's
>perspective, I'd say that Bush probably did all he could under that
>particular
>set of circumstances. The fact that his decision still tortures him a
>lifetime
>later leads me to believe he will never be comfortable with his choices that
>day, but I think he was simply lucky to be alive.

I agree..I think trying to monday morning quarterback his decisions, 60 years
later, is rather pointless. He did what he thought he do to, and made a
decision. Part of being in command is making such decisions at that moment..


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[OXMORON1]

Steven asked:
>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>behavior than would the manufacturer.

How so? The manufacturer designed the darned thing. The flight manual stated
the limitations for various conditions and emergencies. The manufacturer wrote
the flight manual and flight tested the a/c.

Oxmoron1
Remember the BOLD print!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
> Steven asked:
> >I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
> >behavior than would the manufacturer.
>
> How so? The manufacturer designed the darned thing. The flight manual
stated
> the limitations for various conditions and emergencies. The manufacturer
wrote
> the flight manual and flight tested the a/c.
>

Well, who ditched more Avengers, the Navy or Grumman/Eastern?

[Mike Marron]

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>behavior than would the manufacturer.

Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
> for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
> a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."
>

Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

[Ed Rasimus]

On 23 Oct 2003 17:18:15 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>From: (Chris Mark)
>>Date: 10/23/03 9:02 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>
>>But I'm willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt.
>
>Once you give someone the benefit of the doubt, you admit that there is doubt.
>Always lingering, disturbing unsettling doubt.
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS

I've followed all this thread, biting my tongue in the process. What
amazes me is that the resident "if you ain't been, you ain't ****..."
curmudgeon is so eager to condemn someone who has been there.

Anyone who has been, knows that you all sign on--pilots, navs,
bomb-aimers, gunners, EWO's et. al. You go to war. You go with the
folks you are assigned to go with.

War happens in a heartbeat. It sometime works for you and sometime
against. Some folks die and some folks live. The live ones aren't
better or worse than the dead ones, simply luckier.

To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.

I'm sorry. I survived. I didn't spend years in a POW camp. I wasn't
wounded in action. I didn't lose any crew members. I didn't lose any
aircraft. I saw a lot of losses.

The fact that is incontrovertible is that Bush (41) was a combat
pilot. He was younger than most. He was blooded. He lost an aircraft
in honorable combat. He survived. What is wrong with that?

Additionally, as I've previously noted in this forum, Bush (43) was a
graduate of UPT, a qualifier in a Century Series aircraft, and a
commissioned officer. Those are fine qualifications in my book.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> >I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
> >behavior than would the manufacturer.
>
> Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
> for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
> a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

Lune.

[Gordon]

>> More to the point, what did the manufacturer have to say on that subject?
>>
>
>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>behavior than would the manufacturer.

Unlike some other Naval aircraft, the TBF/TBM were known as "floaters" and it
was not uncommon for them to remain at or near the surface for some time after
they were dumped overboard or ditched. My first instructor in A-school had
started his career a thousand years earlier as a little pup turret gunner in
Avengers and would occasionally share stories with us from either his time in
them, or things he had heard from the "old hands" when he was first starting
out. (OT That dude was crusty old, to the point you couldn't even guess - I
noted that he didn't carry an ID card, just a disk with a Roman emperor's
profile on it. His first ship was some sort of trireme, "I **** you not".)

Without knowing sea state, winds and surf conditions at the time, or taking
into account the controlability issues, its very difficult to second guess
Bush's choice of silk or ditch. I would rather ditch than bale, primarily
because I was a SAR swimmer and I believed that I would find a way to not
drown. Knowing that Bishop, a former NCAA swimming ace, had died in an H-46 in
the best shape of his life didn't tarnish my unshakeable faith that if I
survived impact, I would make it out of the water alive. (Or be found in the
wreck with my hands around the pilot's neck.)

v/r
Gordon

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> I've followed all this thread, biting my tongue in the process. What
> amazes me is that the resident "if you ain't been, you ain't ****..."
> curmudgeon is so eager to condemn someone who has been there.
>

Methinks the resident curmudgeon would have a different viewpoint if GHWB
had been a lifelong Democrat.

[Gordon]

>My Uncle ditched an Avenger after running out of gas due to a
>battled-damaged carrier and bad DF steer preventing a timely recovery.
>
>His crew survived. He did not.
>

Sorry to hear that, Jack. Would you mind stating his name here? I am one of
the people who believe that as long as a person's name is remembered, a piece
of them stays with us. Sounds to me like he deserves to be remembered 'out
loud'.

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[OXMORON1]

Steven asked:
>Well, who ditched more Avengers, the Navy or Grumman/Eastern?

Of course the Navy did, but they used the information and design work of
Grumman.

Rick

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
>>for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
>>a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

>Your message makes no sense whatsoever.

You must have a short memory:

I said:

"Please post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
right here -->____________"

You responded:

"Zero, and irrelevant."

In any event, now that you've acknowledged the priceless value of
experience, when it comes to ditching an Avenger I would agree with
you and give the nod to those whom have actual experience successfully
ditching the airplane in real world situations over what the book
says.

Of course, like many things in aviation it's not quite as cut and
dried as that and perhaps a combination of the book technique
and my fellow squadron mate's technique would be best. But having
ditched an aircraft myself, I still can't say for sure if I'd use the
same technique again in the event I find myself in the same situation
once again.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course the Navy did, but they used the information and design work of
> Grumman.
>

So what? Until aircraft are actually ditched any information provided by
the builder on ditching is just theory. If aircraft always behaved as
predicted there'd be no reason for testing at all.

[Mike Marron]

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>>>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>>>behavior than would the manufacturer.

>>Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
>>for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
>>a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

>Lune.

All great men are dying, and I am rather sick myself.

(BTW, you misspelled "loon")

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
> >>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
> >>Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
> >>for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
> >>a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."
>
> >Your message makes no sense whatsoever.
>
> You must have a short memory:

Non-sequitur.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> You must have a short memory:
>

I have an excellent memory.


>
> I said:
>
> "Please post your number of hours logged in experimental trikes
> right here -->____________"
>
> You responded:
>
> "Zero, and irrelevant."
>
> In any event, now that you've acknowledged the priceless value of
> experience, when it comes to ditching an Avenger I would agree with
> you and give the nod to those whom have actual experience successfully
> ditching the airplane in real world situations over what the book
> says.
>
> Of course, like many things in aviation it's not quite as cut and
> dried as that and perhaps a combination of the book technique
> and my fellow squadron mate's technique would be best. But having
> ditched an aircraft myself, I still can't say for sure if I'd use the
> same technique again in the event I find myself in the same situation
> once again.
>

Different issue. Experience ditching an Avenger obviously provides one with
knowledge of the ditching characteristics of an Avenger. But logging hours
in experimental trikes does not provide one with knowledge of the FARs, as
you so ably demonstrated with your messages last month.

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>Different issue.

But same principle relating to the importance of experience.

>Experience ditching an Avenger obviously provides one with
>knowledge of the ditching characteristics of an Avenger.

Er um, exactly what I said.

>But logging hours in experimental trikes does not provide one
>with knowledge of the FARs, as you so ably demonstrated with
>your messages last month.

Like I said Stevie, you're living in the land of Oz and are more full
of **** than a brontasaurus with no ass if you think that you, with
your basic VFR-only private pilot's license (?) and paltry amount of
experience is in the same ball park with ANY CFII or A&P mechanic
(not just me). Reality check!

What, do you think my ultralight trike came out of its shipping crate
with an N-number magically stuck on it just for me? Somebody had to
educate the feds about these newfangled, tailless flying machines
because like you, they didn't have the first clue even what a "trike"
is...much less how to go about N-numbering one!

And then somebody had to know how to properly fill out FAA Forms
8130-6, and -12, have them notorized and send them off to Oklahoma
City. Same goes for AC Form 8050-3, -1 which had to be signed and
dated as evidence that I have complied with the registration
requirements per FAR Part 47.

And who do you suppose had to enclose 3-view drawings complete
w/photos of the A/C as required by FAR section 21.193? The Great Oz?

And who do you think weighed the A/C to make sure it was within CG
limits and sent a copy of that information to the feds in Oklahoma
City as well? Santa Claus?

What about the all the required placards and markings, who do you
s'pose plastered them all over the A/C? Mrs. Claus? Santa's reindeer?
Perhaps one of Santa's elves?

Only AFTER all these items were done could I even begin to think about
logging hours in my experimental trike as you said above. Hell, you
didn't even know that experimental trikes EXISTED....much less that I
happened to be one of the handful of pilots whose not only
knowledgable enough with the FAR's, but motivated enough to take
a common ultralight and register it as an experimental so as allow me
to operate it just like I would operate a Cessna 210.

Perhaps it's time that you grow up and give credit where credit's due
Steve. Just because you've wasted all these years arguing on Usenet
about whether or not the Wrights were the first to achieve powered
flight or Yeager was the first through the mythical "sound barrier,"
some of us have actually been busy building and flying and
accomplishing things. You're a talker, not a doer.

BTW, how many experimental A/C have YOU built and N-numbered
Steve? Anyone, even my 9-year old nephew, can simply copy and paste
the FAR's off the web like you did while attempting to show how
knowledgable you *think* you are.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 10/23/03 12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: t>
>
>
>"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Less chance of that as experience has shown us.
>>
>
>What is your experience in ditching the TBM?
>
>
.. Exactly the same as you.

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Once you give someone the benefit of the doubt, you admit that there is doubt.
>>Always lingering, disturbing unsettling doubt.

>I've followed all this thread, biting my tongue in the process. What
>amazes me is that the resident "if you ain't been, you ain't ****..."
>curmudgeon is so eager to condemn someone who has been there.

>Anyone who has been, knows that you all sign on--pilots, navs,
>bomb-aimers, gunners, EWO's et. al. You go to war. You go with the
>folks you are assigned to go with.

>War happens in a heartbeat. It sometime works for you and sometime
>against. Some folks die and some folks live. The live ones aren't
>better or worse than the dead ones, simply luckier.

>To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
>an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.

>I'm sorry. I survived. I didn't spend years in a POW camp. I wasn't
>wounded in action. I didn't lose any crew members. I didn't lose any
>aircraft. I saw a lot of losses.

>The fact that is incontrovertible is that Bush (41) was a combat
>pilot. He was younger than most. He was blooded. He lost an aircraft
>in honorable combat. He survived. What is wrong with that?

>Additionally, as I've previously noted in this forum, Bush (43) was a
>graduate of UPT, a qualifier in a Century Series aircraft, and a
>commissioned officer. Those are fine qualifications in my book.

Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
summed it up best:


"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena......"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/23/03 2:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
>>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>>behavior than would the manufacturer.
>
>Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
>for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
>a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."
>


We had 30 seconds to escape from a B-26 in training in Lake Charles.And some of
us didn't make it all the time. Navy guysawho have been through ditching drill
will understand. .The B-26 barely paused at the surface before flooding and
diving under. Bush's plane was a "floater" and often floated for hours. He
should have ditched. Sorry to insert personal ditching experience in this
thread.
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mike Marron]

>Art Kramer wrote:
>>Mike Marron wroteL
>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>>>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>>>behavior than would the manufacturer.

>>Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
>>for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
>>a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."

>We had 30 seconds to escape from a B-26 in training in Lake Charles.And some of
>us didn't make it all the time. Navy guysawho have been through ditching drill
>will understand. .The B-26 barely paused at the surface before flooding and
>diving under.

I haven't been thru the Navy's ditching drills but I have ditched an
A/C before (for real) and I certainly understand. You're sitting there
fat, dumb and happy and the next thing ya know you're hanging
from the straps upside down. Here's a ditching story from one of
my UK bud's who went thru a similiar experience:

***

Well I had personal experience and I can tell you that when the trike
hits the water it is all over in a second and the wing wrapped around
the trike which tipped sideways and sank immediately. I would not
suggest undoing your seat belt if you intend to stay with the craft.

I panicked for a second underwater thinking I was trapped, I forgot
about my seat belt, then common sense took over and I relaxed, undid
it and felt my way out. In a rushing river or sea things will be even
worse. My river was slow moving and shallow enough to see a wing tip
sticking above the surface. One wing stayed in tact, the other
wrapped around the trike.

You won't be able to stall like a hang glider and just drop down to
the water unless you do a BIG stall which will take you up quite high.
The resulting drop will not be good. When they fly the English
channel, people fill their wings with air matresses to help keep the
wing afloat if they ditch.

I would not want to go through it again and I think I may take my
chances and jump next time before hitting the water, especially in
rough water or fast flowing rivers.

***

>Bush's plane was a "floater" and often floated for hours. He should
>have ditched.

Even if you're right, I'm afraid that ain't the point, Art. Have you
read Ed Rasimus' astute comments (and my followup) in this
thread? In case you missed it, here they are once again:

Ed said:

***

I've followed all this thread, biting my tongue in the process. What
amazes me is that the resident "if you ain't been, you ain't ****..."
curmudgeon is so eager to condemn someone who has been there.

Anyone who has been, knows that you all sign on--pilots, navs,
bomb-aimers, gunners, EWO's et. al. You go to war. You go with the
folks you are assigned to go with.

War happens in a heartbeat. It sometime works for you and sometime
against. Some folks die and some folks live. The live ones aren't
better or worse than the dead ones, simply luckier.

To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.

I'm sorry. I survived. I didn't spend years in a POW camp. I wasn't
wounded in action. I didn't lose any crew members. I didn't lose any
aircraft. I saw a lot of losses.

The fact that is incontrovertible is that Bush (41) was a combat
pilot. He was younger than most. He was blooded. He lost an aircraft
in honorable combat. He survived. What is wrong with that?

Additionally, as I've previously noted in this forum, Bush (43) was a
graduate of UPT, a qualifier in a Century Series aircraft, and a
commissioned officer. Those are fine qualifications in my book.

***


My followup:

Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
summed it up best:


"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
arena......"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/23/03 2:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20031023175241.07974.00000029

> Knowing that Bishop, a former NCAA swimming ace, had died in an H-46 in
>the best shape of his life didn't tarnish my unshakeable faith that if I
>survived impact, I would make it out of the water alive. (Or be found in the
>wreck with my hands around the pilot's neck.)

Best line of the thread.

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

[Dave Holford]

ArtKramr wrote:
>
> Once you give someone the benefit of the doubt, you admit that there is doubt.
> Always lingering, disturbing unsettling doubt.
>
> Arthur Kramer



Damn, despite your obvious biases I have always felt I should give you
the benefit of the doubt since, as you say, you have "been there, done
that."

Now you have planted the seed of suspicion. Things will never be the
same!

Dave

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/23/03 6:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Art Kramer wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wroteL
>>>>Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
>>>>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>>>>behavior than would the manufacturer.
>
>>>Glad to see you finally coming around Steven. There's no substitute
>>>for experience but when I asked you how many hours you have in
>>>a certain type your non sequitur response was "irrelevant."
>
>>We had 30 seconds to escape from a B-26 in training in Lake Charles.And some
>of
>>us didn't make it all the time. Navy guysawho have been through ditching
>drill
>>will understand. .The B-26 barely paused at the surface before flooding and
>>diving under.
>
>I haven't been thru the Navy's ditching drills but I have ditched an
>A/C before (for real) and I certainly understand. You're sitting there
>fat, dumb and happy and the next thing ya know you're hanging
>from the straps upside down. Here's a ditching story from one of
>my UK bud's who went thru a similiar experience:
>
>***
>
>Well I had personal experience and I can tell you that when the trike
>hits the water it is all over in a second and the wing wrapped around
>the trike which tipped sideways and sank immediately. I would not
>suggest undoing your seat belt if you intend to stay with the craft.
>
>I panicked for a second underwater thinking I was trapped, I forgot
>about my seat belt, then common sense took over and I relaxed, undid
>it and felt my way out. In a rushing river or sea things will be even
>worse. My river was slow moving and shallow enough to see a wing tip
>sticking above the surface. One wing stayed in tact, the other
>wrapped around the trike.
>
>You won't be able to stall like a hang glider and just drop down to
>the water unless you do a BIG stall which will take you up quite high.
>The resulting drop will not be good. When they fly the English
>channel, people fill their wings with air matresses to help keep the
>wing afloat if they ditch.
>
>I would not want to go through it again and I think I may take my
>chances and jump next time before hitting the water, especially in
>rough water or fast flowing rivers.
>
>***
>
>>Bush's plane was a "floater" and often floated for hours. He should
>>have ditched.
>
>Even if you're right, I'm afraid that ain't the point, Art. Have you
>read Ed Rasimus' astute comments (and my followup) in this
>thread? In case you missed it, here they are once again:
>
>Ed said:
>
>***
>
>I've followed all this thread, biting my tongue in the process. What
>amazes me is that the resident "if you ain't been, you ain't ****..."
>curmudgeon is so eager to condemn someone who has been there.
>
>Anyone who has been, knows that you all sign on--pilots, navs,
>bomb-aimers, gunners, EWO's et. al. You go to war. You go with the
>folks you are assigned to go with.
>
>War happens in a heartbeat. It sometime works for you and sometime
>against. Some folks die and some folks live. The live ones aren't
>better or worse than the dead ones, simply luckier.
>
>To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
>an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.
>
>I'm sorry. I survived. I didn't spend years in a POW camp. I wasn't
>wounded in action. I didn't lose any crew members. I didn't lose any
>aircraft. I saw a lot of losses.
>
>The fact that is incontrovertible is that Bush (41) was a combat
>pilot. He was younger than most. He was blooded. He lost an aircraft
>in honorable combat. He survived. What is wrong with that?
>
>Additionally, as I've previously noted in this forum, Bush (43) was a
>graduate of UPT, a qualifier in a Century Series aircraft, and a
>commissioned officer. Those are fine qualifications in my book.
>
>***
>
>
>My followup:
>
>Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
>summed it up best:
>
>
>"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
>strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
>better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
>arena......"


There were 11 million of us in that arena. When a pilot survives and loses
his crew there will always be questions. Those who flew aircrew, backseaters,
gunners etc seem to understand that and raise questions of their own. But
those who flew alone without aircrew (fighter pilots) or those who never flew
at all may never understand the concerns of aircrew.


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

[B2431]

>rom: "Tarver Engineering"

>
>Lune.
>
Lune (l€n) n.a crescent-shaped figure bounded by two arcs of circles,
either on a plane or a spherical surface. [1695–1705; < L l�na moon]

Loon1 (l€n) n.any of several large, ducklike diving birds of the order
Gaviiformes, nesting along fresh water in colder regions of the Northern
Hemisphere. [1625–35; appar. alter. of dial. loom < ON lŽm]

Loon2 (l€n) n.a crazy or simple-minded person. [1400–50; late ME lowen,
perh. < ON l�inn worn, tired]


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 10/23/03 6:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>From: (Gordon)
>>Date: 10/23/03 2:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <20031023175241.07974.00000029
>
>> Knowing that Bishop, a former NCAA swimming ace, had died in an H-46 in
>>the best shape of his life didn't tarnish my unshakeable faith that if I
>>survived impact, I would make it out of the water alive. (Or be found in
>the
>>wreck with my hands around the pilot's neck.)
>
>Best line of the thread.
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>


Funny but probably true.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> But same principle relating to the importance of experience.
>

Nope.


>
> Like I said Stevie, you're living in the land of Oz and are more full
> of **** than a brontasaurus with no ass if you think that you, with
> your basic VFR-only private pilot's license (?) and paltry amount of
> experience is in the same ball park with ANY CFII or A&P mechanic
> (not just me). Reality check!
>

You have demonstrated a poor knowledge of the FARs, the inability to think
logically, a huge ego, and a lack of maturity. You know nothing of my
knowledge and experience level.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> We had 30 seconds to escape from a B-26 in training in Lake Charles.And
some of
> us didn't make it all the time. Navy guysawho have been through ditching
drill
> will understand. .The B-26 barely paused at the surface before flooding
and
> diving under. Bush's plane was a "floater" and often floated for hours.
He
> should have ditched. Sorry to insert personal ditching experience in this
> thread.
>

You know nothing about Bush's plane's floating ability and unless you've
been in a real ditching you have no personal ditching experience.

[[email protected]]

(Gordon) wrote:

>
>Without knowing sea state, winds and surf conditions at the time, or taking
>into account the controlability issues, its very difficult to second guess
>Bush's choice of silk or ditch. I would rather ditch than bale,

--cut--

I agree...we flew a lot of hours over the Atlantic, both North
and South and not a few over the Pacific as well, most of it
below 1000 feet and I can tell you that it's one uninviting
sight, especially in winter. One doesn't want to imagine trying
to survive down there in a 40-50 knot gale with a continuous
expanse of whitecaps from horizon to horizon in all directions.

I'm sure that you can easily agree Gordon. <shudder>

One of our crews had that possibility 'up close and personal'.

They had been planting a field of sonobuoys (about mid Atlantic)
when one stuck in it's chute halfway out. It went just far enough
to uncover the vanes which, being dragged along at ~170 Knots
spun at a great rate till the bolt holding the hub on wore off
and the vanes spun up into the a/c belly, slashed through the
skin and cut off a torque tube used to control the elevators.

This caused no end of concern to the cockpit crew who all had
suggestions ranging from "Putter in the water" to "head West"
(home) to "head for Lajes" (closest land) and several other
wildassed suggestions.

Anyway, it was decided to head (gently) for Lajes (good l o n g
runway, plus good wx etc). The crew experimented with flaps and
power to replace the function of the elevators (cautiously).

Anyway they had a nearly uneventful landing at the Azores.
(albeit with quite tired sphincters)

It was one of my squadron's aircraft and crews so luckily I
wasn't aboard.

My point is that only the crew involved has enough facts to make
the decision required about the best course to take. That's why
the buck stops at the Crew Captain's seat. It certainly doesn't
preclude the rest of the crew making suggestions nor him using
(or not) any/all of them (CRM) but the FINAL decision must be his
alone.

I've done considerable flying on 'multi-man' flight crews and
I've always thought this, I've also applauded the CRM aspect when
it started being encouraged/required just a few years ago.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

>Art Kramer wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
>>summed it up best:

>>"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
>>strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
>>better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
>>arena......"

>There were 11 million of us in that arena.

No, there were only *three* in that arena -- the pilot who survived,
and the turrent gunner and the belly gunner/radioman whom are
both deceased and have been for many decades now. If you're
having a tough time believing what the sole survivor says, I guess
you're just **** outta' luck!

[Mike Marron]

>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>You have demonstrated a poor knowledge of the FARs, the inability
>to think logically, a huge ego, and a lack of maturity.

Damn I'm good!

>You know nothing of my knowledge and experience level.

True. So feel free to enlighten me Stevie boy. All I've heard so far
is that you've been known to putter around in a 65-hp Aeronca Champ
from time to time. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with
that but so far all I've learned from reading your drivel is....well,
uhh, ahh, er, umm???

[John Keeney]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>
> To second guess circumstances sixty years later, particularly based on
> an author's creative account is to demean the whole warrior ethic.

Hell, Ed, it's worst than that: the second guessing by our
"resident 'if you ain't been, you ain't ****...' curmudgeon"
is mainly on account of Bush senior being a Republican.

"****ing contest" has been the best description for RAM
for some months now. At least it has SOME connection
to military aviation, though I suspect that is purely circumstantial.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/23/03 8:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Art Kramer wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps Teddy Roosevelt
>>>summed it up best:
>
>>>"It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the
>>>strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done
>>>better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the
>>>arena......"
>
>>There were 11 million of us in that arena.
>
>No, there were only *three* in that arena -- the pilot who survived,
>and the turrent gunner and the belly gunner/radioman whom are
>both deceased and have been for many decades now. If you're
>having a tough time believing what the sole survivor says, I guess
>you're just **** outta' luck!

I'm not outa luck at all. I made it through the war just fine, It is those two
airmen who are just **** outa luck as you so graciously expressed it,. Glad I
wasn't on that crew. and what a sole survivor says isn't always taken at face
value. especially by backseaters and other aircrew. And the fact that a man is
an officer, went to flight school and flew missions doesn't mean his actions
are above question. Especially by aircrew thinking of their brothers who never
made it back..



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

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(OXMORON1) writes:
> Steven asked:
>>Well, who ditched more Avengers, the Navy or Grumman/Eastern?
>
> Of course the Navy did, but they used the information and design work of
> Grumman.

Actually, there wasn't a whole lot of information and design work wrt
ditching airplanes until well after the war. The first really
systematic effort that I've been able to turn up is NACA Tech Note
3946, "Ditching Investigations of Dynamic Models and Effects of Design
Parameters on Ditching Characteristics". This used dynamically
equivalent models (gliders, really) that had been built to emulate not
only the aerodynamics, but the stuctural characteristics of the
subject aircraft. Weak areas, such as B-24 bomb bay doors, were
simulated using breakaway materials. Thae aircraft modelled were a
large cross section of 1940s and 1950s aircraft, ranging from the A-20
through the heavies from the B-17 through the B-36 (Even including teh
YB-49!), the whole range of Air Force Mediums, and the Navy's entire
inventory of single-engine carrier aircraft. (There are about 50
different airplanes listed.)

In the case of the TBF/TBM, ditching characteristics were not good.
If everythig stayed together, it was tolerable, but escape for the
Radio-Gunner in the aft tunnel was problematic at best, and the Turret
Gunner had to worm his way out through the side of the turret.
However, the Avenger had a weak spot - If the bomb bay doors were
open, or if, as was very likely, they collapsed during ditching, the
airplane would pitch down and dive violently under the surface. In
that case, the only luck you'd have would best be described as "bad".

Ditching characteristecs were very much an afterthought, unless you
were designing a Flying Boat.

Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
ditching, either.

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

[Gordon]

>All I've heard so far
>is that you've been known to putter around in a 65-hp Aeronca Champ
>from time to time.

That might be me as well. For people who don't mind bird strikes from behind,
the Champ can be a lot of fun. Rather be in a Grumman Tiger though..

Gordon

[Mike Marron]

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>No, there were only *three* in that arena -- the pilot who survived,
>>and the turrent gunner and the belly gunner/radioman whom are
>>both deceased and have been for many decades now. If you're
>>having a tough time believing what the sole survivor says, I guess
>>you're just **** outta' luck!

>I'm not outa luck at all. I made it through the war just fine, It is those two
>airmen who are just **** outa luck as you so graciously expressed it,. Glad I
>wasn't on that crew. and what a sole survivor says isn't always taken at face
>value. especially by backseaters and other aircrew.

You can continue to engage in all this superfluous handwringing and
entertain these "lingering doubts" and "questions" if you wish, Art.
It's entirely up to you. But the only two guys who apparently are able
to de-mystify the issue in your mind are long gone and have been for
many DECADES now. That's why I said you're SOL (not because you
made it thru the war just fine...but because *they* didn't).

>And the fact that a man is an officer, went to flight school and flew missions
>doesn't mean his actions are above question. Especially by aircrew thinking
>of their brothers who never made it back.

And one of your brothers and highly respected posters on this
NG who actually fought in another war has succinctly explained to you
that playing Monday Morning Quarterback after all these years
is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
YOU is duly noted, BTW.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
(Gordon) writes:
>>> More to the point, what did the manufacturer have to say on that subject?
>>>
>>
>>I would think the operator would have better information on the ditching
>>behavior than would the manufacturer.
>
> Unlike some other Naval aircraft, the TBF/TBM were known as "floaters" and it
> was not uncommon for them to remain at or near the surface for some time after
> they were dumped overboard or ditched. My first instructor in A-school had
> started his career a thousand years earlier as a little pup turret gunner in
> Avengers and would occasionally share stories with us from either his time in
> them, or things he had heard from the "old hands" when he was first starting
> out. (OT That dude was crusty old, to the point you couldn't even guess - I
> noted that he didn't carry an ID card, just a disk with a Roman emperor's
> profile on it. His first ship was some sort of trireme, "I **** you not".)

According the the NACA report I referenced in a post to this thread
just previous to this, the Avenger was fairly well behave when
dithced, unless the bomb bay doors were open or caved in, which wasn't
all that uncommon an experience, especially with a battle-damaged
airplane. (The doors were held shut by hydraulic pressure - no
pressure, the doors open.) In that case, it would dive under teh
surface quite rapidly. These results were, of course, determined
under controlled conditions, in an instrumented test tank. They don't
address the environmental stuff that rules anything involving sailing
on/flying over Blue Water, mainly...

>
> Without knowing sea state, winds and surf conditions at the time, or taking
> into account the controlability issues, its very difficult to second guess
> Bush's choice of silk or ditch. I would rather ditch than bale, primarily
> because I was a SAR swimmer and I believed that I would find a way to not
> drown. Knowing that Bishop, a former NCAA swimming ace, had died in an H-46 in
> the best shape of his life didn't tarnish my unshakeable faith that if I
> survived impact, I would make it out of the water alive. (Or be found in the
> wreck with my hands around the pilot's neck.)

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/23/03 9:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>

>terback after all these years
>is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
>to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
>YOU is duly noted, BTW.
>

Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
position as they are free to reject mine.

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

[Jack]

in article , Gordon at
wrote on 2003/10/23 16:54:

>> My Uncle ditched an Avenger after running out of gas due to a
>> battled-damaged carrier and bad DF steer preventing a timely recovery.
>>
>> His crew survived. He did not.
>>
>
> Sorry to hear that, Jack. Would you mind stating his name here? I am one of
> the people who believe that as long as a person's name is remembered, a piece
> of them stays with us. Sounds to me like he deserves to be remembered 'out
> loud'.

Donald Conaway, Lt., USN



Jack

[Mike Marron]

> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>terback after all these years
>>is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
>>to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
>>YOU is duly noted, BTW.

>Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
>position as they are free to reject mine.

Very well, then. It's unfortunate indeed that instead of wisely
joining Ed and the rest of us whom have seized the high road,
you've chosen to wallow around down in the mud.

[Gordon]

>When a pilot survives and loses
>his crew there will always be questions.

harsh glare of reality there, but its true. In this case however, one of the
backseaters did get out - so Bush, in my view, stayed with the a/c long enough;
from the pilots seat, he could not have known the status of his crew but stayed
in well past the other unsuccessful bailout.

Art, I get what you are saying - that its a fact that 'sole survivors' get a
stink eye when they are supposedly the last guy to go down with the ship. When
a hazardous job specialty requires a person to give 100% of their faith to
someone else while they take often mortal chances with their hide, a certain
amount of trust must exist - you have to know that the driver isn't going to
simply bail out and leave you hanging!

>Those who flew aircrew, backseaters,
>gunners etc seem to understand that and raise questions of their own. But
>those who flew alone without aircrew (fighter pilots) or those who never flew
>at all may never understand the concerns of aircrew.

I think there is a note of truth there. Similar to the partnership between
firecrews or police patrols, the 'non driver' would always at least wonder if
two go out, one come back. I know its not a popular view - but what Art said
about that is true. As for judging GHW Bush's actions over Chichi Jima? I
think every time you read an accident report you make a sort of judgement - at
least I do. Usually, at some point in the first page, I am thinking, "What a
moron." So Monday morning QB practice is nothing new when its a famous person,
like when JFK Jr. crashed, to look at the reported facts and comment. Its
human nature.

To restate: in this case, I'm ok with Bush's actions and I say that as one of
those backseaters that would at least wonder what happened. He was shot down
in combat, with two fatalities due to enemy action. Bush kept an aircraft in
the air after being hit over the target, guiding it further out from the island
than any of the other a/c that were lost on those strikes. Those g.i.b. knew
they were in a bird that was a mother to bail out of - they knew their chances,
just like all those poor saps in TBDs, and B-26s and all the rest. Sucks that
they didn't make it, but they carried the fight forward.

v/r
Gordon

<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Gordon]

>>> Knowing that Bishop, a former NCAA swimming ace, had died in an H-46 in
>>>the best shape of his life didn't tarnish my unshakeable faith that if I
>>>survived impact, I would make it out of the water alive. (Or be found in
>>the
>>>wreck with my hands around the pilot's neck.)
>>
>>Best line of the thread.
>
>Funny but probably true.

There were flights I wouldn't let my junior crewman take because I felt the
mixture of pilots on the flight was not safe. My junior crewman was married -
I wasn't. No frickin way I was facing Rhonda if Danny didn't make it back.
We had a truly scarey pilot, a berserk MO (also a pilot), and a pair of J.O.s
that were known to our detachment as the Terror Twins. These guys were like
oil and LOX - think "Bickersons" wearing helmets. I briefed Danny to always
fly with his pen flare out; in case the Twins killed him, I instructed him on
which pilot to

dammit. Rambling again. Sorry, guys.


Gordon
PS, for every crappy pilot, there is one you'd follow straight into hell if he
asked.

[Mike Marron]

(Gordon) wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>All I've heard so far is that you've been known to putter around
>>in a 65-hp Aeronca Champ from time to time.

>That might be me as well. For people who don't mind bird strikes from behind,
>the Champ can be a lot of fun. Rather be in a Grumman Tiger though..

I've got a couple hrs. in both. The Tiger is just "OK," but the Champ
is the doggiest piece of **** I've ever flown and if someone gave me
either one I'd immediately slap a "For Sale" sign on it and buy a 80
or 100-hp trike.

The next best thing to an F-16 and the most fun you can have with
your clothes on!

[Gordon]

>
>>Bush's choice of silk or ditch. I would rather ditch than bale,
>
>--cut--
>
>I agree...we flew a lot of hours over the Atlantic, both North
>and South and not a few over the Pacific as well, most of it
>below 1000 feet

In P-3s, slamming along in the whiteout "somewhere" down close to the water...
or eating saltspray in the doorway of an H-2. Folks thought I was brain dead
to ask for H-2s, supposedly little killers, but my experiences in P-3s led me
to believe that in extremis, I had some control of my fate in a helo. While on
maritime patrol in a big Orion, I felt that I was one of the obliterati if we
ever crashed.

>One doesn't want to imagine trying
>to survive down there in a 40-50 knot gale with a continuous
>expanse of whitecaps from horizon to horizon in all directions.

Or trying to do it alone, which is what happens if the crew bails out and gets
separated.

>
>I'm sure that you can easily agree Gordon. <shudder>

frickin a. I'm picturing the Sea of Ohkotsk at the moment - always just a few
feet away, waiting with its cold embrace.

>They had been planting a field of sonobuoys (about mid Atlantic)
>when one stuck in it's chute halfway out. It went just far enough
>to uncover the vanes which, being dragged along at ~170 Knots
>spun at a great rate till the bolt holding the hub on wore off
>and the vanes spun up into the a/c belly, slashed through the
>skin and cut off a torque tube used to control the elevators.

Gotta love those rotochutes. We launched buoys horizontally, out of a box
pinned to the fuselage floor against the back of our seats - with a CAD (16
little gunpowder charges each the size of your fist) about a foot behind our
backs. BA-A-M - thick smell of cordite. Look out the window of my station and
see a 3-foot cylinder packed with sensitive sonar equipment falling away toward
the water 200 feet below. But wait - this one doesn't have the familiar white
parachute,
its OH CRAP, ITS ONE OF THOSE POSSESSED THINGS! We are flying along with a
"friend", a well-wound up rotochute sonobuoy (SSQ-36 if you're interested) that
had caught some bizarre lift and, buzzing like a hornet, it shot past below us
at an angle that made it look as if it was trying to clip our tail.

<mutters> "You've killed us, you arrogant ass!"

"What, SENSO?"

"Nothing sir. Buoy in the water, up and sweet."

>This caused no end of concern to the cockpit crew who all had
>suggestions ranging from "Putter in the water" to "head West"
>(home) to "head for Lajes" (closest land) and several other
>wildassed suggestions.

That was my job on the crew. In a Star Trek universe, I would be the guy
killed before the opening credits.

>Anyway, it was decided to head (gently) for Lajes (good l o n g >runway, plus
good wx etc). The crew experimented with flaps and >power to replace the
function of the elevators (cautiously). Anyway they had a nearly uneventful
landing at the Azores.
>(albeit with quite tired sphincters)

doubtless.

>My point is that only the crew involved has enough facts to make
>the decision required about the best course to take. That's why
>the buck stops at the Crew Captain's seat. It certainly doesn't
>preclude the rest of the crew making suggestions nor him using
>(or not) any/all of them (CRM) but the FINAL decision must be his
>alone.

:) My advice was not usually taken. LOL "Aim for the bridge of that carrier
if we can't make it back to our own ship, but don't just GIVE the Soviets our
helo!" [Two helmeted face turn to face me, as if I was an alien or
something...?]

G

[Gordon]

>
>> Sorry to hear that, Jack. Would you mind stating his name here? I am one
>of
>> the people who believe that as long as a person's name is remembered, a
>piece
>> of them stays with us. Sounds to me like he deserves to be remembered 'out
>> loud'.
>
>Donald Conaway, Lt., USN

Lt. Conaway -fair winds and following seas.

v/r
Gordon

[Gordon]

>
>>That might be me as well. For people who don't mind bird strikes from
>behind,
>>the Champ can be a lot of fun. Rather be in a Grumman Tiger though..
>
>I've got a couple hrs. in both. The Tiger is just "OK," but the Champ
>is the doggiest piece of **** I've ever flown

ouch! ouch! :) heyyyy, don't make fun of the plane that taught me I didn't
need an instructor onboard.

> and if someone gave me
>either one I'd immediately slap a "For Sale" sign on it and buy a 80
>or 100-hp trike.

Think about it though - you could stick it on your roof as the perfect
weathervane and use the engine in your lawn mower.

G

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Peter Stickney)
>Date: 10/23/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <rhaanb-9f1.ln@Minesha

>Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
>ditching, either.

No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom. Those
of us who served in B-26's were well aware of that as proven in ditching tanks.

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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/23/03 10:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>When a pilot survives and loses
>>his crew there will always be questions.
>
>harsh glare of reality there, but its true. In this case however, one of the
>backseaters did get out - so Bush, in my view, stayed with the a/c long
>enough;
>from the pilots seat, he could not have known the status of his crew but
>stayed
>in well past the other unsuccessful bailout.
>
>Art, I get what you are saying - that its a fact that 'sole survivors' get a
>stink eye when they are supposedly the last guy to go down with the ship.
>When
>a hazardous job specialty requires a person to give 100% of their faith to
>someone else while they take often mortal chances with their hide, a certain
>amount of trust must exist - you have to know that the driver isn't going to
>simply bail out and leave you hanging!
>
>>Those who flew aircrew, backseaters,
>>gunners etc seem to understand that and raise questions of their own. But
>>those who flew alone without aircrew (fighter pilots) or those who never
>flew
>>at all may never understand the concerns of aircrew.
>
>I think there is a note of truth there. Similar to the partnership between
>firecrews or police patrols, the 'non driver' would always at least wonder if
>two go out, one come back. I know its not a popular view - but what Art said
>about that is true. As for judging GHW Bush's actions over Chichi Jima? I
>think every time you read an accident report you make a sort of judgement -
>at
>least I do. Usually, at some point in the first page, I am thinking, "What a
>moron." So Monday morning QB practice is nothing new when its a famous
>person,
>like when JFK Jr. crashed, to look at the reported facts and comment. Its
>human nature.
>
>To restate: in this case, I'm ok with Bush's actions and I say that as one of
>those backseaters that would at least wonder what happened. He was shot down
>in combat, with two fatalities due to enemy action. Bush kept an aircraft in
>the air after being hit over the target, guiding it further out from the
>island
>than any of the other a/c that were lost on those strikes. Those g.i.b. knew
>they were in a bird that was a mother to bail out of - they knew their
>chances,
>just like all those poor saps in TBDs, and B-26s and all the rest. Sucks that
>they didn't make it, but they carried the fight forward.
>
>v/r
>Gordon
>
><====(A+C====>
> USN SAR Aircrew
>
>"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
>"Nothing but my forehead, sir."


Good post Gordon. I think that only those of us that flew as aircrew can
really fully understand the situation. All others are out of the loop.



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

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Gordon)
>Date: 10/23/03 10:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>>> Knowing that Bishop, a former NCAA swimming ace, had died in an H-46 in
>>>>the best shape of his life didn't tarnish my unshakeable faith that if I
>>>>survived impact, I would make it out of the water alive. (Or be found in
>>>the
>>>>wreck with my hands around the pilot's neck.)
>>>
>>>Best line of the thread.
>>
>>Funny but probably true.
>
>There were flights I wouldn't let my junior crewman take because I felt the
>mixture of pilots on the flight was not safe. My junior crewman was married
>-
>I wasn't. No frickin way I was facing Rhonda if Danny didn't make it back.
>We had a truly scarey pilot, a berserk MO (also a pilot), and a pair of J.O.s
>that were known to our detachment as the Terror Twins. These guys were like
>oil and LOX - think "Bickersons" wearing helmets. I briefed Danny to always
>fly with his pen flare out; in case the Twins killed him, I instructed him
>on
>which pilot to
>
>dammit. Rambling again. Sorry, guys.
>
>
>Gordon
>PS, for every crappy pilot, there is one you'd follow straight into hell if
>he
>asked.


Watch that stuff Gordon. You might be attacked for having attacked the "worrior
class".whatever the hell that is. (sheesh)

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

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/23/03 10:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>terback after all these years
>>>is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
>>>to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
>>>YOU is duly noted, BTW.
>
>>Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
>>position as they are free to reject mine.
>
>Very well, then. It's unfortunate indeed that instead of wisely
>joining Ed and the rest of us whom have seized the high road,
>you've chosen to wallow around down in the mud.
>

As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat in
WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.

[Bill Silvey]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message


> And one of your brothers and highly respected posters on this
> NG who actually fought in another war has succinctly explained to you
> that playing Monday Morning Quarterback after all these years
> is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
> to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
> YOU is duly noted, BTW.

Mike, Art's rabid partisanship won't let him see past this. If Bush had
been a supply-side democrat, Art would be on the other side of this
argument, no doubt.

--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[George Z. Bush]

"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...

(Snip)

> As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat in
> WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
> aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.
>
Just for the record, I flew Troop Carrier gooney birds in Italy during WWII,
Bad guys shot at us, and we didn't have anything but our .45s to shoot back
with, or bombs to drop on them, but I still think it was considered combat.

Anyway, since I started this thread with an innocent question, in recognition of
the **** storm it generated, I'm going to claim author's rights to revise my
question. AIR, we were talking about ditching characteristics, and I asked what
the manufacturer had to say on the subject.

In those days, before an aircraft hit the inventory, the only people who knew
how it was going to behave were the manufacturer and his test pilots. Before
they turned the aircraft over to the military for their acceptance testing, they
sat down and wrote a flight manual, which contained everything the operator
needed to know about how to make the bird go up and come back down in one piece.
Before the first of that model actually ditched in the water somewhere, its crew
should have familiarized themselves with every bit of the information in that
manual, including how it was going to behave when it hit the water and
recommendations on how best to make initial contact with the water.

After all of the back and forth about how smart the surviving pilots of
successful ditchings must have been, it boggles my mind that it hasn't occurred
to anyone that the reason for their survival may have been more a matter of what
they got out of their flight manuals than the luck of the draw and their
superior flying skills (superior to the manufacturer's test pilots, of course).

And since we were talking about Grumman's TBM, I don't recall that anyone
commented on what the manufacturer's flight manual said about ditching it. Now,
I really didn't need to hear about how smart the surviving pilots of ditched
TBMs were; I can easily assume that there were plenty of equally smart but far
unluckier pilots who didn't survive the experience. That there would be a
number of variables in every ditching situation is a given, including pilot
health, piloting skill levels, aircraft condition, weather conditions, ocean
surface conditions, etc. The only constant is the question of what was designed
into the aircraft, which would be the same regardless of the variables. For
that, you have to go to the manufacturer and his flight manual.

Shall we try again? Or am I all wet (no pun intended)?

George Z.

[Mike Marron]

> (Autocollimator) wrote:
>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>>terback after all these years
>>>is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
>>>to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
>>>YOU is duly noted, BTW.

>>Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
>>position as they are free to reject mine.

>>>Very well, then. It's unfortunate indeed that instead of wisely
>>>joining Ed and the rest of us whom have seized the high road,
>>>you've chosen to wallow around down in the mud.

>As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat in
>WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
>aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.

Spoken like a true chickenous coward who flames people while
hiding behind some asinine AOL screen name like "autocollimator."
BTW, congrats. Ya nailed both me and Kramer in a single shot while
managing to remain anonymous your own self. Don't golfers call it a
"hole-in-one" or something like that?

Coward.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
ArtKramr > wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>From: (Gordon)
>>just like all those poor saps in TBDs, and B-26s and all the rest. Sucks that
>>they didn't make it, but they carried the fight forward.
>
>Good post Gordon. I think that only those of us that flew as aircrew can
>really fully understand the situation. All others are out of the loop.

Repectfully submit that those who did air-sea rescue were pretty
well aware of it, too. My father did ASR in the channel through '43
and '44 - including picking up those who survived from ditching
fortresses and the like - and got a close view of the many ways in
which an aircraft could fail to ditch in a manner conducive to anyone
getting out alive and of the many ways you could still lose people
afterwards - failing to get out of the aircraft or not reached or
lifted from the water in time (112' Fairmiles weren't big boats,
but they were plenty high enough out of the water to make getting
someone inboard difficult if the weather was dirty).

There's some of his comments up on the WW2 experiences centre
web-pages, at:
http://www.war-experience.org/collections/sea/alliedbrit/breen/pagetwo.htm
which some here might find interesting.
Actually, I'd strongly recommend the whole site:
http://www.war-experience.org/index.html

They're actively looking for more contributions, and I'm sure that
they would welcome being contacted by some of the survivors of WW2
who post here (Art, for one). They're good people to deal with, too.

No connection with them other than doing patching and proof-reading
of stuff to take the load off my father.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Who dies with the most toys wins" (Gary Barnes)

[George Z. Bush]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (Gordon) wrote:

(Snip)

> One of our crews had that possibility 'up close and personal'.
>
> They had been planting a field of sonobuoys (about mid Atlantic)
> when one stuck in it's chute halfway out. It went just far enough
> to uncover the vanes which, being dragged along at ~170 Knots
> spun at a great rate till the bolt holding the hub on wore off
> and the vanes spun up into the a/c belly, slashed through the
> skin and cut off a torque tube used to control the elevators.
>
> This caused no end of concern to the cockpit crew who all had
> suggestions ranging from "Putter in the water" to "head West"
> (home) to "head for Lajes" (closest land) and several other
> wildassed suggestions.
>
> Anyway, it was decided to head (gently) for Lajes (good l o n g
> runway, plus good wx etc). The crew experimented with flaps and
> power to replace the function of the elevators (cautiously).
>
> Anyway they had a nearly uneventful landing at the Azores.
> (albeit with quite tired sphincters)
>
> It was one of my squadron's aircraft and crews so luckily I
> wasn't aboard.

Interesting story. If it happened anywhere between 1960-63, that would have
been my outfit (57th ARSq) that got the mayday and gone out to pick them up and
escort them in to Lajes. We had a pretty big SAR area of responsibility,
roughly 1,000 miles in all directions, so we often found ourselves up near
Iceland looking for guys heading our way who were in trouble.

We had one instance where a guy ferrying a single engine plane (I don't remember
what make it was) to the Middle East for its new owner, a sheik of some sort,
developed engine problems and sent out a mayday. We made radio contact with him
and simultaneously scrambled an HC54, although it was quite late in the day. He
reported that he had passed over a freighter about 30 minutes previously and
said that he didn't think he'd be able to stay aloft until our plane got there,
so we advised him to make a 180 and see if he could locate that vessel while it
was still light and then ditch alongside it, which is exactly what he did.

The freighter picked him up and deposited him in Galveston Texas a couple of
weeks later instead of the middle East. After we determined that the pilot had
been rescued, we recalled our aircraft. We sent out another flight at daybreak
the following day and, amazingly, we found his abandoned aircraft still afloat
in the Atlantic.

George Z.

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

>>From: (Gordon)
>>Date: 10/23/03 10:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>just like all those poor saps in TBDs, and B-26s and all the rest. Sucks that
>>they didn't make it, but they carried the fight forward.

The Beaufighter, too, was said by those who knew to be bad in ditching
- heavy for its time and with the way out underneath. I've often
heard my father (who did ASR in the channel) comment that he never saw
anyone get out from a ditched Beau.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>From: (Peter Stickney)
>>Date: 10/23/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <rhaanb-9f1.ln@Minesha
>
>>Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
>>ditching, either.
>
>No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom. Those
>of us who served in B-26's were well aware of that as proven in ditching tanks.
>
>Arthur Kramer

Proven?!?. I doubt that, 'Estimated' maybe...certainly not
proven.

Art, I don't think that you'd be smart to bet on those 30
seconds. Mind you, you may have 30 hours depending on how the a/c
hit the water among lots of other things.

I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
--

-Gord.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/24/03 7:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>> (Autocollimator) wrote:
>>> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>>terback after all these years
>>>>is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
>>>>to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
>>>>YOU is duly noted, BTW.
>
>>>Anyone is free to note whatever they like.And I am free to reject their
>>>position as they are free to reject mine.
>
>>>>Very well, then. It's unfortunate indeed that instead of wisely
>>>>joining Ed and the rest of us whom have seized the high road,
>>>>you've chosen to wallow around down in the mud.
>
>>As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat
>in
>>WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
>>aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.
>
>Spoken like a true chickenous coward who flames people while
>hiding behind some asinine AOL screen name like "autocollimator."
>BTW, congrats. Ya nailed both me and Kramer in a single shot while
>managing to remain anonymous your own self. Don't golfers call it a
>"hole-in-one" or something like that?
>
>Coward.
>
>
>

Still wallowing down in the mud huh.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 10/24/03 7:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>>From: (Peter Stickney)
>>>Date: 10/23/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <rhaanb-9f1.ln@Minesha
>>
>>>Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
>>>ditching, either.
>>
>>No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom.
>Those
>>of us who served in B-26's were well aware of that as proven in ditching
>tanks.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Proven?!?. I doubt that, 'Estimated' maybe...certainly not
>proven.
>
>Art, I don't think that you'd be smart to bet on those 30
>seconds. Mind you, you may have 30 hours depending on how the a/c
>hit the water among lots of other things.
>
>I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
>18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
>We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
>in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
>Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
>--
>
>-Gord.


I think Art may be talking about "one a day in Tampa Bay" not hanger drills.

[Mike Marron]

>"Bill Silvey" > wrote:
>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:

>>And one of your brothers and highly respected posters on this
>>NG who actually fought in another war has succinctly explained to you
>>that playing Monday Morning Quarterback after all these years
>>is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
>>to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
>>YOU is duly noted, BTW.

>Mike, Art's rabid partisanship won't let him see past this. If Bush had
>been a supply-side democrat, Art would be on the other side of this
>argument, no doubt.

Agreed. And "newsgroup politics" is the reason why Art is afraid to
respond directly to Major Rasimus, who just tore him a new one.

Politics...ya' just gotta' love it!

[av8r]

>
> The next best thing to an F-16 and the most fun you can have with
> your clothes on!

How many hours do you have on an F-16?

Cheers...Chris

[av8r]

> As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat in
> WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as
> aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.

Right On!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers...Chris

[[email protected]]

(Autocollimator) wrote:

>
>I think Art may be talking about "one a day in Tampa Bay" not hanger drills.

Of course he was...what's your point?.
--

-Gord.

[Gordon]

>Actually, I'd strongly recommend the whole site:
>http://www.war-experience.org/index.html

Thanks for the steer and the comments, Andy - that channel ASR stuff was truly
hairy, all of the challenges of the sea, plus German torpedo boats!

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[Gordon]

>
>The Beaufighter, too, was said by those who knew to be bad in ditching
>- heavy for its time and with the way out underneath. I've often
>heard my father (who did ASR in the channel) comment that he never saw
>anyone get out from a ditched Beau.

Did he by any chance have experience with any Mosquito ditchings? Never heard
of a survivor from one of them either. :(

v/r
Gordon
<====(A+C====>
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

[[email protected]]

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote:

>
>The Beaufighter, too, was said by those who knew to be bad in ditching
>- heavy for its time and with the way out underneath. I've often
>heard my father (who did ASR in the channel) comment that he never saw
>anyone get out from a ditched Beau.

So too was the Fairchild C-119 Packet. The AOI (Dash One) had a
large red lettered warning "DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DITCH THIS
AIRCRAFT". and went on to explain that because of placement of
the wings/engines and the shape of the fuselage, and that model
simulations had proven that upon water contact the aircraft's
nose would immediately submerge, be ripped off and that the
aircraft would immediately be destroyed. We believed them and
kept our chest chute packs nearby. :)
--

-Gord.

[Tex Houston]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...

> So too was the Fairchild C-119 Packet.
<snipped>
> -Gord.

I think the Fairchild C-82 was the 'Packet', the C-119 the 'Flying Boxcar'.
The United States Air Force Museum agrees with me at
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od.htm .

Tex Houston

[Bill Silvey]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message

> "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> So too was the Fairchild C-119 Packet.
> <snipped>
>> -Gord.
>
> I think the Fairchild C-82 was the 'Packet', the C-119 the 'Flying
> Boxcar'. The United States Air Force Museum agrees with me at
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od.htm .
>
> Tex Houston

Hey, that was in Flight of the Phoenix, wasn't it?
--
http://www.delversdungeon.dragonsfoot.org
Remove the X's in my email address to respond.
"Damn you Silvey, and your endless fortunes." - Stephen Weir
I hate furries.

[Tex Houston]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
m...
> "Tex Houston" > wrote in message
>
> > "Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> So too was the Fairchild C-119 Packet.
> > <snipped>
> >> -Gord.
> >
> > I think the Fairchild C-82 was the 'Packet', the C-119 the 'Flying
> > Boxcar'. The United States Air Force Museum agrees with me at
> > http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/outdoor/od.htm .
> >
> > Tex Houston
>
> Hey, that was in Flight of the Phoenix, wasn't it?


I have no idea which they used in the movie. I saw it when it first came
out and never since.

Tex

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >rom: "Tarver Engineering"
>
> >
> >Lune.
> >
> Lune (l?n) n.a crescent-shaped figure bounded by two arcs of circles,
> either on a plane or a spherical surface. [1695-1705; < L l�na moon]

Well actually lun, as in lunar, luney, moonstruck, queen of heaven et al.

[Chris Mark]

>From: artkramr

>No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom.

Here's a description of a 310th B-25 ditching episode on what was expected to
be a milk run over an airfield the krauts were just constructing:

Joey spent most of the sightseeing tour in the gun turret bubble. Corrie
looked out the waist gun window for E-boats, fighters, sharks. He was just
beginning to relax when Ed called over the intercom, "Over the target in
fifteen. Sam, check the bomb bay after we get off the target to be sure a bomb
hasn't hung up." He looked out the window and watched the coast approach. They
hit the IP and turned for the bomb run.
Suddenly the plane began to shudder. Ack-ack was coming from all directions;
black puffs surrounded the plane. Corrie could actually see the red center of
the explosions and *hear* them they were so close. Shrapnel was banging
through the airplane. He thought, "My God, we can't make it through this!" As
he looked back, the first bombs were beginning to explode as they hit the
ground. The plane's track through the sky was marked with the black puffs of
88mm.
As they cleared the airfield, the ground fire stopped as suddenly as it had
started. Ed was pouring on the coal and the crew could feel the old girl
accelerate as they banked off in a dive to pick up speed and get the hell out
of there. The other five planes in our box were right with us in the turn and
dive, the pilots maintaining perfect station.
It was time to relax for a boring trip home. Corrie returned to the radio
compartment, turned on the transmitter, let down the trail wire antenna.
In the engineer's compartment behind the cockpit, Sam was not relaxing. The
port engine was rough and hadn't responded well to the advanced throttle
setting. Oil pressure was normal. When he made a visual check, he noticed oil
dribbling from it. Sam leaned into the pilot's compartment and told Ed,
"There's considerable oil streaming from the left engine. Want me to call
Corrie and ask him for an escort plane?
Ed glanced over at the leaking engine briefly and said, "These old babies will
fly half way round the world on one engine. We'll make it OK.
"Bull ****," Sam thought to himself, but said nothing. He and Charlie, the
co-pilot, glanced at each other and Charlie slipped his parachute over his Mae
West. Ed looked at him, hit the intercom button. "Corrie, we have an oil leak
in the port engine; get on the key and send SOS and position reports for a Cat
every five minutes. Bob, keep Corrie up-to-speed on position."
"About fifty miles off target, Bob cut in on the intercom."
"Roger."
Corrie turned the transmitter to the key and began sending SOSes but could tell
by his headset noise that he wasn't putting out a signal. He kept sending.
Soon he could hear radio traffic. He tuned the set, turned up the volume and
in the clear hammered the key: "SOS. Ed's plane on single engine sixty miles
off target." He listened. The channel was almost clear. "Mayday, mayday, Ed's
plane on single engine, sixty miles off target."
Finally a response came in, from a British unit, who politely asked who "Ed"
was. But at least the Corrie knew their plight was known to someone.
Up front, Charlie suggested opening the cowls on both engines for maximum
cooling and Sam agreed. Charlie referred to their B-25 as an "old tub,"
wondering how far she would get, and Ed responded that "she is a good
single-engine plane and we can throw out a lot of crap. Call Corrie and Joey
and have them throw out everything they can lift. We'll make it home. We have
to. I have a comic book I haven't read yet."
Outside there was brilliant Mediterranean sun, the sea very smooth, little
apparent wind. Ed cut power to the bad engine and hit the feather button. The
propeller did not feather. Instead, it windmilled and sent heavy vibrations
through the plane. Ed yelled to Charlie, "Help me hold the controls!" The
plane was about 500 feet high and wracked by violent shuddering. There was real
danger an engine or wing might tear loose.
"Prepare to ditch!" Ed yelled. "Charlie, call Joey and Corrie!" Ed gave the
thumbs down to Sam and Bob (who had crawled up into the engineer's
compartment).
The vibrations increased in intensity as the plane neared the sea. "Aren't you
cutting power?" Charlie yelled at Ed. "No! Pull the escape hatch after we
hit!"
Both pilots were forcing full right rudder and watching the sea rushing toward
them. No one remembered to close the cowl flaps. Ed cut the right engine just
as the plane slammed into the water, tail low. There was a thunderous noise
and the nose plunged under the surface. Water smashed into the compartment
with incredible force. Then there was sudden, absolute silence. The plane was
tilted at about a 30 degree angle down, with those forward all well below
water. Charlie recovered first and pulled the overhead escape hatch. Ed went
out first, followed by Charlie. Sam's Mae West snagged something, trapping him
and Bob stayed under to help him clear it, boosted him out of the hatch and
then followed.
When Charlie called to tell Joey and Corrie to dump everything they could, Joey
stripped the two fifties out of the turret, Corrie tossed the IFF and all other
radio equipment except the transceiver; he kept using the key. Joey even
tossed the life raft through the hatch. Corrie reached a hand out too late to
stop him, but still shouted, "Hey, we're going to be needing that!" He kept
sending but was unable to reach 310th ground station; they were probably too
low.
When the plane began to shudder, Corrie told Joey to sit with his back to the
bomb bay bulkhead and protect his head with his parachute. Corrie reeled in
the trailing wire antenna, shut off the tranceiver and joined Joey. They were
already in position when Charlie called "Prepare to ditch." Joey muttered, "No
kidding, buster."
When the plane hit they experienced first one crash, a short glide, and then a
second, harder smash. No one up front had noticed anything but one solid smash.
Then all was silence except for the sound of water dripping and waves lapping
against the side of the plane.
Corrie reached above the radio compartment and pulled on the life raft release.
It did not move. He called Joey to help but despite the efforts of both, it
would not budge.
Water began to fill the compartment through the lower escape hatch. Joey, who
announced at this juncture that he couldn't swim, refused to dive through it
and get out. Corrie dove through, swam to the surface, and climbed to the top
of the fuselage to release the raft using the exterior handle. Sam climbed up
to help. The handle wouldn't budge, then snapped off clean.
As the rear compartment filled with water, Joey inflated his Mae West, thus
trapping himself completely. Hearing his cries for help, Bob dove under the
plane, up through the escape hatch, deflated his vest and steered him back out
the escape hatch.
The crew gathered and swam away from the plane. About two minutes had passed.
They watched the tail slowly elevate to the vertical then slide with scarcely a
ripple under the waves.
The crew was alone on the wide, wide sea, no life raft, the one guy who
couldn't swim with a deflated life vest. Ed had a bad cut across the bridge of
his nose and forehead.
Moral sank fast, until Charlie quipped, "Anyone got a knife. I don't want Ed
to be the only one to get a Purple Heart!"
Each Mae West had a dye packet. After floating in silence for some minutes,
Bob said, "I think I'll open a dye packet. When he tried to tear it off, his
vest ripped and everyone could hear the air hiss out. The vest was ruined.
It was at this point that Charlie thought to asked Corrie if he had made
contact with a Cat and Corrie answered no, only with some Brit. There was no
further conversation. Just the sound of waves lapping.
After an hour, the sound of engines were heard. A flight of B-25s passed to
the north. They continued unwaveringly.
Then engines again, another flight, almost directly overhead.
Everyone--carefully--remove his dye packet and spilled it into the sea, then
began splashing wildly as the planes thundered overhead. They passed by, then
one peeled off and circled the crew, who all yelled their heads off. The B-25
waggled its wings before flying off. A few minutes later a flight of P-47s
appeared and took station over the crew. After about half an hour from low out
of the West a PBY lumbered into view, circled and landed with matronly aplomb,
taxied up to the crew. The blue navy duds of the crewman who leaned out the
bubbled and one-armedly hoisted each of them aboard looked beautiful. The Cat
trundled into the air while the crew sipped Navy coffee and dripped sea water.
Three hours after ditching they were back on dry land. Forty hours later they
were flying another mission.



Chris Mark

[Mike Marron]

>"Tex Houston" > wrote:
>>"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message

>>Hey, that was in Flight of the Phoenix, wasn't it?

>I have no idea which they used in the movie. I saw it when it first came
>out and never since.

It was a C-119. At the Univ. of South Florida, my Management 101
professor showed "Flight of the Phoenix" to the class to illustrate
various management styles. Interestingly enough, he said that
Jimmy Stewart (who played the Capt. of the ship) was a poor
manager yet the alcoholic co-pilot (Richard Attenborough) exhibited
the "proper" method to manage people! As the prof explained it,
Attenborough was the one who was responsible for group cohesiveness
(despite his boozing) while Stewart did all the wrong things by acting
like a self-centered, tempermental blowhard. Apparently CRM was
foreign concept to Stewart, huh? ;))

[Gordon]

outstanding post, Chris - exactly what I come to this newsgroup to read.

v/r
Gordon

>Here's a description of a 310th B-25 ditching episode on what was expected to
>be a milk run

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 10/24/03 7:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>>From: (Peter Stickney)
>>>Date: 10/23/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <rhaanb-9f1.ln@Minesha
>>
>>>Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
>>>ditching, either.
>>
>>No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom.
>Those
>>of us who served in B-26's were well aware of that as proven in ditching
>tanks.
>>
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Proven?!?. I doubt that, 'Estimated' maybe...certainly not
>proven.
>
>Art, I don't think that you'd be smart to bet on those 30
>seconds. Mind you, you may have 30 hours depending on how the a/c
>hit the water among lots of other things.
>
>I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
>18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
>We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
>in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
>Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
>--
>
>-Gord.
..

I am not talking about drills in a hanger. I am yalking about one a day in
Tampa Bay. And lives lost and lessons learned the hard way.
..
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: (Autocollimator)
>Date: 10/24/03 7:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>>Date: 10/24/03 7:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>>
>>>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>>>From: (Peter Stickney)
>>>>Date: 10/23/03 9:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>>Message-id: <rhaanb-9f1.ln@Minesha
>>>
>>>>Note to Art: The Martin B-26 also wasn't a good candidate for
>>>>ditching, either.
>>>
>>>No kiddiing. We had 30 seconds before the B-26 dove for the the bottom.
>>Those
>>>of us who served in B-26's were well aware of that as proven in ditching
>>tanks.
>>>
>>>Arthur Kramer
>>
>>Proven?!?. I doubt that, 'Estimated' maybe...certainly not
>>proven.
>>
>>Art, I don't think that you'd be smart to bet on those 30
>>seconds. Mind you, you may have 30 hours depending on how the a/c
>>hit the water among lots of other things.
>>
>>I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
>>18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
>>We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
>>in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
>>Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>
>
>I think Art may be talking about "one a day in Tampa Bay" not hanger drills.
>

Exactly.

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

[[email protected]]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote i
>>
>> It was one of my squadron's aircraft and crews so luckily I
>> wasn't aboard.
>
>Interesting story. If it happened anywhere between 1960-63, that would have
>been my outfit (57th ARSq) that got the mayday and gone out to pick them up and
>escort them in to Lajes.

No, actually it was in the early seventies, likely 71 or 72.

>We had a pretty big SAR area of responsibility,
>roughly 1,000 miles in all directions, so we often found ourselves up near
>Iceland looking for guys heading our way who were in trouble.
>

We knew of your reputation and I can say that it eased our minds
a lot too. You need all the friends that you can get out there.


>We had one instance where a guy ferrying a single engine plane (I don't remember
>what make it was) to the Middle East for its new owner, a sheik of some sort,
>developed engine problems and sent out a mayday. We made radio contact with him
>and simultaneously scrambled an HC54, although it was quite late in the day. He
>reported that he had passed over a freighter about 30 minutes previously and
>said that he didn't think he'd be able to stay aloft until our plane got there,
>so we advised him to make a 180 and see if he could locate that vessel while it
>was still light and then ditch alongside it, which is exactly what he did.
>

This sounds very familiar...I'm sure that I read about that
incident somewhere.


>The freighter picked him up and deposited him in Galveston Texas a couple of
>weeks later instead of the middle East. After we determined that the pilot had
>been rescued, we recalled our aircraft. We sent out another flight at daybreak
>the following day and, amazingly, we found his abandoned aircraft still afloat
>in the Atlantic.
>
>George Z.
>

That's pretty amazing indeed, a huge bulk oil tanker looks
unbelievably tiny in that absolutely huge expanse of ocean when
seen from altitude. Then as you circle around it while punching
down down down to 'rig it' (photograph and get it's data to
report ashore) it keeps getting bigger and bigger till it's a
huge steel monster spouting smoke from what seems like about a
dozen big stacks, with men scurrying to and fro on the decks
doing god knows what.

You fly along the length of it about 50 feet off the water
snapping photos as you go and with other crewmembers scribbling
it's description rapidly. They all get their heads together and
decide if they have enough info and you either 'rerig' or pork on
climb power and get your butt up to your cruise altitude (usually
around 8,000 feet - an optimum radar altitude).

It's mind-bending to watch all this size and complexity dwindle
as you circle and climb, it keeps shrinking slowly and being
replaced with white-caps till you actually lose sight of it in
all that huge expanse of white cap strewn miles of ocean from
horizon to horizon. Makes one realize how insignificiently tiny
man is.
--

-Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have no idea which they used in the movie. I saw it when it first came
> out and never since.
>

A C-82 was used.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
>
> It was a C-119.
>

No, it was a C-82.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Anyway, since I started this thread with an innocent question, in
recognition of
> the **** storm it generated, I'm going to claim author's rights to revise
my
> question. AIR, we were talking about ditching characteristics, and I
asked what
> the manufacturer had to say on the subject.
>
> In those days, before an aircraft hit the inventory, the only people who
knew
> how it was going to behave were the manufacturer and his test pilots.
Before
> they turned the aircraft over to the military for their acceptance
testing, they
> sat down and wrote a flight manual, which contained everything the
operator
> needed to know about how to make the bird go up and come back down in one
piece.
> Before the first of that model actually ditched in the water somewhere,
its crew
> should have familiarized themselves with every bit of the information in
that
> manual, including how it was going to behave when it hit the water and
> recommendations on how best to make initial contact with the water.
>

Unless the manufacturer actually ditched the aircraft whatever was written
in the manual was theory.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bill Silvey" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Mike, Art's rabid partisanship won't let him see past this. If Bush had
> been a supply-side democrat, Art would be on the other side of this
> argument, no doubt.
>

A supply-side democrat? That must be exceedingly rare.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 10/24/03 11:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Anyway, since I started this thread with an innocent question, in
>recognition of
>> the **** storm it generated, I'm going to claim author's rights to revise
>my
>> question. AIR, we were talking about ditching characteristics, and I
>asked what
>> the manufacturer had to say on the subject.
>>
>> In those days, before an aircraft hit the inventory, the only people who
>knew
>> how it was going to behave were the manufacturer and his test pilots.
>Before
>> they turned the aircraft over to the military for their acceptance
>testing, they
>> sat down and wrote a flight manual, which contained everything the
>operator
>> needed to know about how to make the bird go up and come back down in one
>piece.
>> Before the first of that model actually ditched in the water somewhere,
>its crew
>> should have familiarized themselves with every bit of the information in
>that
>> manual, including how it was going to behave when it hit the water and
>> recommendations on how best to make initial contact with the water.
>>
>
>Unless the manufacturer actually ditched the aircraft whatever was written
>in the manual was theory.
>
>

Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice pretty
friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you?
..

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/24/03 8:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>"Bill Silvey" > wrote:
>>>"Mike Marron" > wrote:
>
>>>And one of your brothers and highly respected posters on this
>>>NG who actually fought in another war has succinctly explained to you
>>>that playing Monday Morning Quarterback after all these years
>>>is to demean the whole warrior ethic. The fact that you have chosen
>>>to conveniently ignore his pointed comments aimed squarely at
>>>YOU is duly noted, BTW.
>
>>Mike, Art's rabid partisanship won't let him see past this. If Bush had
>>been a supply-side democrat, Art would be on the other side of this
>>argument, no doubt.
>
>Agreed. And "newsgroup politics" is the reason why Art is afraid to
>respond directly to Major Rasimus, who just tore him a new one.
>
>Politics...ya' just gotta' love it!
>
>
>
>
I checked that post and the "Major" never came right out and named art at all.
No wonder Art never replied. Did the Warrior Class major lose his nerve?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...
>
> Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice
pretty
> friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you?
>

That's a possibility, not a surety. It's also possible the manufacturer's
theory was proven wrong. Why didn't that possibility occur to you?

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: av8r
>Date: 10/24/03 8:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>> As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat
>in
>> WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew
>as
>> aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself.
>
>Right On!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Cheers...Chris
>

We must never confuse the ones who only talk the talk with those who actually
walked the walk.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 10/24/03 12:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice
>pretty
>> friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you?
>>
>
>That's a possibility, not a surety. It's also possible the manufacturer's
>theory was proven wrong. Why didn't that possibility occur to you?
>
>
No a surety, not just a possibility. Have you ever gotten off the ground in a
miliatry aircraft? I think not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Autocollimator" > wrote in message
...
>
> No a surety, not just a possibility.
>

Nonsense. If aircraft always behaved as predicted there'd be no need to
test them.


>
> Have you ever gotten off the ground in a miliatry aircraft?
>

Irrelevant.


>
> I think not.
>

It's becoming increasingly obvious you don't think at all.

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>From: "Gord Beaman"
>>
>>I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
>>18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
>>We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
>>in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
>>Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
>>--
>>
>>-Gord.
>.
>
>I am not talking about drills in a hanger. I am yalking about one a day in
>Tampa Bay. And lives lost and lessons learned the hard way.
>.
>Arthur Kramer

Well of course you are Art...you say that you have 30 seconds
before the a/c sinks, that it's proven by tank testing. I'm
merely pointing out that that's not carved in stone, that it
depends on a lot of parameters. Which of course you know.

I do object to your handling of that post, you intimate that
while I talk of 'ditching drills' you talk of 'lives lost and
lessons learned'. What the hell does that mean?

Neither one of us has ditched therefore you are no more of an
expert than I am despite how you tried to make it sound.

So then you're just a 'wannabe' because 'you haven't been there
nor done that' as you're so fond of saying.

See how silly that sounds?
--

-Gord.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Anyway, since I started this thread with an innocent question, in
> recognition of
> > the **** storm it generated, I'm going to claim author's rights to revise
> my
> > question. AIR, we were talking about ditching characteristics, and I
> asked what
> > the manufacturer had to say on the subject.
> >
> > In those days, before an aircraft hit the inventory, the only people who
> knew
> > how it was going to behave were the manufacturer and his test pilots.
> Before
> > they turned the aircraft over to the military for their acceptance
> testing, they
> > sat down and wrote a flight manual, which contained everything the
> operator
> > needed to know about how to make the bird go up and come back down in one
> piece.
> > Before the first of that model actually ditched in the water somewhere,
> its crew
> > should have familiarized themselves with every bit of the information in
> that
> > manual, including how it was going to behave when it hit the water and
> > recommendations on how best to make initial contact with the water.
> >
>
> Unless the manufacturer actually ditched the aircraft whatever was written
> in the manual was theory.

Actually, some manufacturers (and maybe all, for all I know), did do exactly
that with scaled models of their new aircraft. In any case, I'd rather have
some applied theory from an aeronautical engineer who designed the aircraft than
guesswork from somebody who thought he knew how it would react better than the
bird's designers.

Since you seem committed to pooh-pooh the manufacturer's knowledge no matter
what, what does the pilot who has the misfortune of having to ditch the first of
that model aircraft rely on? Who tells him the best approach speed for that
bird, or the best escape routes out of the aircraft after impact, or the things
that he needs to do to give himself the best odds possible of surviving the
experience. If not the manufacturer, who? Somebody else who hasn't gone
through the drill?

George Z.
>
>

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Autocollimator" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No a surety, not just a possibility.
> >
>
> Nonsense. If aircraft always behaved as predicted there'd be no need to
> test them.
>
>
> >
> > Have you ever gotten off the ground in a miliatry aircraft?
> >
>
> Irrelevant.

I think it is relevant. If you had flown for one of the military services, a
lot of the things we're talking to you about would be things that you'd
experienced. Maybe it never occurred to you, never having experienced it, that
military flight manuals are constantly being updated as new information
regarding the aircraft is received, either from the manufacturer or from the
field. I flew I don't remember how many different kinds of aircraft, and I knew
how to ditch every one of them, and I learned how best to do it from constant
study of the flight manuals, which provided me with the most current data
available I needed in order to make good decisions.

I flew about 4,000 hours in my military career. I never ditched an airplane,
never bailed out of one, and walked away from every landing without even a
slight limp. Those are my credentials. There are guys who frequent this NG
with a helluva lot more than that, and they have my attention and respect. I
doubt that you're one of them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> Actually, some manufacturers (and maybe all, for all I know), did do
> exactly that with scaled models of their new aircraft.
>

That's fine, but everything does not necessarily carry over to the actual
aircraft.


>
> In any case, I'd rather have some applied theory from an aeronautical
engineer who
> designed the aircraft than guesswork from somebody who thought he knew how
it
> would react better than the bird's designers.
>

We're not talking about guesswork from somebody who thought he knew how it
would react better than the bird's designers, we're talking about the
collective experience of many actual ditchings. If you'd take applied
theory from an aeronautical engineer who designed the aircraft over the
collective experience of many actual ditchings, then you're an idiot.


>
> Since you seem committed to pooh-pooh the manufacturer's knowledge no
> matter what, what does the pilot who has the misfortune of having to ditch
the
> first of that model aircraft rely on?
>

If I seem that way to you then you've read things into my messages that are
not there.

[av8r]

Hi George

Did you know any of the gang with the 54th ARSq. at Goose Air Base circa
1964?

Cheers...Chris

[Les Matheson]

Remember the AC-130H that ditched off Kenya in 1993?

Existing procedure was to ditch, until after the accident investigation it
was found (duh!!) that the AC-130 with all the holes in the fuselage didn't
act like a trash hauler C-130 when it hit the water.

Emergency procedures for all AC-130 models was changed to eliminate
ditching, except if no other means of egress was possible. Bailout became
preferred method of emergency egress in the air.
--
Les
F-4C(WW),D,E,G(WW)/AC-130A/MC-130E EWO (ret)


"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
> >>From: "Gord Beaman"
> >>
> >>I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
> >>18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
> >>We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
> >>in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
> >>Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
> >>--
> >>
> >>-Gord.
> >.
> >
> >I am not talking about drills in a hanger. I am yalking about one a day
in
> >Tampa Bay. And lives lost and lessons learned the hard way.
> >.
> >Arthur Kramer
>
> Well of course you are Art...you say that you have 30 seconds
> before the a/c sinks, that it's proven by tank testing. I'm
> merely pointing out that that's not carved in stone, that it
> depends on a lot of parameters. Which of course you know.
>
> I do object to your handling of that post, you intimate that
> while I talk of 'ditching drills' you talk of 'lives lost and
> lessons learned'. What the hell does that mean?
>
> Neither one of us has ditched therefore you are no more of an
> expert than I am despite how you tried to make it sound.
>
> So then you're just a 'wannabe' because 'you haven't been there
> nor done that' as you're so fond of saying.
>
> See how silly that sounds?
> --
>
> -Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think it is relevant.
>

You're free to think that, but it's still irrelevant.


>
> If you had flown for one of the military services, a
> lot of the things we're talking to you about would be things that you'd
> experienced. Maybe it never occurred to you, never having experienced it,
that
> military flight manuals are constantly being updated as new information
> regarding the aircraft is received, either from the manufacturer or from
the
> field.
>

Updated with new information from the field? How can that be? You've taken
the position that the manufacturer's theories trump actual experience from
the field.


>
> I flew I don't remember how many different kinds of aircraft, and I knew
> how to ditch every one of them, and I learned how best to do it from
constant
> study of the flight manuals, which provided me with the most current data
> available I needed in order to make good decisions.
>
> I flew about 4,000 hours in my military career. I never ditched an
airplane,
> never bailed out of one, and walked away from every landing without even a
> slight limp. Those are my credentials. There are guys who frequent this
NG
> with a helluva lot more than that, and they have my attention and respect.
I
> doubt that you're one of them.
>

I think if you review your messages in this thread a few days from now
you'll see that you've taken a completely illogical position.

[Mike Marron]

>av8r > wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>The next best thing to an F-16 and the most fun you can have with
>>your clothes on!

>How many hours do you have on an F-16?

None (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...)

Seriously tho, this is what a former ANG pilot had to say about
trikes vis a vis F-16's (he's also flown ANG F-106's and prior to
that flew Navy A-7's off carriers).......

Q: So Jim how does flying a Trike compare to flying a Fighter
on the fun scale?

A: Equal, but different. Way different. I like all types of flying,
but they are all fun in different ways. Flying trikes is probably the
most natural sensation of flying like a bird, like you dream about,
of any form of powered flight I've ever experienced. Flying
fighters is like flying a Formula I race car with wings, except even
more physically punishing. There's nothing like being at 100'
and seeing the electrical line poles go by at 600 kts +, and there's
nothing like cruising along at 50 mph waving at people and
smelling the new cut hay and feeling like a puppy with your head
out of the car window. I'm happy to have had the opportunity to
experience both. I'd rate them both as 10's, but different forms
of fun. If I had to pick one to experience in life and couldn't do
the other, I'd pick fighters. Fortunately, I didn't have to pick just
one.

>Cheers...Chris

You're welcome...Mike

[George Z. Bush]

"av8r" > wrote in message
...
> Hi George
>
> Did you know any of the gang with the 54th ARSq. at Goose Air Base circa
> 1964?
>
> Cheers...Chris

We sent one of our chopper pilots up there back around '59 when I was with the
46th ARSq at Otis. He thought it would be better than an assignment at Thule,
because what with Quiddividdy Village (sp?), he thought there might at least be
a place to buy souvenirs or get a beer! Not the brightest candle on our cake,
trading a 12 month separated tour at Thule for an 18 month separated tour at
Goose because of the amenities.

I can't think of his name at the moment, but he did finish a career in the AF
and retired as a Lt. Colonel, which none of us who knew him as a 2nd Lt. ever
thought was even vaguely possible. (^-^)))

George Z.
>

[Alan Minyard]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 22:09:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>
>"OXMORON1" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Of course the Navy did, but they used the information and design work of
>> Grumman.
>>
>
>So what? Until aircraft are actually ditched any information provided by
>the builder on ditching is just theory. If aircraft always behaved as
>predicted there'd be no reason for testing at all.
>
Shoot, if it behaved "as predicted" there would be no reason to ditch it :-)))

Al Minyard

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I think it is relevant.
> >
>
> You're free to think that, but it's still irrelevant.
>
>
> >
> > If you had flown for one of the military services, a
> > lot of the things we're talking to you about would be things that you'd
> > experienced. Maybe it never occurred to you, never having experienced it,
> that
> > military flight manuals are constantly being updated as new information
> > regarding the aircraft is received, either from the manufacturer or from
> the
> > field.
> >
>
> Updated with new information from the field? How can that be? ......

I don't imagine that you've ever heard of specific unit using certain aircraft
conducting certain kinds of field tests on their equipment. I could give you
examples of what I am talking about, but it would only serve to continue your
ongoing arguing about the subject. You disparage information from the
manufacturer, but you now are questioning the existence of pireps where you just
finished saying that they were the only reliable information available to the
aircrews. It would help if you made up your mind which source of information
for pilots you wish to endorse.

> .....You've taken the position that the manufacturer's theories trump actual
experience from
> the field.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. I'm trying
to get across to you that the body of knowledge has input from more than one
source.


>
>
> >
> > I flew I don't remember how many different kinds of aircraft, and I knew
> > how to ditch every one of them, and I learned how best to do it from
> constant
> > study of the flight manuals, which provided me with the most current data
> > available I needed in order to make good decisions.
> >
> > I flew about 4,000 hours in my military career. I never ditched an
> airplane,
> > never bailed out of one, and walked away from every landing without even a
> > slight limp. Those are my credentials. There are guys who frequent this
> NG
> > with a helluva lot more than that, and they have my attention and respect.
> I
> > doubt that you're one of them.
> >
>
> I think if you review your messages in this thread a few days from now
> you'll see that you've taken a completely illogical position.

Well, if you say so, but I don't see too many people here agreeing with you.

George Z.

[av8r]

> None (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night...)

Hi Mike

Now that was funny. Hope you got good A.O.P.A. rates. I've never sat
in(or on?) a trike before, let alone fly one. They are not very common
in this part of Ontario. Maybe it's something to do with the 60 below
zero temperatures and howling whiteouts. Say, I reckon they don't get
much snow down your way do they. For the longest time, I thumbed my
nose at ultralights and particularly microlights. I've had a 180 degree
turn of opinion.

I've flown a lot of types (I'm checked out on 9) of aircraft including
stick time on the old Canadair CP-107 Argus, but being strapped on to a
Challenger ultralight is incredible. You have interchangeable wings
(short and long) and you can fly it on wheels, skis of floats. It'll
land on a dime and give you back a nickel's change. Have you worked out
an hourly operating rate yet on your trike. I betcha it's only a few
bucks an hour at best. Are the insurance premiums very high

'Happy Flying'

Cheers...Chris

[Chris Mark]

>From: (Gordon)

>outstanding post, Chris - exactly what I come to this newsgroup to read.

Thanks very much.


Chris Mark

[[email protected]]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote:

>
>"av8r" > wrote in message
...
>> Hi George
>>
>> Did you know any of the gang with the 54th ARSq. at Goose Air Base circa
>> 1964?
>>
>> Cheers...Chris
>
>We sent one of our chopper pilots up there back around '59 when I was with the
>46th ARSq at Otis. He thought it would be better than an assignment at Thule,
>because what with Quiddividdy Village (sp?), he thought there might at least be
>a place to buy souvenirs or get a beer! Not the brightest candle on our cake,
>trading a 12 month separated tour at Thule for an 18 month separated tour at
>Goose because of the amenities.
>
>I can't think of his name at the moment, but he did finish a career in the AF
>and retired as a Lt. Colonel, which none of us who knew him as a 2nd Lt. ever
>thought was even vaguely possible. (^-^)))
>
>George Z.
>>
>

Pretty close George!...it's Quidi Vidi (pronounced kitty viddy)
--

-Gord.

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Steven P. McNicoll"
>Date: 10/24/03 2:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >

>> I think it is relevant.
>>
>
>You're free to think that, but it's still irrelevant.

Irrelevant means no.

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: "Gord Beaman" )
>Date: 10/24/03 1:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>>>From: "Gord Beaman"
>>>
>>>I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
>>>18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
>>>We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
>>>in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
>>>Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
>>>--
>>>
>>>-Gord.
>>.
>>
>>I am not talking about drills in a hanger. I am yalking about one a day in
>>Tampa Bay. And lives lost and lessons learned the hard way.
>>.
>>Arthur Kramer
>
>Well of course you are Art...you say that you have 30 seconds
>before the a/c sinks, that it's proven by tank testing. I'm
>merely pointing out that that's not carved in stone, that it
>depends on a lot of parameters. Which of course you know.
>
>I do object to your handling of that post, you intimate that
>while I talk of 'ditching drills' you talk of 'lives lost and
>lessons learned'. What the hell does that mean?
>
>Neither one of us has ditched therefore you are no more of an
>expert than I am despite how you tried to make it sound.
>
>So then you're just a 'wannabe' because 'you haven't been there
>nor done that' as you're so fond of saying.
>
>See how silly that sounds?
>--
>
>-Gord.


Not silly at all. I was spocifically talking about the large number of
ditchings in Tampa Bay, the lives lost and the lessons learned by those
experiences. All that was incorporated into our B-26 ditching procedures and
saved many lives in years and missions to come. There is no substitute for
actual practical experience although I am sure your hanger drills were quite
useful as well.

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

[Michael Williamson]

Les Matheson wrote:
> Remember the AC-130H that ditched off Kenya in 1993?
>
> Existing procedure was to ditch, until after the accident investigation it
> was found (duh!!) that the AC-130 with all the holes in the fuselage didn't
> act like a trash hauler C-130 when it hit the water.
>
> Emergency procedures for all AC-130 models was changed to eliminate
> ditching, except if no other means of egress was possible. Bailout became
> preferred method of emergency egress in the air.


All C-130s now have bailout as preferred over ditching, IIRC. The
AC-130 and HC-130 that ditched did so in less than ideal circumstances,
(loss of all power at night in the HC-130; structural and wing fire,
inability to maintain aircraft control and altitude in the AC)
in a manner under which little control was possible. In aircraft
with little or no control available, you don't typically ditch,
you crash.

Mike

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

> There is no substitute for actual practical experience although
>I am sure your hanger drills were quite useful as well.
>
>Arthur Kramer

How very kind of you to say so sir. I'm so grateful that I could
just poop.
--

-Gord.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Gord Beaman wrote:
> How very kind of you to say so sir. I'm so grateful that I could
> just poop.


I have access to some stuff that could probably help you with that. Think
"thermonuclear device". The results aren't all that different. <G>



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Mike Marron]

>av8r > wrote:

>Now that was funny. Hope you got good A.O.P.A. rates. I've never sat
>in(or on?) a trike before, let alone fly one.

Hiya Chris,

Forgive me for being somewhat hesitant to respond since this
is so far off the original topic, but after seeing all the other
off-topic, political crap on this NG I figured what the heck, why not?
Besides, at least it has *something* to do with military aviation
because as I mentioned previously, ultralight trikes have roots
firmly planted in military aviation history dating back to NASA's
Paresev, a late 50's-early 60's research aircraft based on the
Rogallo wing:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/hglide/Aus.htm

Anyway, if you're interested in trikes Chris, there was a decent
article about trikes in the July, 2003 issue of "Flying" magazine by
Lane Wallace. (Incidently, the triker whom she flew with happened
to be one of your fellow Canadians from Ontario.) After her
introductory flight in a trike, Wallace came to understand why so
many trikers are, "complex GA aircraft pilots, airline pilots and
military aviators." In other words, not unlike a fighter, you don't
merely "fly" a trike, you strap it on and work the controls as an
extension of your own body. And I mean that in the most truest, most
literal sense possible as your arms, legs, hands and feet are integral
components of the machine itself.

Unlike a conventional airplane that you can turn on the autopilot
then sit back and simply let the airplane fly itself, in a trike
that's not possible because you ARE the airplane. Your
arms serve as the pushrods, cables, pulleys, servos and hydraulic
actuators controlling the aircraft about all three pitch, yaw and roll
axes. Since both arms are busy, you must use your right foot to
control the throttle and your left foot to control the brakes similar
to how you manipulate the accelerator and brake pedals when driving
your car. This enables you to use your upper body muscles for
crankin' and bankin' in the sky while you simultaneously and
instantaneously manipulate the throttle using your right foot. It's
truly a total-body type of experience and students are often surprised
to find out how much fun it is despite how sore their muscles are
after their first few lessons.

>They are not very common in this part of Ontario. Maybe it's something
>to do with the 60 below zero temperatures and howling whiteouts. Say,
>I reckon they don't get much snow down your way do they. For the longest
>time, I thumbed my nose at ultralights and particularly microlights. I've had
>a 180 degree turn of opinion.

>I've flown a lot of types (I'm checked out on 9) of aircraft including
>stick time on the old Canadair CP-107 Argus, but being strapped on to a
>Challenger ultralight is incredible. You have interchangeable wings
>(short and long) and you can fly it on wheels, skis of floats. It'll
>land on a dime and give you back a nickel's change. Have you worked out
>an hourly operating rate yet on your trike. I betcha it's only a few
>bucks an hour at best. Are the insurance premiums very high

The Challenger ultralight is an entirely different animal. Trikes are
a seperate breed unto themselves and handle completely unlike
anything else. Everything is BACKWARDS in trike -- you push forward
to go up and pull back to go down, push left to go right and push
right to go left. Control reversals near the ground is the reason
why so many pilots, regardless of skill or experience level, have
seriously injured or killed themselves in trikes.

With regards to the Challenger ultralight, up there in Tundra Land
I can certainly understand why you would prefer something like a
Challenger with its fully-enclosed cockpit. But the Challenger is a
relatively old design dating back to the early 80's. As an A&P
mechanic, there are many aspects of its somewhat stodgy design
that, IMO, could use a quite bit of upgrading. For example:

* The inverted engine makes it more prone to flooding (more difficult
to start) and fouling the spark plugs.

* It uses an old-style belt-driven redrive instead of the more
advanced and maintenence-free all metal type gearbox.

* The design itself doesn't allow for a more powerful engine to be
installed due to a serious lack of clearance between the pusher
propeller and the airframe.

* The airframe has cheesy pop-rivets all over the place and the
landing gear is exceptionally weak, esp. compared to the beefy,
triangulated landing gear and super strong suspension systems
found on most trikes.

* The thing seems to have been designed by dwarves and most guys
over 6-ft. tall need a shoehorn to climb in and out of the cockpit.

* They remind me of Aeronca Champs with that ugly two-tone orange
fish-gill paint job on the belly.

As Lane Wallace mentioned in her "Flying" mag article, most trikers
who fly the higher performing, certified and premium brands of trikes
(like my Pegasus 912 experimental trike) are generally highly
experienced aviators from professional pilot backgrounds. Some
of us regard the Challenger and other conventional ultralights as
basically entry level junk for wannabes (present company excluded,
of course! ;)) Either that, or close-minded "old farts" who lost their
medicals, or girly girls and other assorted pussys who lack the significant amount of upper-body strength and motor
skills required to safely operate a trike in adverse weather
conditions. Compared to others types of A/C, very few females are
into triking (Ms. Wallace loved her ride, but admitted that she
doesn't plan to trade in her Grumman Cheetah for a trike anytime
soon!) and those females who do take up the sport tend to fly only
when the winds are calm.

The bottom line is that if I had to fly a Challenger or similiar type
ultralight with conventional controls with an enclosed cockpit, then
you might as well put me back in a GA airplane.

It is a beautiful sport and remember, ya' have to LEAVE the vehicle
to experience the environment!
[i]
>'Happy Flying'

Back 'atcha

>Cheers...Chris

[Autocollimator]

>Subject: Re: Fly Boy ?????
>From: Mike Marron
>Date: 10/25/03 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time

>orgive me for being somewhat hesitant to respond since this
>is so far off the original topic, but after seeing all the other
>off-topic, political crap on this NG I figured what the heck, why not?
>Besides, at least it has *something* to do with military aviation

Yes it does. But do YOU have anything to do with military aviation?

[Mike Marron]

(Autocollimator) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>Forgive me for being somewhat hesitant to respond since this
>>is so far off the original topic, but after seeing all the other
>>off-topic, political crap on this NG I figured what the heck, why not?
>>Besides, at least it has *something* to do with military aviation

>Yes it does. But do YOU have anything to do with military aviation?

Make ya' a deal anonomator....

I will answer your question if you come out from hiding behind your
Halloween mask and tell us what your real name is.

Deal?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't imagine that you've ever heard of specific unit using certain
> aircraft conducting certain kinds of field tests on their equipment.
>

I have.


>
> I could give you examples of what I am talking about, but it would
> only serve to continue your ongoing arguing about the subject.
>

I could give you examples of the same.


>
> You disparage information from the manufacturer,
>

I've done nothing at all like that.


>
> but you now are questioning the existence of pireps where you just
> finished saying that they were the only reliable information available to
> the aircrews. It would help if you made up your mind which source of
> information for pilots you wish to endorse.
>

I have been consistent throughout.


>
> Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.
>

Those are the words of your message.


>
> I'm trying to get across to you that the body of knowledge has input
> from more than one source.
>

It'll work better if I play the teacher and you play the student. What I'm
trying to get across to you is that if the manufacturer says the airplane
will behave in a certain way, and field experience proves it behaves in a
different way, then the manufacturer was wrong.


>
> Well, if you say so, but I don't see too many people here agreeing with
you.
>

One rarely sees many responses of simple agreement in these forums.

It appears you still haven't realized that your messages on this subject
have largely supported my position at the expense of your own.

[George Z. Bush]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> It'll work better if I play the teacher and you play the student.

With an arrogant attitude like that, it'll never work at all, much less better.
You don't know it all, although I'm sure that thought never occurred to you.
You put words in my mouth which do not reflect my views, merely your erroneous
interpretation or understanding of what they are. We are quite obviously not on
the same page, and I see little point in wasting my time pursuing the matter any
further.

As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed and it's time to move on.

George Z.

[Mike Marron]

>"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
>>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

>>It'll work better if I play the teacher and you play the student.

>With an arrogant attitude like that, it'll never work at all, much less better.
>You don't know it all, although I'm sure that thought never occurred to you.
>You put words in my mouth which do not reflect my views, merely your erroneous
>interpretation or understanding of what they are. We are quite obviously not on
>the same page, and I see little point in wasting my time pursuing the matter any
>further.

Smart move, George. McNicoll fancies himself as a "teacher?"
What a JOKE! McNicoll can't teach fer **** (he can't transmit
knowledge that he doesn't have!) and I'll bet he can't fly fer ****
either. Ya' just can't win with the guy. If you agree with him you are
wrong, and if you don't agree you are even more wrong. And as
you say, when he finds himself on the losing end of one of his
pointless arguments, he simply snips away the gist of your message
and puts words in your mouth. Finally, when all else fails, he'll trot
out one of his annoying trademark tarveresque one-liners such as:
"irrelevant."TM.

[George Z. Bush]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> >"George Z. Bush" > wrote:
> >>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:
>
> >>It'll work better if I play the teacher and you play the student.
>
> >With an arrogant attitude like that, it'll never work at all, much less
better.
> >You don't know it all, although I'm sure that thought never occurred to you.
> >You put words in my mouth which do not reflect my views, merely your
erroneous
> >interpretation or understanding of what they are. We are quite obviously not
on
> >the same page, and I see little point in wasting my time pursuing the matter
any
> >further.
>
> Smart move, George. McNicoll fancies himself as a "teacher?"
> What a JOKE! McNicoll can't teach fer **** (he can't transmit
> knowledge that he doesn't have!) and I'll bet he can't fly fer ****
> either. Ya' just can't win with the guy. If you agree with him you are
> wrong, and if you don't agree you are even more wrong. And as
> you say, when he finds himself on the losing end of one of his
> pointless arguments, he simply snips away the gist of your message
> and puts words in your mouth. Finally, when all else fails, he'll trot
> out one of his annoying trademark tarveresque one-liners such as:
> "irrelevant."TM.

Thanks, Mike. It's a comfort to know that I'm not the only one who sees him for
the dingbat he is.

George Z.