Survivability in Combat

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.

You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his
identification
with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he
doesn't
want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a test
pilot
for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little embarrassed by
his
failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of stuff with his
name on
it, but absent in every one of them is any reference to military service.

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
trying
to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become aware
of
what he'd rather we not know about him.

In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on
those
subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run him
off
for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us Troop
Carrier
pilots, can we? (^-^)))

Sorry there ole'buddy; like most posts of this kind, you're way off base.
Air Force. Non pilot. Public record galore. Unrelated to flying history
which came later so no need to expand.
All the best anyway :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Ed Rasimus wrote:
(Kirk Stant) wrote:

Sorry Art, but I have to go with jets, and fast ones at that. The
record is pretty solid during Korea and Vietnam, jets were a LOT more
survivable than piston - powered aircraft. In Vietnam, the good old
A-1 had the highest loss rate of any USAF combat aircraft.

That would be a surprise to me. Hobson indicates 201 USAF losses of
A-1s and 65 USN losses. He indicates 397 losses of F-105s and 573
losses of F-4s (both USAF and USN).

Speaking of combat loss rates, just a quick anecdote: Dad recalled
one hellish mission that he and three other A-1E's flew in 1966...he
limped back to base (shot up) *alone*.

On a related note, here's a brief excerpt from one of Dad's letters
home, dated 9, Aug, 1966:

"I guess it's humorous; we have lost so damn many airplanes
that we are getting more time off than we are used to. I am reading
Tolstoy's, "Anna Karenina." In my spare time and at night I have
been devouring books at a fantastic rate. I guess it takes your
mind off everything and gets you to think of other things. If you sat
and pined away for home all the time you would go batty in a
short time. I saw one major who let things get carried away and
he was all curled up in the pre-natal position listening to tapes
from home. I know these were old tapes but he plays them over
and over. It just isn't healthy. I don't mean to say that I can't
understand it I just don't think it does any good to go asiatic.
Like in that book and movie; sometimes you can hear the world
hum...."

If we're talking "rate" as losses per sorties flown, my candidate for
the highest rate would be the F-111 with 11 losses for a very brief
pair of combat deployments.

We might also have to bracket a bit to get meaningful stats, since
there were considerably different loss rates for various types at
different periods and in different areas.

Regardless, I'll agree that fast is better than slow in virtually all
circumstances. Fast gets you through gun sectors more quickly, fast
lets you move out of prediction for aimed fire more quickly, fast lets
you maneuver to counter missiles more quickly and fast lets you
counter enemy aircraft attacks more effectively. Not much can be said
for going slow and even in a slow aircraft the tacit assumption is
that you are going as fast as you can.

Doubtful anyone here would disagree that "fast is better." However,
when it comes to loitering with intent; e.g: interdiction, close air
support, air and surface escorts, armed reconnaissance and search
and rescue, nothing at the time could perform these critical duties
better than the slow, prop-driven A-1. According to Dad, it wasn't
just that the A-1 was relatively slow -- it was also the extremely
low altitudes and the tactics developed by the 602nd commander
of flying directly_into_the_enemies_gunsights so as to suppress
fire that also contributed to the A-1's high loss rate.

Having said that, low and slow or not, ISTR Dad mentioning
something about some "plan" to actually win the war using A-1's
*exclusively* -- had they been allowed to set aside the asinine
ROE.

Yeff wrote:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.

You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?

-Jeff B.

While I've seen one *hell* of a lot that he 'has' said about
himself I don't think I've ever heard him say that he wasn't
military Jeff...you got even one cite?...he's still one of the
most obnoxious blowhard windbags that I've ever seen, bar none.

But even more disgusting is his obviously desperate squirmings to
cover his errors so as to avoid admitting to them...this latest
effort of his takes the prize...tried to ascribe ownership of
HIS statement to ME...miserable little prick...

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Clark stillnospam@me wrote:


" One plane is equipped with a radial engine,. let's say an R-2800. The
other with a jet engine. Which plane would have a better chance of survival
inder [sic] these conditions?"

It seems to me that the question is indeed "which plane" not "which engine."

Yes 'literally' that is the question of course but the 'intent'
of the question is to test the 'engine' I'd say.

--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship
From: Yeff
Date: 12/8/03 8:23 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0500, George Z. Bush wrote:

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us
become aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.

You mean I was imagining all those times he said he *wasn't* military?

-Jeff B.
yeff at erols dot com


People often hear what they want to hear rather than what is actually there.
(sigh)

Regards,


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Subject: Fighter Pilot Fellowship (was: something else entirely)
From: "Dudley Henriques"
Date: 12/8/03 8:48 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: . net


"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his
identification
with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he
doesn't
want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a test
pilot
for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little embarrassed by
his
failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of stuff with his
name on
it, but absent in every one of them is any reference to military service.

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
trying
to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become aware
of
what he'd rather we not know about him.

In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on
those
subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run him
off
for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us Troop
Carrier
pilots, can we? (^-^)))

Sorry there ole'buddy; like most posts of this kind, you're way off base.
Air Force. Non pilot. Public record galore. Unrelated to flying history
which came later so no need to expand.
All the best anyway :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace

Dudley,

Your replies are more gentlemanly than your critics deserve. I don't know if
you were an officer, but you certainly are a gentleman unlike many of your foul
mouthed critics.

Regards,



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

I personally don't give a rat's ass what kind of fighter planes you may or may
not have flown, or for whom, or with whom. The fact that you use that tag line
infers that you've done something to feel entitled to call yourself one. The
initial request seemed rather innocent to me, and I didn't detect any hostility
in it. Unfortunately, you managed to overreact in your obviously defensive
response to it and stirred up the **** storm that ensued.

Well said, George. I couldn't care less if he flew fighters as a
civilian airshow and test pilot. I'm convinced that the reason
Henriques is so defensive and arrogant is because he thinks
that due to the fact he simply happened to fly fighter aircraft,
the fact that he did so automatically makes him above reproach
and not to be questioned or challenged in any manner. Not
unlike Kramer, the man is a legend in his own mind who suffers
terribly from delusions of grandeur!

Personally, I think most of you one-fan fliers have been exposed to too many Gs
in your flying careers, with the obvious damaging effect to your gray matter.
But that's another argument for another time. (^-^)))

Or in Henrique's case, too many minutes exposed at high altitude with
a loose-fitting O2 mask.

George Z.
C-45, C-46, C-47, C-53, C-54, EC-121, UC-78, T-6, B-25 and enjoyed every minute
in every one of them, and apologize for none because that's what I was ordered
to do and I did the best I could and am here to tell you about it.

PS - Of course, if you never flew any kind of fighter plane for the military,
then you are a phony and don't belong in this NG.....

Exactly right! Having said that, I must admit that when I logon to RAM
(which I've been doing for almost a decade now) Ed Rasimus' posts
always get read first. I only click on a "Henriques" or a "Kramer"
blowhard post if I'm bored because without Ed, this NG would probably
wither away to just a shell of what it is today with Ed around. Kramer
and Henriques can post all they wish, but as far as THIS military brat
is concerned; Kramer couldn't possibly get any more mileage out of
his bombardier experiences nor can Henriques get any more mileage
out of his experiences as a civilian who happened to fly military
airplanes.

On 08 Dec 2003 15:45:39 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

ED,

That begs the question. The question was not which is better in combat, fast or
slow. Nor was it do fast planes suffer fewer losses than slow planes. The
question was do radials have a higher survivability rate once hit than jet
engines? That was the question.

Regards,

Arthur Kramer

I thought the question was to generate discussion.

Well, if the question is "do radials have a higher survivability rate
once hit than jet engines" then I've still got to have more
information. Are you asking if the engine is hit or the airframe that
the engine propels? I'll assume you just mean engine.

What is it hit by? Small arms, large bore AAA, SAMs (large or MANPAD),
A/A cannon fire (what caliber)? It makes a difference.

Radials are known for taking a lot of punishment, with entire jugs
being blown and still pushing. Similarly large turbojets aren't so
very FOD sensitive. The turbine blades of J-75s used to be polished by
running the engine and shoveling pecan shells into the intake. The
front stage compressor blades had considerable play so that they
rattle like tin cans falling when the engine spools down. Current
hi-bypass turbofans have even more room for stuff to pass through.

Take a hit in the compressor and maybe you loss it or maybe you don't.
Take a hit in the turbine and maybe it comes apart or maybe it
doesn't. Take a hit in the burner can and you may not even notice,
unless it takes out fuel lines or hydraulics. It depends.

The simple question without any further information is relatively
meaningless. The choice of answers I can give to the unembelished
basic question a "yes", "no", and "maybe". Pick the one that gives
you the most mileage, but don't take it to the bank. If you don't
define the assumptions, you've got no answer.

Remember GIGO? "Garbage in, garbage out."

Dudley Henriques wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Dan, he's said that he's flown fighters, and that the Fellowship is a real
organization......the only thing notable by its absence is his identification
with any of the military branches, foreign or domestic. But, since he
doesn't want to talk about it any more, my personal guess is that he was a
test pilot for Chance-Vought or Republic or some such and is a little
embarrassed by his failure to wear the uniform. Google has found a lot of
stuff with his name on it, but absent in every one of them is any reference
to military service.

My conclusion, therefore, is that he didn't have any and, by so pointedly
trying to avoid mention of the subject, only succeeded in having us become
aware of what he'd rather we not know about him.

In any case, he's quite obviously quite knowledgable about flying fighter
aircraft and, phony or not, has much to offer his fellow members of RAM on
those subjects, and it would undoubtedly not be in our best interests to run
him off for that minor lack. After all, we can't all be heroes like us
Troop Carrier pilots, can we? (^-^)))

Sorry there ole'buddy; like most posts of this kind, you're way off base.
Air Force. Non pilot. Public record galore. Unrelated to flying history
which came later so no need to expand.
All the best anyway :-)

Now, there....that wasn't painful, was it? If you had merely done that at the
very beginning of this thread in response to that innocent inquiry, we all could
have saved ourselves much time, effort and heartburn. Never too late to learn
that forgetting to drop flaps on landings makes the tires smoke, right? (^-^)))

Have a good one.

George Z.