On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:06:35 GMT, Buzzer wrote:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:14:04 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Thanks Walt for explaining that. I knew they were cracked, but not the
exact why. I never got over seeing those massive plates on the outer
wing panels. Just seemed like more madness of the Vietnam war...

--snip--

Not at all related to the "madness"--simply a fact of life that metal
can only be flexed so many times before it fatigues. We had the
reinforced wings at Torrejon while I was flogging F-4Cs from '73 to
'77. Hardly noticed them after a while.

A fact of life that the U.S. government can't supply the people that
defend it with something more than a patched up worn out airframe?


I checked out in the F-4C at Luke in April/May of '72, then went to
E-models at Korat. The C at Luke was more than adequate to do the job
although I would have liked consistent switchology with the airplane I
was going to fly combat in. Still, I managed to cope without too much
trouble.

After leaving Korat, I flew C's at Torrejon for four years, from '73
through '77. The C was certainly not "worn out" by a long shot and
because of the relative simplicity of the weapons system (no WRCS,
TISEO, TREE, LES, etc.) it had a higher in-commission rate than D's in
England or E's in Germany at that time. We had responsibility in USAFE
for the NATO Southern Region, and were more than 1/3rd deployed
continually.

We did nuke alert in Aviano and Incirlik, air defense in Spain and on
other deployments, ground attack wherever necessary and led the force
in development of anti-ship tactics.

The C with it's wing fold hinge patches was a long way from "worn out"
and the patches weren't atypical regarding fixes for a lot of various
types and models of aircraft.

When tactical aircraft cost multiple millions apiece and when the
taxpayers deserve to get the maximum bang for their bucks and when the
Congress is reluctant to approve lots of new spending, it isn't really
a bad decision.