Survivability in Combat

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
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.

Hmm, a bit of inconsistency between these two statements, George?

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.....so, please tell me it
isn't
so, and let's move on to something else.

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Cub Driver wrote:
That said, shall we move on?

Sure. I wasn't a military pilot either. In fact, I'm not much of a
civilian pilot either.

My own biography is online at www.warbirdforum.com/dan.htm

What does the middle initial stand for--Zounds? Zulu?

Whatever rings your chimes.....it's a family secret. (^-^))))

Zebulon, Zebedee, Zacharias, Zerottenschwein... :^)

I'll never tell. (^-^))

George Z.

John Keeney wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
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.

Hmm, a bit of inconsistency between these two statements, George?

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.....so, please tell me it
isn't so, and let's move on to something else.

I plead guilty, John. And if there's anything I'm well known for, it's my
inconsistencies. Please forgive me my sins....it's just hell when you get
carried away! (^-^)))

George Z.

Bob McKellar wrote:
I've got all you weinies beat: not only was I not a military pilot,
but I've crashed twice. FWIW, I am an AFB.

But I've never heard of Mortimer Schnerd Air Force Base!


You should have; I think it has a nice ring to it. In this case however, AFB is
"Air Force Brat".



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

"George Z. Bush" wrote:

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.

Given my "collision" with him earlier this year and a little "lecture" on
"only military people can understand", he'd damn well *better* have a
military background!

I'd presumed he was military (F-102?) with non-combat experience.

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? (^-^)))

And my Dad! (22nd TCS in Japan by retirement; I'd always read those MATS guys
could fly circles around the SAC boys!!)

This is a military aviation NG so anything about the subject is valid.
Personalities, planes, policies and experiences.

Dudley has a lot of good stuff to say about this subject, and until someone
exposes him as a phony, he'll have high credibility for me in this subject.

You don't have to like the guy or think much of his personality to like what
he writes.

That said, shall we move on?

Geez George, we agree for once!!


SMH

monkey wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

"We're supposed to sit here awestruck at the Fighter Pilot Fellowship".
Since I really don't want people to be "awestruck" by my use of the term
"fighter pilot", and since I am a civilian, I will allow myself a friendly
response to this since it does show some ambiguity and could possibly be
confusing to those not familiar with me and my "history".

Sorry, as far as I'm concerned, you shouldn't be in any "Fighter
Pilots Fellowship" unless you are or were indeed, a fighter pilot.

Just my 2 cents,

A fighter pilot.

As mentioned by another, there could be a lot of gray area in the
definition. It also depends on how the organization wants to define
itself.

A person flying a fighter is a "fighter pilot" in the most general
of ways, so that doesn't seem a conflict to me.

Obviously, a unit based organization, especially one that might have
seen tough times in combat, wouldn't want members who "weren't there",
but a generic sort of organization could have a range of types that
have flown fighters over a broad range of circumstances.

I personally see no reason why a broad based "fighter pilot fellowship"
wouldn't want people with combat, aircraft test and development, general
operations and even air show circuit (entertainment???) backgrounds.

If you saw combat experience in a certain type of aircraft, wouldn't
you be thrilled to have a Bob Hoover or what's his name (famous P-38 test
pilot) be a member of your organization?

Heck, why not even throw in some of the maintenance types that kept
those fighters in the air?


SMH

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:38:43 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote:

monkey wrote:
Like I said before, dud, you shouldn't be in any fellowship for
"fighter pilots" unless that's what you are/were.


Therein lies the conundrum: were you a fighter pilot if you flew P-51s on the
airshow circuit? The Mustang was most definitely a fighter. Were you only a
fighter pilot if you flew fighters for a military service? Or only if you've
fired your guns in anger?

I agree, it is...and while I can't stand the gasbag I hate to see
an injustice done (if it is indeed being done). About the only
authorities qualified to speak are former or current military
fighter pilots. (IMO). I wonder what Ed thinks? Perhaps dude
could ask him?

-Gord.

Well, since you asked...the long answer can be found in Chapter 16 of
When Thunder Rolled. The chapter title is "Pilots Flying Fighters" and
refers to the truism that assignment to a fighter does not make one a
fighter pilot.

The short answer is that being a "fighter pilot" is a state of mind;
an attitude about life and achievement. While I was operations officer
in the 613th TFS in Spain, I had a young FAIP (First Assignment
Instructor Pilot--plow-back into training command instructing in
undergraduate pilot training) show up in the squadron with a nametag
declaring himself "Jim Teak--Fighter Pilot".

I explained to him that he might be flying a fighter, but he would be
a fighter pilot when other folks told him that he was. That remains a
good criteria for donning the mantle. In the meantime, I suggested
that his name tag was misspelled and poorly punctuated. It should have
read: "Jim, ---Weak Fighter Pilot". And, from that day forward, his
nickname was Weak. He wore it proudly and eventually was recognized as
a Fighter Pilot.

As for Dudley, despite his initial intemperate reaction to Dan's
question, I think that he has enough experience flying tactical
aircraft and the acknowledgement of enough fighter pilots throughout
the US military community to be able to associate his name freely with
the Fellowship. If Fighter Pilots call you a Fighter Pilot, then, by
my definition you are one.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message .com...
Bob McKellar wrote:
I've got all you weinies beat: not only was I not a military pilot,
but I've crashed twice. FWIW, I am an AFB.

But I've never heard of Mortimer Schnerd Air Force Base!


You should have; I think it has a nice ring to it. In this case however, AFB is
"Air Force Brat"

Mortimer Schnerd AFB - It works as well as a number of others.
After the USAF was the same service that built Dickie Goober AFB.
(Well, O.K., Richards-Gebaur)

And to tie into another thread - Northern Tier Bases aren't/weren't a
pain for just the Missileers. In slightly earlier days, you could
have had the pleasure of, if you were a B-52 or KC-135 guy, being
posted to Garden Spots like Loring AFB (Boring Loring). If there's a
Bright Spot in the Center of the Universe, Loring wasn't near it. (I
can say that - my Wife was born in Caribou. The fact that she married
me shows the lengths that people will go to to leave)

--
Pete Stickney
(On my Coffee Break)

Ed Rasimus wrote:

[snipped for brevity]

The short answer is that being a "fighter pilot" is a state of mind;
an attitude about life and achievement.

By that definition, then Dud is NOT a "fighter pilot." Case in point:
below are a couple of examples showing his attitude about "life
and achievement"....

************************************************** ***********************
"I don't know what the hell your pilot quals are and I frankly don't
give a flying f**k."
************************************************** ***********************

AND...

************************************************** ***********************
"Nobody gives a flying **** what you can fly and what ratings you
have."
************************************************** ***********************

This, from the same guy who proudly includes his OWN pilot quals
and ratings (not to mention his infamous "Fighter Pilot Fellowship"
tagline) on every post he writes?! Go figger...


As for Dudley, despite his initial intemperate reaction to Dan's
question, I think that he has enough experience flying tactical
aircraft and the acknowledgement of enough fighter pilots throughout
the US military community to be able to associate his name freely with
the Fellowship. If Fighter Pilots call you a Fighter Pilot, then, by
my definition you are one.

I can buy that. However, in Dud's case there is a PATTERN of "initial
intemperate reactions" against anyone who refuses to kiss his ass or
whom simply questions or disagrees with him regardless of the topic.
Posting on RAM is an ego thing for Dud (who can forget the time he
went absolutely bonkers and tore you a new one simply for quoting
BFM to him and how DARE you do that since Dud "wrote half the book"
on BFM!) See the pattern yet? Then, after tearing his opponents to
shreds, of course Dud thinks that he should be exempt from being torn
apart himself due to his oft-repeated status as a member of the
"Fighter Pilot Fellowship."

On 9 Dec 2003 05:43:59 GMT, Clark stillnospam@me wrote:

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

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.

How can you separate the engine from the aircraft?

With a wrench???

Al Minyard