Vandalism, security measure, or something else?

"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

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

"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?

[...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet. You
have a better theory?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:

To show compliance with some treaty?

[...] umm, probably not

I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.
You
have a better theory?

There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
[...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
[...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You
prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

No, I have no theory to propose, but the one that was put forth was a
non-starter. Why, is there something inherently wrong with debunking an
obviously incorrect theory? This was not a personal attack--it just pointed
out that the theory was unworkable.

Brooks

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...
[...] it is a non-starter in the case of the C-141.

I assume that, like Chris, you have no better theory to propose? You
prefer
to just pooh pooh suggestions put forth by others?

It some cases the "theory" is so far from reasonable as to require it.

If you must have a "better" guess try go with this one: the planes no
longer belong to the Air Force but to a scrapper and the markings
that proclaimed them as such had to be defaced and some bubba
determined the quickest & easiest way to do so was by stabbing
some bit of a big machine through the markings.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...


"Chris Schmelzer" wrote in message
...


In article ,
"Peter Gottlieb" wrote:



To show compliance with some treaty?


[...] umm, probably not


I dunno...Peter's guess is the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.


You


have a better theory?



There are treaties covering strategic delivery systems--the C-141 is not
one. There is a treaty covering conventional forces in Europe--C-141's are
not covered. There is no "Big Honking Cargo Plane Reduction Treaty". The
treaty compliance approach would be viable for things like the B-52 (where
they use that big guillotine to prove beyond a doubt that the Buff in
question is not going to be flying anymore); it is a non-starter in the case
of the C-141.

Brooks




Very obvious so mother Russia can verify from space. Leaves no doubt if
a B-52's wings are laying next to the fuselage.

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

Whoops, I take that back. All going to the furnace had their markings
painted over. Time to scratch my head a little more.

In article , Mark and Kim Smith
wrote:

After WWII, surplus planes were parked at Cal Aero Field for melting
down. Those to be sold off had markings painted over. Maybe something
along those lines?? Although, putting holes through the skin couldn't
make any buyer happy!

The wing spar (box?) problems wouldn't make any buyer happy either.

--
Bob Noel