GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century series
aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to say about
the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

In article ZKTUc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03,
"sanjian" writes:
LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century series
aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to say about
the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Killfiled LawsonE ages ago, but this made we look up the thread. He's
comparing the F-102 aggregate numbers from the Air Force Safety Center
to, for the most part, the F-80, F-84 and F-86. It should be noted
that indeed, while loss rates for the early jet fighters was rather
high, (but no higher than the recip fighters of WW 2), the numbers for
these aircraft apparently include combat losses in Korea. Numbers for
the later aircraft do not include combat losses. It's comparing
apples to bananas.

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

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ZKTUc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03,
"sanjian" writes:
LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series
aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to say
about
the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Killfiled LawsonE ages ago, but this made we look up the thread. He's
comparing the F-102 aggregate numbers from the Air Force Safety Center
to, for the most part, the F-80, F-84 and F-86. It should be noted
that indeed, while loss rates for the early jet fighters was rather
high, (but no higher than the recip fighters of WW 2), the numbers for
these aircraft apparently include combat losses in Korea. Numbers for
the later aircraft do not include combat losses. It's comparing
apples to bananas.

That might be, but that was the specific figure that was used by the website
people have been referring to. In the same way, THAT website likely isn't
referring to combat losses of modern US aircraft either since there have
been virtually none in the past 30 years or so (the stats for the F-102
refer to losses between 1953 and 1981 IIRC), so comparisons to modern
fighters' accident rates aren't directly comparable either (and yet the
website referred to made that comparison to make a point about Bush, so
the nyah, etc).

Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an example, to
me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just Michael Moore) in this
election. The F-102, at least in the website stats I found, had no worse,
and mainly better, an accident record, than other fighter jets of that same
generation, so pointing to its stats as something to crow about regarding
Bush's bravery or lack thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to
learn to fly the plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does
anyone really think that he did?

The F-102, at least in the website stats I found, had no worse,
and mainly better, an accident record, than other fighter jets of that same
generation, so pointing to its stats as something to crow about regarding
Bush's bravery or lack thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to
learn to fly the plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does
anyone really think that he did?

He chose the unit because it was close to home.

LawsonE wrote:

Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an
example, to me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just
Michael Moore) in this election. The F-102, at least in the website
stats I found, had no worse, and mainly better, an accident record,

Unfortuantely, people fly and die in real aircraft, not websites.

than other fighter jets of that same generation, so pointing to its
stats as something to crow about regarding Bush's bravery or lack
thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to learn to fly the
plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does anyone
really think that he did?

People don't choose to go into combat because it's dangerous, either. They
choose to accept the inherent danger. I didn't choose to work in a steam
plant because I thought dying in a steam rupture or uncontrollable Class
Bravo fire sounded like fun.

However, the point isn't Bush's courage, but rather the inability for him to
be both stupid, and a living F-102 pilot... at least not for very long.

"sanjian" wrote in message
news:MicVc.7978$ni.1048@okepread01...
LawsonE wrote:

Mind you, I don't think its relevant either way, but it was an
example, to me, of how everyone is indulging in spin (not just
Michael Moore) in this election. The F-102, at least in the website
stats I found, had no worse, and mainly better, an accident record,

Unfortuantely, people fly and die in real aircraft, not websites.

than other fighter jets of that same generation, so pointing to its
stats as something to crow about regarding Bush's bravery or lack
thereof is kinda silly. He obviously didn't chose to learn to fly the
plane because he thought it was the MOST dangerous, or does anyone
really think that he did?

People don't choose to go into combat because it's dangerous, either.
They
choose to accept the inherent danger. I didn't choose to work in a steam
plant because I thought dying in a steam rupture or uncontrollable Class
Bravo fire sounded like fun.

However, the point isn't Bush's courage, but rather the inability for him
to
be both stupid, and a living F-102 pilot... at least not for very long.



*I* never made the claim that Bush is stupid. Dyslexic perhaps, and
excruciatingly ill-informed about the world (or so some of his public
comments in other countries suggest), but never stupid. He survived living
in his father's household --that's at least as demanding as being an F-102
pilot, I'll wager.

In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

-- Why do you rightwingers post nonsense when so many know better?

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04,
writes:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more
suitable for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and
QF-104s that preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its
contemporaries?

If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and
fatalities, you'd see that there were much safer options than flying
any sort of fighter available in that same timeframe. There were
National Guard units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124
transports, which were at least an order of magnitude (As in to the
10th power) safer than any fighter. Or he could have been flying the
Squadron administrative aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that
time, with comfy seats, a coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself.
And, to head off the next question, no, you don't have to be a
Resident of a State to be in a particular National Guard unit. Much
of, if not most of, the Vermont National Guard is made up of people
from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and New York. (VT is the only state
with Armored units in the Northeast. If you want to be a tanker,
that's where you go.) There was nothing stopping him, or anybody
else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with the Tennesee,
Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying the big
lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make all
sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC
schedule, and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid
than you have to be.

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

Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
because that's where he had the political connections to get in the day he
needed to.










In , on 08/19/2004
at 10:12 AM, (Peter Stickney) said:

In article 7QYUc.6516$_w.5361@trndny04,
writes:
In Zktuc.25886$Yf6.21127@lakeread03, on 08/18/2004
at 09:53 PM, "sanjian" said:

LawsonE wrote:
"sanjian" wrote in message
news:5TFUc.25508$Yf6.18570@lakeread03...
[...]
I'd like to see him survive flying one of the most dangerous
aircraft in US military history.



Not hardly: according to the site referred to, the F-102 was bad
compared to MODERN fighters, but compared to other models from that
time period? It was one of the safest US fighter jet to fly for many
years, at least on average. Given that bit of spin on this site, I'd
take the rest of what it says with a grain or two of salt also.

I'll take the word of the Air Force Colonel who explained the century
series aircraft to me back in the early '90s. He had few kind things to
say about the F-102 other than it separates the wheat from the chaffe.

Nonsense. -- If the F-102 was so dangerous to fly -- then how come it
was so easy to rig with automatic controls that could take it off and fly
it as drone? -- That's where most of them went -- target practice in
combat with our best -- all under remote control. E.g., that means it was
*easy to fly and *stable. (Or course you should have known that before
now, since duba did it).

Politically, I don't have a dog in this fight. (But you're doing a
damned good job of convincing me) So let's put it on an objective,
factual basis. If the F-102 was so much easier than its Century Series
brethren, adn the jet fighters that preceded it, and thus more suitable
for drone work, how does that explain the QF-80s, QF-86s and QF-104s that
preceded it into service? Or the QF-100s that were its contemporaries?

If you were to go and research the numbers for accidents, and fatalities,
you'd see that there were much safer options than flying any sort of
fighter available in that same timeframe. There were National Guard
units in the South who were flying C-97 and C-124 transports, which were
at least an order of magnitude (As in to the 10th power) safer than any
fighter. Or he could have been flying the Squadron administrative
aircraft - usually a T-29 or C-47 at that time, with comfy seats, a
coffee pot, and no chance of hurting itself. And, to head off the next
question, no, you don't have to be a Resident of a State to be in a
particular National Guard unit. Much of, if not most of, the Vermont
National Guard is made up of people from New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
and New York. (VT is the only state with Armored units in the Northeast.
If you want to be a tanker, that's where you go.) There was nothing
stopping him, or anybody else, from getting a nice, safe, comfy slot with
the Tennesee, Georgia, Mississippi or South Carolina Guard units flying
the big lifters. Hell - if he did, then he could, if he so desired, make
all sorts of true claims about flying into Viet Nam during the war - The
Guard and Reserve Airlift units were a regular part of the MAC schedule,
and made regular trips to Viet Nam and Thailand.

If you want to make a point, make a point. but don't be more stupid than
you have to be.

wrote:
Stop your nonsene -- and non sequiturs. bush went to the texas ANG
because that's where he had the political connections to get in the
day he needed to.

And we see reason come to a screeching halt. Pete explains something to
you, and all you can do is dismiss it as nonsense and repeat your same old
diatribe. I wonder your inability to accept facts that don't fit your
assumptions has anything to do with your never progressing in political
understanding.