GWB has been a good Commander-in-Chief

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.