Vandalism, security measure, or something else?

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

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

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

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

Pete

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

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

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

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

Look's like you're right.

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

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

In article ,
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote:

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

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

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

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

Look's like you're right.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Pete

A loooong time ago when the F-111B prototype was at DM, there was some graffiti
on it, and I quote: "F#%k the Navy"
Don't know when or where it got added.
This was about '76 and the a/c was barely a hulk back then.

Oxmoron1
MFE

In article , OXMORON1
wrote:

A loooong time ago when the F-111B prototype was at DM, there was some
graffiti
on it, and I quote: "F#%k the Navy"
Don't know when or where it got added.
This was about '76 and the a/c was barely a hulk back then.

Oxmoron1
MFE

There were seven F-111B's around at one point and at least two of them
are still hulks out at China Lake. Some photo's located here.

http://www.air-and-space.com/2002062...tage%20aircraf
t.htm

I've been in squadrons that Maint Control would promise 152715 would be
ready for the afternoon go I'm kinda surprised the Naval Aviation
Museum has not claimed one of these.

Pugs

To show compliance with some treaty?


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message

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

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

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

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

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?



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

umm, probably not

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

Like what?

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

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

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

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

-jake

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

Sanding, stripping, beadblasting, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

Pete