The Cellar  

Go Back   The Cellar > Main > Nothingland
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Nothingland Something about nothing - game threads, diversions, time-wasters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-26-2007, 07:51 PM   #1
Elspode
When Do I Get Virtual Unreality?
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Raytown, Missouri
Posts: 12,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaggieL View Post
How about because it was flown by a sitting US president?

So far only Bush 41, Bush 43 and Eisenhower had pilot's licences, and Eisenhower gave up flying after WWII. A Stearman PT-17 flown by Bush 41 is in a museum in Florida.

I also recall seeing a TBM Avenger at EAA Oshkosh restored to the colors of the plane Bush 41 flew in WWII, although the original aircraft was lost during the war.
So, are you cool with this because:

A) You're a pilot
B) You're a fan of Bush
C) You think that "Mission Accomplished" was a valid and non PR-based statement
D) All or none of the above

Bush flies in Air Force One all the time. Should it be retired? What about all the other aircraft he flew during his illustrious military career? Are those headed for the Udvar-Hazy Center as we speak?

Unless this $27 Million aircraft was done with anyway (citation for cost here, because I know someone will challenge that), was that such a momentous occasion that it merits parking it on the aeronautical version of a scrapbook instead of letting it continue to serve the taxpayers?
__________________
"To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog
Elspode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2007, 12:08 AM   #2
MaggieL
in the Hour of Scampering
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia)
Posts: 4,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspode View Post
Bush flies in Air Force One all the time. Should it be retired? What about all the other aircraft he flew during his illustrious military career? Are those headed for the Udvar-Hazy Center as we speak?
They's a difference between flying *in* a plane and *flying* a plane, or we'd all have ATP certificates. And I doubt any of the TX ANG's F-102 escaped the scrap heap long ago, even though none of them were flown by sitting presidents.


You researched the original $27M so thoroughly you may have missed this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
As the surviving S-3 airframes were forced into sundown, a Lockheed Martin full scale fatigue test was performed and extended the service life of the aircraft by approximately 11,000 hours. The current Navy plans call for the retirement of all Vikings by 2009 so new aircraft can be introduced to recapitalize the aging fleet inventory. Their missions will be spread among the other battlegroup fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft. During FIDAE 2006 aerospace and defense trade show, the US Navy offered retired airframes to the navies of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Peru, with deliveries beginning in 2009.
Somehow I doubt Chile is about to pop $27M for any of these. Sure, the "unit cost" (presumably the entire program cost divided by the number of airframes delivered) was $27M...in 1974. There's a scrutload of S-3s sitting in the desert at Davis-Monthan, I hope you feel similar outrage about them not serving the taxpayers, too.
__________________
"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..."


Last edited by MaggieL; 01-27-2007 at 12:30 AM.
MaggieL is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.