"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 03:13:14 GMT, Buzzer wrote:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 21:59:36 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam.

What you just wrote makes no sense. If the crew was "ham-fisted" then
they over-G'd or "pulled" the pod off. If they "blew" the pod, that
would mean jettisoned by cart-firing. Were they "ham-index-fingered"
in actuating the toggle switch?

Makes sense to me if you hadn't clipped what Mike wrote and I replied
to..

"On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:49:34 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Why y'all respond to the dreaded "tarv troll" is beyond me!
In any event, Chad, you're absolutely correct that flightline troops
make mistakes. But the good folks in St. Louis at the McDonnell
Douglas plant have a few scruples to speak of and you can rest
assurred that they designed the F-4's ECM pod with hamfisted
pilots and/or hairy-assed line mechanics in mind.

"Hamfisted" crew from Ubon in early 1967 blew a pod off a pylon over
North Vietnam."

What Mike wrote is fine, but doesn't relate to the comment. The design
of the mount, bolts, links, suspension gear, whatever, is a good point
of discussion, but doesn't have a thing to do with the comment you
repeat. How does the crew (ham-fisted or not) blowing a pod, i.e.
intentionally jettisoning, relate to the discussion of someone
"pulling" the pod off by over-G?

What Mike wrote was a personal insult, perhaps as a means for covering for
his own ignorance.

Certainly racks, tanks, panels and
more have been bent, mangled, strained, and disconnected from the
aircraft by over-G, but we are talking about a pod coming off by
over-G, a "ham-fisted" crew being the cause, and the difference
between "blowing" the pod--an intentional act and ripping it off
through exceeding the design limits. Kapish?

That would seem to be a rather childish attempt by a pilot to cover for his
own negligence.