Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Leave My Gate Guards Alone!  
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3676 times:

At Wright-Patterson AFB there were a pair of F-4s, one with a few Mig kills that had been acting as gate guards outside gate 12A for many many years.

This weekend, these wonderful airplanes were taken down, apparently to be replaced with an F-15 and F-16 next weekend.

Rumor has it, one of the airplanes is off to New Mexico, details are sketchy on that. The other is staying in the custody of the USAF museum until further notice.

Just kind of ticks me off that classics like F-4s, one with a history, are getting replaced by 2 airplanes that never did shit.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/matt45223/PA220041.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/matt45223/PA220075.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/matt45223/PA220016.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/matt45223/PA220087.jpg

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSATL382G From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3666 times:

What they ought to do is leave the mig kill F-4 on the pylon, get rid of the other one, and then put one of the MiG-17s or 21s that AFMC/FTD used to have on the other pylon! Now that would be cool!

Like the pix! Not everyday you see an intact pair of F-4s on trailers..  Smile


User currently offlineLongbowPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 577 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3572 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

That is so true, the F4 is a venerable horse that proved itself in a battle that was an even playing field. The 15's and 16's are aircraft that have yet to meet a FOE that wasn't at a disadvantage. Especially with AMRAAMs and the likes that allow them to play the game versus the real live aerial combat.

I'm a Helicopter Jock, and I'm sure that will piss a few eagle and viper guys off, but when you really think about it. The life expectancy of a Phantom pilot in Vietnam was far less than you guys in the Gulf War or subsequent actions.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12136 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3567 times:

Quoting LongbowPilot (Reply 2):
The 15's and 16's are aircraft that have yet to meet a FOE that wasn't at a disadvantage. Especially with AMRAAMs and the likes that allow them to play the game versus the real live aerial combat.

I flew with F-4s, F-15s and F-16 throughout my USAF career. All are great aircraft. But, please believe me, the F-4 was not playing on an even field during the Vietnam War. At the time, the F-4 was the worlds most advanced fighter. The USN versions and early USAF did have one disadvantage (just ask Randy Cummingham, USN ACE), they didn't have a gun. But, in every other respect, the F-4 easily out classed the Mig-17, 19, and 21s the NVAF had. It was a training issue, with USAF, USMC, and USN pilots that caused F-4s to be shot down by the NVAF fighters. After schools like the USN Topgun and the USAF Fighter Weapons School began turning out crews that learned how to fight their airplanes that the kill ratio between the US and NV began to shift into the US favor.

The F-15 is, most likely, the finest fighter airplane of all time. IIRC, it has a kill ratio of something like 72:0 flying for the IAF, USAF, and RSAF. The F-16 is almost as impressive, with a kill ratio of something like 54:2. The F-14 also has a combat record with the USN and IIAF, but the record is something on the order of 8:2 (the Iragi AF shot down 2 F-14s during the Iran/Iraq War), but the USN crews have a 6:0 score.

BTW, the F-4 has something like a 42:12 kill ratio.

The whole idea of dog fighting, or any fighter kill, is to put your opponent at as much of a disadvantage as possible. So, no matter what US fighter you are in, you do take every advantage you have, airplane, tactics, weather, weapons, training, etc., because that is a fighter pilots job.

Yeah, put the F-4s back on the Wright Pat Gates.


User currently offlineLongbowPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 577 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3557 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
Yeah, put the F-4s back on the Wright Pat Gates.

AGREED.

My father was a Phantom driver and flew in Vietnam and was Weasle before he stepped down. I guess I am biased because I'm used to that ugly, yet gorgeous piece of machinery. I just think removing the Phantom for the Eagles and Vipers is just not right.

I do stand corrected though, thank you.


User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3538 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
The F-15 is, most likely, the finest fighter airplane of all time. IIRC, it has a kill ratio of something like 72:0 flying for the IAF, USAF, and RSAF

It's about 100:0 nowadays.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3436 times:

After 66-7463 (six aerial victories in Southeast Asia) was the subject of a prank at the US Air Force Academy, I question whether the National Museum of the U. S. Air Force can protect any historically significant airplane. #463 was painted in Blue Angels scheme by Naval Academy Midshipmen before the last Navy-Air Force game. The paint was washoff so apparently no permanent damage done. It could be akin to writing on a historical document with a pencil.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4004 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3427 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 5):
It's about 100:0 nowadays

Yeah, but against Syrian pilots it doesn't count...



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineLY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 10
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 7):
Yeah, but against Syrian pilots it doesn't count...

Syrian, Iraqi, Serbian... And what does that supposed to mean anyways? A kill is a kill.


LY744.



Pacifism only works if EVERYBODY practices it
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4004 posts, RR: 28
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3422 times:

Quoting LY744 (Reply 8):
Syrian, Iraqi, Serbian... And what does that supposed to mean anyways? A kill is a kill.

I know it is more than just the Syrians, I was only joking. I guess I have to start making more use of the smilies...

I was referring to the Great Bekaa Valley duck shoot, where the Israelis could even had shot down Syrian Migs with their Fouga Magisters if only they could arm them with slingshots...  spin 



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

Here is the F-16 which may already be on the posts. It is from the NY ANG and spent some time with the OH ANG in Springfield.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-579.html

I just don't see the logic, taking two fighters actually based there down to put up one that wasn't. I guess they could repaint it into the markings of the 906th TFW when they had F-16s based there, but that would be sort of cheesy IMHO.


User currently offlineLongbowPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 577 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 10):
I just don't see the logic, taking two fighters actually based there down to put up one that wasn't. I guess they could repaint it into the markings of the 906th TFW when they had F-16s based there, but that would be sort of cheesy IMHO.

Somebody, somewhere was gunning for a promotion.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3148 times:

Quoting F4wso (Reply 6):
After 66-7463 (six aerial victories in Southeast Asia) was the subject of a prank at the US Air Force Academy, I question whether the National Museum of the U. S. Air Force can protect any historically significant airplane.

Happens all the time at the Naval Academy with the F-4 and A-4's. Get a gaggle of Mids under the jet, raise it off the gear and walk it down the street and up the steps of some building. Happens every few years apparently.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2314 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3084 times:

Quoting F4wso (Reply 6):
After 66-7463 (six aerial victories in Southeast Asia) was the subject of a prank at the US Air Force Academy, I question whether the National Museum of the U. S. Air Force can protect any historically significant airplane.

Back when I went through UPT at Columbus AFB, we had a T-37 up on a pylon. It was the job of each new incoming class to covertly change the tail numbers to match the class number. I'm sure that sort of thing went on all the time.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 1 day ago) and read 3076 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12):
Get a gaggle of Mids under the jet, raise it off the gear and walk it down the street and up the steps of some building.

I like what they did with the USAF F-4 before the Navy v. Air Force game! Absolutely beautiful!  bigthumbsup 








Crye me a river
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 3061 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 14):
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12):
Get a gaggle of Mids under the jet, raise it off the gear and walk it down the street and up the steps of some building.

I like what they did with the USAF F-4 before the Navy v. Air Force game! Absolutely beautiful!

low class if you ask me....it's an historical object and the men that flew the thing in combat and scored aerial victories deserved better for their plane. Dude, c'mon.....steal their goat or paint their barracks/dorms or something...don't desecrate historic artifacts....



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 3044 times:

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 12):
Happens all the time at the Naval Academy with the F-4 and A-4's. Get a gaggle of Mids under the jet, raise it off the gear and walk it down the street and up the steps of some building. Happens every few years apparently.

The point I was making was 66-7463 is historically significant with the most aerial victories credited of any U. S. aircraft in Southeast Asia. The subject of most pranks are generic airframes. I certainly wouldn't advocate writing on a historical document with a pencil just because it could be erased later.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN, USA



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 19 hours ago) and read 3041 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
low class if you ask me....it's an historical object and the men that flew the thing in combat and scored aerial victories deserved better for their plane.

They used washable paint......it came right off. Otherwise, they never would have even thought about doing it.

I agree, partially. But I think it was a little more lighthearted than you may want to believe. Everyone steals everyone's goat, rabbit, lamb, etc. This was original, but planned appropriately as to not damage the historical value of it in any way.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 3023 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 17):
They used washable paint......it came right off. Otherwise, they never would have even thought about doing it.

How can you make a statement that you know what they were thinking? We know what the precedent is for interservice rivalry pranks but unless I was one of the painters, I would not have a clue as to what goes on in their minds as to boundarys not to cross.

Perhaps the point we are agreeing on is the Air Force's inability to protect a historical artifact. This not only pertains to the prank but having it out in th elements to begin with.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineUsnseallt82 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 4891 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 7 hours ago) and read 2996 times:

Quoting F4wso (Reply 18):
How can you make a statement that you know what they were thinking?

You're right....I can't. But I have a good feeling that they wouldn't have chosen washable paint, which was probably far more expensive, if they didn't think about it beforehand. Its called hindsight....that's how I came to my conclusion.

Furthermore, this stuff about it being a historical artifact and the prank disgracing the men who served on it is pretty far-fetched. It, too, is assuming that the men who did operate it take offense to the act. Knowing the many retired military pilots out there, I seriously doubt anyone is offended by this. Most people can look beyond the paint job and realize it was a harmless prank for a fairly steamy rivalry. I really think you guys are taking this way too seriously.



Crye me a river
User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 2981 times:

Quoting Usnseallt82 (Reply 19):
being a historical artifact and the prank disgracing the men who served on it is pretty far-fetched

You make a confusing argument. I have been talking specifically about this particular airframe being historically significant. No reference has been made to the aircrews or maintainers so I see no reason to broaden the scope of this thread. It may be too serious but there should be some reverence for an actual artifact vs a representative item.
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
User currently offlineCaptOveur From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2732 times:

Jeez this thread sure got off track in a hurry.

Anyway, here are the new gate guards... Pretty shitty in my opinion

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/matt45223/PA290046.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/matt45223/PA290040.jpg


User currently offlineF4wso From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 974 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2706 times:

Thanks for posting the update. They look pretty generic. Any clues as to where they came from?
Gary
Cottage Grove, MN



Seeking an honest week's pay for an honest day's work
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Leave My Gate Guards Alone!
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
"scrapyard" In Take My Breath Away Video posted Sun Nov 26 2006 20:59:05 by Duke
Jet Flying Over My House posted Fri Aug 11 2006 00:02:05 by Concordemach2
B-17 Over My Office?! posted Fri Apr 14 2006 20:33:09 by MrMcCoy
Leave My Gate Guards Alone! posted Mon Oct 24 2005 01:09:42 by CaptOveur
I Saw My First B-52 Today! posted Tue Jul 5 2005 05:54:36 by Skywatch
Faith Of My Fathers posted Mon May 30 2005 00:28:01 by EMBQA
Griffon Low And Fast Fly Bye Over My House posted Sat Feb 12 2005 00:32:40 by BT
Army Helicopter At My School Last Week posted Sat Apr 10 2004 03:22:11 by Yanksn4
Overflight Of 2 F-16's In My Area posted Fri Feb 6 2004 05:28:03 by Shamrock1Heavy
Hey! My Old Unit Made CNN! posted Mon Mar 24 2003 04:42:00 by L-188

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format