VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION

Daryl Hunt schrieb:
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

Just because the F-4 was a fighter-bomber doesn't mean it was ever
called "FB-4". The F-15 is a fighter-bomber as well, and it isn't called
"FB-15" either.

Andreas

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:21:07 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

So MD/Boeing would know all about the FB-4 Phantom, right? From a search
using Boeing's own search engine at http://search-www2.boeing.com/:

The search results are he http://preview.tinyurl.com/2hpnpg

Your search - FB-4 - did not match any documents.
No pages were found containing "FB-4".

Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.



Copyright © Boeing. All rights reserved.

-----

I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once
again.

If you call me giving cites that contradict the thing's you're saying as
help, then I guess I am.

I thought you had given up on that.

I'm still partial to the truth. You?

Well, you just got demoted back to the dismal 404thk00ks.

Is there a secret handshake I have to learn?

Nice job.

Thank you.

You are now wide open for any and all criticism that comes their way.

Okay.

Guess you will never learn.

Learn what, hanging on to an idea despite all contradictory evidence that
proves I'm wrong? I guess I never will.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:




McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
wrong and you are right?

Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time
or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4
nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F,
G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions.

The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the
SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

Well let's see......

If we accept that the Phantom ever carried a designation "FB-4", then there
must have been a collateral "FB-105"....(and I sure never heard of that
bird).

Now, there was that short lived F4H.....

TMO

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:




McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
wrong and you are right?

Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time
or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4
nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F,
G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions.

The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the
SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

As per usual, Daryl is so BUSTED yet again!

- nilita

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article et,
mumbled
----------
In article
. net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
publishing
it to the web.

Actually, that's not true.

Are you saying one can post current classified publications on the
net
and not get in trouble ?

I can see you are trying to twist things into the other person
showing
some
kind of weakness. Now, put your EID kit away and go play somewhere
else
or
dummy up a bit more. Classifications change faster than the wind
direction.


Sure daryl, twist it anyway you like.

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of
the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess
you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke
loaded
Phantom. He's already stated he has. But, again, don't let facts get
in
the way of you recycling your lies. You and Leturd must go drinking
together soon.

There is no question that F-4's darried nukes.
The point of contention was your claim they were called "FB-4"

No one every supported that claim.

McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
wrong and you are right?

They certainly did call it that.
So why can't you show us where it had the designation FB-4 in USAF
service.


Standard 404thk00k 3rd grade debating as usual.

I ask simple questions.
Not my fault you can not asnwer them without making an ass of yourself.


--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
nk.net...
In article ,
mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news In article ,

mumbled

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
ink.net...
In article
. net,
mumbled
----------
In article
. net,
Tankfixer
wrote:

In a follow-up, FAS noted that there are errors in the
guide
concerning the
dimensions of US aircraft. Not only was the recognition
guide
needlessly
restricted, but that restriction may have prevented it
from
being
accurate.


Needlessly restricted ?
That's odd as it can be ordered by any unit with a
publications
account
with USAPA

It was at least classified FOUO, possibly secret. You can
look
up
the
post
at www.fas.org and see their Secrecy and Government
Bulletin.

It is FOUO.
If it were classified secret FAS would have been closed for
publishing
it to the web.

You can't request classified publications from USAPA.
While FAS does at time do a pretty good job they are prone to
hype
things.

The original debate was about AC Recognition. Now, you don't
know a
damned
thing about that so you try to move it away into your area of
expertise;
trolling on a non related subject.

Actually he mistakenly tried to claim the publication is
classified.
I pointed out it can be ordered by any unit with an account with
USAPA.


You are a odd one to throw rocks concerning aircraft recognition,
since
you clam to have seen P-38 over Colorado in squadron strength in
the
mid
1950's
A neat trick since they left squadron service in the late 40's.




The fact is, you would be the first to bag a F-4 mistaking it
for a
Mig-21
while the AF, Navy, Marine and Army Flyers will be the last to
make
that
mistake. But those mistakes were made regardless. So you think
it's
easy?
Don't volunteer for AC Spotter for our side. You will do us
better
to
go
over to the other side and help them.

P-38...

Tell us again daryl...

And you have yet to show me wrong. Now, I suggest you provide the
proof
that
I was incorrect once and for all. But that would curtail your EID
attacks,
now wouldn't it, Achmed.

Any number of people pointed out actual USAF documents that showed the
P38 left unit service in the late 1940's.

And you know that there were no P-38s left in ANY Air Guard Unit
anywhere in
1953? I was told during Tech School that there were NO C-124
Globemasters
left in the Active Duty AF and to just learn enough to pass the test.
The
instructors said they just didn't get the time to get it out of the
coriculum. Guess what, a few years later, I was at Elmendorf AFB, AK up
to
my asses with two of them. And the Actives kept a whole lot better
records
and new AC than the Air Guards did back then. But don't let a little
paperwork get in your way of a good lie.

Not my fault you got exiled to Alaska.
Not suprising given your abrasive nature.




If you are too dense to admit the facts it's not my fault.

And you visited each and every Air Guard Unit in 1953 to verify this
fact?
Hell, kid you weren't even a gleem in your daddy's eye yet.

So it should be fairly easy for you to cite which Guard unit was still
flying them in squadron strenght in 1953..



Simple fact is if there were any in squadron service in the mid-50's
you
could easily provide the unti they were assigned to.

LOL, you sure believe in everything you read on the internet. Of course,
only those items that bolster your fairytale.

Since my sources include the USAF site at Maxwell you might wish to
reconsider your bluster.

Nope, your site only cites what was in the ACTIVE DUTY Air Force and has
nothing to do with the Air National Guard during the early 50s. You are
just lying to suit your own story.

You keep it up, even in the face of other folks telling you that you are
wrong.

Are you familiar with how Air Guard units get equipment and from whom
they get it ?



--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

In article ,
mumbled

"Yeff" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:07:54 -0700, Daryl Hunt wrote:

"Tankfixer" wrote in message
news

snip

While you are at it tell us again about the FB-4 nuclear bombers of the
1960's.

LOL, you have already been blown out of the water on that one. Guess
you
are just recycling your old lies. Ask Ed if he ever was on a Nuke
loaded
Phantom.

Yes, let's ask Ed. From Google http://preview.tinyurl.com/2h5fw5 when
Ed
wrote the following:

The 401st TFW out of Torrejon conducted most of the rotational support
for the Victor mission out of Incirlik, although over the years of the
cold war there were a lot of tactical aircraft that sat alert with
nukes. Torrejon F-4s were originally E-models, but the wing converted
to C's in '73 in a rearrangement of all the USAFE F-4s to standardize
E's in Germany, D's in England and the C wing in Spain. I sat Victor
in an F-4C, but never heard it referred to as an FB or BF.

He's already stated he has.

Yes, he's stated that he sat alert in an F-4C and never heard of it
referred to as an FB-4.

But, again, don't let facts get in the way of you recycling your lies.

He's recycling the very things you yourself have said.

Yes he is. And he's trying to hide the fact he's just a low level troll.
Besides, I guess the Fighter/Bomber designation from MD says they haven't a
clue to the own AC usage is supposed to be.

You mean the F-110A ?
Or the F-4C
Or the F-4D and E ? The F-4B being a USN aircraft

Fact is daryl when you start down this path folks might start to think
perhaps you never were in the USAF.


I can see that you are coming to their aid since they are cornered once
again. I thought you had given up on that. Well, you just got demoted back
to the dismal 404thk00ks. Nice job. You are now wide open for any and all
criticism that comes their way. Guess you will never learn.


Fact is daryl Yeff pulled up a quote from someone who was there and
actually flew the aircraft.
I'm sorry it does not agree with what passes for fact in your universe.

--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."

In message , TMOliver
writes
Well let's see......

If we accept that the Phantom ever carried a designation "FB-4", then there
must have been a collateral "FB-105"....(and I sure never heard of that
bird).

Plus the FB-106 (what, you couldn't use improvise and use Genie as an
air-to-ground weapon? Fire to get an airburst over desired target?)

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


Paul J. Adam - mainbox{at}jrwlynch[dot]demon(dot)codotuk

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:39:38 -0700, "Daryl Hunt"
wrote:




McDonnell Douglas classed it as a Fighter/Bomber. Do you mean they are
wrong and you are right?

Despite a role as a "Fighter/Bomber" the Phantom was NEVER at any time
or by any using nation identified with either a FB-4 or BF-4
nomenclature. That includes, but is not limited to F-4B, C, D, E, F,
G, J, K, S and RF-4 versions.

The only application in the modern era of the FB nomenclature was the
SAC version of the Aardvark, the FB-111.

I have never stated that the US Air Force EVER used the term FB-4. But we
both know that the 4 comes at the end of a time that a Fighter/Bomber was
classed just that way. Of course, it was also the first Multirolled Fighter
that all others follow even today. But it's more than a bit of a stretch
not to include it as a bomber as well as a fighter since it did both roles
equally well depending on the loadout.

BTW, Ed, the 404thk00ks also stated that there was nothing ever named with a
FB yet there were more than a few. All I have stated is that the 4 met the
criteria of a FB at the time it was introduced and even MD classed it as a
FB originally.