Quoting ASA (Reply 46): If I were that guy ... the first thing I would do after getting the plane was to take the it to test flights in the border areas with China ... and defect at the first chance. Although the South Korean border is closer ... chances of getting shot down over the DMZ would be too high!

You really have no clue. There is no defecting to China, defectors will be sent back. The only safe place to go would be the South. The problem about discussing North Korea on Airliners.net is that there is so much half-knowledge that it hurts.

Soren   

Quoting Viper911 (Reply 41): Well according to this website they are actually building Cessna 172 clones. http://tacairnet.com/2015/04/09/nort...port/

Despite what the North Koreans might be saying, the 172s in those photos are not new airframes. The wingless fuselage in the factory is anything but new. The inside of the doorframe (still in its original Cessna tan interior trim paint, the only part not oversprayed with white) looks very well used, and the strikeplate looks damaged. Also, if it were a new airframe it would not have been painted before assembly. Kim's people doubtless covered the exterior with white paint to hide a previous paint scheme or oxidized sheet metal skins.

A reverse-engineered, locally-built clone would not copy insignificant details (door latches, landing gear hardware, aesthetic trim items, etc.) so faithfully. The cost of fabricating, machining and fitting the thousands of detail parts would be astronomical.

Those generals are cheering and clapping for a used 172 built in Independence, Kansas.

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 50): You really have no clue. There is no defecting to China, defectors will be sent back. The only safe place to go would be the South. The problem about discussing North Korea on Airliners.net is that there is so much half-knowledge that it hurts.

  That means I just died trying to defect to China. Probably shot up by AA guns or a grenade launcher.

Not a whole lot different than what would happen if I sleep off or utter a wrong word during KJU's visit.

Flying into South Korea over the DMZ sounds scary to me ... maybe you know better which waypoints to take. Or maybe the South forces won't shoot up a Cessna after all. But if I had a working plane in my hand, the temptation to defect would be too much to pass, that's what I intended to say in the first post.

Quoting eielef (Reply 37): There is a guy taking notes in a small notebook behind the Great Leader. What the hell is he writing?

It's a great way to avoid eye contact. This is what it looks like when the Great One is pissed off with the state turtle farmer... I think the guy on the far right is already seeing artillery barrels pointing at him.

Quoting ASA (Reply 52): But if I had a working plane in my hand, the temptation to defect would be too much to pass, that's what I intended to say in the first post.

Anyone who gets to fly an aircraft in North Korea is most likely in a rather privileged position compared to an average North Korean. In addition they probably have a family on the ground.

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 48): I recall another "word leader" and infamous mass murderer pretending to be an air force pilot and landing on a carrier deck... while there was a sign that said "Mission Accomplished".

I was wondering how long it would take someone on here to bring up 'W'. Well done. Actually, I believe he was pretending to be a Navy pilot since Air Force pilots don't typically land on carriers, and he was flying in a Navy jet with a Navy pilot.

FWIW, and ALL political overtones aside, GW Bush was an actual USAF fighter pilot at one time. His father was a WWII Navy pilot who did see combat in the Pacific, so maybe that's where you're mixing things up. I'm not getting involved in anything political/emotional here or taking sides, just stating a fact. By the time of the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing stunt, GW hadn't flown in years, but he is a graduate of the USAF's Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) who had his wings in the 1960's and was rated to fly F-102 fighters in the air national guard (a reserve component of the USAF). There's a lot of controversy about why he never deployed to Vietnam and I'd rather not get into that, but comparing Kim's piloting skills to GW Bush's is a little bit of a stretch. We don't know anything about Kim's actual pilot training or whether he actually flew that Cessna at all. We do know that GW flew fighter interceptors, and while he never saw combat, he was a USAF fighter pilot in the 1960's.

Just thought I'd clear this up since this thread decided to get really political really quickly and erroneous information has been commonplace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_..._Bush_military_service_controversy

Quoting tomcbaker (Reply 55): FWIW, and ALL political overtones aside, GW Bush was an actual USAF fighter pilot at one time. His father was a WWII Navy pilot who did see combat in the Pacific, so maybe that's where you're mixing things up. I'm not getting involved in anything political/emotional here or taking sides, just stating a fact. By the time of the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing stunt, GW hadn't flown in years, but he is a graduate of the USAF's Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) who had his wings in the 1960's and was rated to fly F-102 fighters in the air national guard (a reserve component of the USAF). There's a lot of controversy about why he never deployed to Vietnam and I'd rather not get into that

I'm sure you wouldn't.


Yes, 'w' was an air force pilot, he also failed to show up for reserve duty on numerous occasions while he was bravely
defending texas from all invaders while ducking service in vietnam (like cheney and rumsfeld)


His Father was a genuine hero but 'w' was a disaster, especially as President.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 56): I'm sure you wouldn't.

Pot calling the kettle black? All I was doing was responding to a statement that implied 'W' wasn't a real Air Force pilot, which is not true. At the time of the "Mission Accomplished" stunt he was not an active pilot of any sort, but he was a qualified, licenced USAF pilot in the 60's. So, my post was clarification, that's it. I even noted the Vietnam controversy and absolutely did not reflect on the quality of his service, merely that he was indeed an air force pilot. Is that too much for you?

Quoting Max Q (Reply 56): Yes, 'w' was an air force pilot, he also failed to show up for reserve duty on numerous occasions while he was bravely defending texas from all invaders while ducking service in vietnam (like cheney and rumsfeld) His Father was a genuine hero but 'w' was a disaster, especially as President.

Thanks for weighing in on something that no one asked about and that was not disputed. Excellent example of why I can't stand these threads with political overtones. Great job in getting completely off subject  

Quoting Max Q (Reply 56):

I hope you're not basing this on the "Fake but Accurate" Dan Rather story which the "Killian documents" were faked.

Quoting tomcbaker (Reply 57): I'm sure you wouldn't. Pot calling the kettle black? All I was doing was responding to a statement that implied 'W' wasn't a real Air Force pilot, which is not true. At the time of the "Mission Accomplished" stunt he was not an active pilot of any sort, but he was a qualified, licenced USAF pilot in the 60's. So, my post was clarification, that's it. I even noted the Vietnam controversy and absolutely did not reflect on the quality of his service, merely that he was indeed an air force pilot. Is that too much for you? Quoting Max Q (Reply 56): Yes, 'w' was an air force pilot, he also failed to show up for reserve duty on numerous occasions while he was bravely defending texas from all invaders while ducking service in vietnam (like cheney and rumsfeld) His Father was a genuine hero but 'w' was a disaster, especially as President. Thanks for weighing in on something that no one asked about and that was not disputed. Excellent example of why I can't stand these threads with political overtones. Great job in getting completely off subject

You are all missing the point, I don't care about his pilot career, I was just stating that he was another mass murderer on another media stunt pretending to be Maverick or Iceman from Topgun. Feed the masses is what these thugs do, either in the East or West it is the same circus.

Not even his brother stands beside his killing spree in Irak anymore, the damage this genocidal maniac did to the Middle East will take centuries to fix, if ever. Kim Jong Un is an amateur compared to George W.

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 59): I was just stating that he was another mass murderer on another media stunt pretending to be Maverick or Iceman from Topgun.

He was wearing flight gear in an actual Naval plane, the S-3 Viking, doing a trap. He has to wear flight gear for his safety. All people flying the COD's also have to wear flight gear as well. George Bush unlike you was a pilot and was certified to fly planes specifically the F-102 Delta Dagger which was not the easiest plane to fly.

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 59): Kim Jong Un is an amateur compared to George W.

Sorry, Kim Jong Un and his family have destroyed the livelihood of 25 million people living in North Korea that will take centuries to rid themselves of the Juche damage. Millions of people have died under the Kim's where there are still hundred of thousands if not over a million in prison camps all over North Korea. You think the barbarity of Daesh is bad? North Korea's treatment of their own people is even worse and that's been going on for more than 2 decades. We can't do anything because North Korea holds South Korea hostage where there are 50 million people with thousands of artillery pieces pointed at them.

Iraq can be easily solved contrary to your unproven claim of "centuries to fix". The fact is IS got started in Syria first which spilled into Iraq. Their name is called "The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". Most of Iraq is still free, Kurdistan is still free. Daesh will be destroyed. You do realize that the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt and was easily outted by an Army General who brought back stability to Egypt that only took a year to solve?

[Edited 2015-05-20 23:13:26]

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 59):

I don't condone Iraq War in any shape or form but this is so far off the base its ridiculous.

Not only is it wrong but the truth is a lot more complicated than this.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 22): Replace Kim with Hitler and see if you still stand by that statement.

There is no comparison! The oppressive North Korean state was not designed by this man, he may continue the sad country but there is no comparison with Hitler at all.

Quoting Wayfarer515 (Reply 48): I recall another "word leader" and infamous mass murderer pretending to be an air force pilot and landing on a carrier deck... while there was a sign that said "Mission Accomplished".

As expected more Russian propaganda. I wonder if your "mass murderer" comment applies to Putin, I'd love to see you admit this!

Quoting pek777 (Reply 49): Back when America had a strong leader you could respect.

Nobody respects Bush today unless you are still drinking the Kool-Aid, even his brother and father have long abandoned W.

Quoting tomcbaker (Reply 57): Thanks for weighing in on something that no one asked about and that was not disputed. Excellent example of why I can't stand these threads with political overtones. Great job in getting completely off subject

You were the one to bring up this great legacy that "might" be tarnished because he "for some reason" did not deploy to Vietnam. You brought in politics about talking up the Bush legacy and now complain when the facts are presented to you that show you to be wrong. If you do not want to talk politics here, do not defend the worst embarrassment since Nixon.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 62): If you do not want to talk politics here, do not defend the worst embarrassment since Nixon.

Agreed. From allowing 9/11 to the lies of Iraq and the ongoing fiasco there to the refusal to hunt Bin Landen ... embarrassment is an understatement. Future historians might wonder "working for the other side" or just an imbecile.

Quoting twinotter (Reply 63): Agreed. From allowing 9/11 to the lies of Iraq and the ongoing fiasco there to the refusal to hunt Bin Landen ... embarrassment is an understatement. Future historians might wonder "working for the other side" or just an imbecile.

He was too worried about "Is our children learning?" Cheney was the real evil, Bush and Blair were the yes men.

Quoting twinotter (Reply 63): From allowing 9/11

It's a lot more complicated than that. The 9/11 Commission Report explains a bit on this especially Jamie Gorelick's involvement to put up the intelligence wall between the CIA, FBI, DIA, etc which led to a huge intelligence failure.

Quoting twinotter (Reply 63): ongoing fiasco there to the refusal to hunt Bin Landen

Uhh, the hunt for Bin Laden was a result of a 10 year operation from start to finish. There was no refusal to hunt him down. Zero Dark Thirty was based on classified information released by the Intelligence Community on how the hunt for Bin Laden occurred. Despite the improper access to classified information, it actually gives a real glimpse of what went down to tracking down Bin Laden.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 64):

Simplification of things but yea, sounds about right.

But there is still no comparison between Bush and Kim dynasty.

Kim is closer to Hitler than Bush.

Quoting twinotter (Reply 63):

Quoting twinotter (Reply 63): Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 62): If you do not want to talk politics here, do not defend the worst embarrassment since Nixon. Agreed. From allowing 9/11 to the lies of Iraq and the ongoing fiasco there to the refusal to hunt Bin Landen ... embarrassment is an understatement. Future historians might wonder "working for the other side" or just an imbecile.

I'll be happy to defend President Bush, but not on a forum like this that is supposedly about aviation. The fact that you take two sentences to start name-calling someone you disagree with politically clearly reveals what kind of person you are.

Obviously you know nothing about why 9/11 happened, or what happened in Iraq other than what the opponents of the war said that has been regurgitated over and over again. Take your leftist biases somewhere else.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 65): Uhh, the hunt for Bin Laden was a result of a 10 year operation from start to finish. There was no refusal to hunt him down.

Bush was on record stating that Bin Laden was irrelevant and he did not care where he might be,

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/05/02/162774/bush-bin-laden/

and his administration shut down the Bin Laden unit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=0

Quoting StuckinCMHland (Reply 67): start name-calling someone

What name calling? I said someone drank kool-aid, you call that name calling? But you know what I call name calling? This:

Quoting StuckinCMHland (Reply 67): Take your leftist biases somewhere else.

Do you know the definition of irony?

I thought Americans were lovers of freedom, but you sure seem to want to bully and shut me up because I state facts that do not fit your bias. Could it be you are just living a lie?

Quoting StuckinCMHland (Reply 67): Obviously you know nothing about why 9/11 happened

Well please, explain to dumb leftists like me what we all got wrong about 9/11, Iraq, etc. I'd LOVE to hear your thoughts, Mr. Cheney

Only 13 posts here and you jump into a discussion that was not directed at you and you start throwing insults and projection at me? Trying to explain to liberals who were all 100% correct about everything about the disastrous foreign policy from 2000 onward? Do you conservatives have no shame left anymore?

[Edited 2015-05-21 15:12:06]

He did a hell of a job flying that plane. Well done, Mr Kim.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 62): You were the one to bring up this great legacy that "might" be tarnished because he "for some reason" did not deploy to Vietnam. You brought in politics about talking up the Bush legacy and now complain when the facts are presented to you that show you to be wrong. If you do not want to talk politics here, do not defend the worst embarrassment since Nixon.

Negative, Ghost Rider. Re-read my post. I said there was controversy about his lack of deployment to Vietnam; I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with that controversy, but I supplied a wikipedia link that actually directly refers to his military service as a controversy ("Bush military service controversy"). Noting that a controversy exists is NOT the same thing as stating implicit or explicit agreement with said controversy, which I went through pains to avoid. Get it right before you make accusations.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 17): Well they probably had to sub in a windshield from like a 1992 ford focus...

Is there an STC for that? 

Quoting FlyAAS80 (Reply 16): I would almost say it's a C182 (which would explain the prop), but it is missing the cowl flap.

The shape of the rear window says "172". The 182's rear side window is elliptical. This one has the 172 shape.

Beech.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 68):

Which is incorrect. A number of the agents involved in the hunt and death of bin laden were there from the start. You'll notice that the group was started in the 90s prior to 9/11. At no point did they stop hunting for Bin Laden and not even theNYT article suggested that they stopped hunting. Rehashing old articles doesn't make you right. There were so many intelligence information from 2007 and on that got Bin Laden caught. For example, the courier's name, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, that led directly to Bin Laden was discovered in 2007, two years after after the Bin Laden unit was closed. It took 4 years to track al-Kuwaiti to the compound and "confirm" Bin Laden. They went in on a guess. Intelligence later revealed that Bin Laden was out of the picture for so many years because of the isolation. So your argument is moot.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 72): You'll notice that

one thing I did notice is how I presented a citation and you just wrote your feelings.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 72): So your argument is moot.

My argument is moot because you made up some story in your head and could not give a non biased citation that backs up anything you said?

Quoting tomcbaker (Reply 70): Get it right before you make accusations.

Get it right? You were the one to talk up Bush's military record, and how he was a qualified pilot

But you say "get it right" so would you like a taste of your own medicine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Texas_Air_National_Guard

In 1972, Bush was suspended from flying for failure to take a scheduled physical exam.[46] He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974.[47]

As it turns out, he was not a qualified pilot because he was AWOL

Care to retract your comments now that you learn the full story, not just the one sided history that conservatives love to hide behind in fear of reality?

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 73):

Mark Bowden. He wrote a book on the subject and what led to Bin Laden. There are hundreds of articles on the courier which he was discovered in 2007. Your articles are way prior to the courier discovery and you are just trying to demonstrate your irrational hatred of George Bush as a way of saying he is the reason why it took so long to catch Bin Laden. The fact is you are 100% wrong. The Bin Laden hunt never ceased at all. The NSA for example tracked the couriers movement from 2007 on. Numbers of agents were killed in bombings and targeted assassinations in the hunt after 2005 especially the Marriott bombing. If you want to play dumb as a result of your irrational hatred, that's fine.

Also the Killian documents were FAKE. Bush was not AWOL as Dan Rather tries to push in his "fake but accurate" story. The story popped up again but it's without any documentations to prove that. Besides you already proved that he wasn't AWOL. How? He was honorably discharged. He didn't have a dishonorable discharge or general discharge against him.

[Edited 2015-05-21 22:34:26]

Quoting Karadion (Reply 74): The Bin Laden hunt never ceased at all.

I said this? Please quote me. There are a dozen of you all running around here making up arguments that nobody made. I said Bush called him irrelevant and shut down the CIA Bin Laden unit. I never said there was no hunt still going on, I said Bush failed at that basic job required of him after 9/11 happened on his watch. And all your stories about the hunt for Bin Laden have been called into question with numerous counter claims, one journalist is not an absolute fact. Your entire argument relies on a singe piece of evidence, I hope you are not a defense attorney.

Quoting Karadion (Reply 74): Also the Killian documents were FAKE. Bush was not AWOL as Dan Rather tries to push in his "fake but accurate" story.

Everything is covered in great detail here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy

The document Rather used to prove the story was fake, but the story is still legitimate. There are numerous citations in that article. And your final argument is a political appointment to save a well connected kid from Vietnam was treated lightly and with little controversy at the time could never have happened? I cannot take any of you seriously, what has happened to the education system in America?

[Edited 2015-05-21 22:45:15]

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 75):

twinotter did which you wanted to jump in and defend that narrative. I explained to you why that is. You didn't read the Commission Report. One of the primary reasons was that Intelligence agencies were prevented from sharing intelligence as a result of the Jamie Gorelick Wall. There were many failures that led up to 9/11. Clinton had plenty of opportunities as well which ABC broadcasted on this on the show called "The Path to 9/11" which many famous actors starred in it but it only broadcasted several times and you can't watch it again unless you pirate it. Because it really made Bill Clinton look bad. The thing about it was it didn't spare Bush either. The point is despite the unit being consolidated to focus on broader aspect, they were vindicated because the intelligence later revealed that Bin Laden was irrelevant and out of touch for so many years. The courier contact with Bin Laden made constant communication made it very difficult for Bin Laden to keep in touch with the outside world. It worked for more than 4 years which kept him alive until 2011. Also despite that 9/11 had been under Bush's "watch". He was only president for 9 months which he was still dealing with the fallout of the P-3 incident as well as the deal with the 7-2 Supreme Court vote that ended the 2000 Election. Are you trying to argue that the presidency should always focus on external matters and he should have been right on Bin Laden from the start? Not even Al Gore would have done differently because of the intelligence wall.

Back to the Killian document. The documents were fake as I told you made times over. It was the firestorm that started off the AWOL discussion which in the end cost Rather and Mapes their jobs when it was all fabricated. I'm quite well aware of the wiki which I also too have this wonderful thing called the Internet as well. Keep preaching about the Killian document, you ever wonder why once the documents were found to be fake, the whole AWOL discussion died? The fabricator insisted the typewriter was real when it was obviously written in Word default settings and the guy who actually worked on the Typefont debunked the typewriter claim as well.

[Edited 2015-05-21 23:22:10]

Quoting Karadion (Reply 77):

I see a pattern here, I give citations that back up my comments, you continue on rants that show you do not know what you are talking about, and when backed into a wall you resort to making up arguments I never made. You have mistaken airliners.net for Free Republic, Breitbart, Fox, or the Rush Limbaugh Show. A simple mistake I presume. You are welcome.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 78):

Rants? No they were backed up which I told you at least several names and you disregarded them all. I guess we can chalk this up that you just simply refuse to look into those names. I know what I'm talking about because I read all the reports including the 911 commission report. Did I cite any sources from any of the places I don't read that you made up out of thin air? Nope you just made that up. 9/11 Commission Report is not a source written up by some right wing publication. Neither was Mark Bowden's work which he wrote the book on the hunt. Same for Kathryn Bigelow which the Obama Administration gave her unprecedented access to the intelligence surrounding the hunt.

"Well crap I'm losing the argument so I'll just accuse him of leaning back on right wing publications including FAUX NEWS!" Did anyone tell you that Wikipedia is not a reliable source? The fact that you don't know who Mark Bowden tells me you know very little. Bowden is one of the most respected writers that gives insight into a lot of historical events especially the Bin Laden event. I suggest you start reading up on it. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/bo...sama-bin-laden-by-mark-bowden.html

[Edited 2015-05-21 23:35:26]

"well...that escalated quickly...."

Quoting pek777 (Reply 80): "well...that escalated quickly...."

Indeed. This thread was providing a bit comic relief until it turned serious.

C'mon guys, tone it down a notch or two, otherwise the mods will put the lock on it.

Beech

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 73): Get it right? You were the one to talk up Bush's military record, and how he was a qualified pilot But you say "get it right" so would you like a taste of your own medicine? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Texas_Air_National_Guard In 1972, Bush was suspended from flying for failure to take a scheduled physical exam.[46] He was honorably discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974.[47] As it turns out, he was not a qualified pilot because he was AWOL Care to retract your comments now that you learn the full story, not just the one sided history that conservatives love to hide behind in fear of reality?

Talk about self centred and self absorbed. What the heck are you even talking about here? You're making so much out of absolutely nothing; if you re-read my posts, I was never taking one side or the other. I stated fact. AS I stated, Bush was at one time a USAF pilot who was AT ONE TIME a qualified pilot. I went out of my way to iterate that he hasn't flown in years. I only mentioned there was a controversy surrounding his service record, not whether I agreed with it or not. And somehow, despite my going to great lengths to stay neutral and just mention fact, you turned it partisan and made broad, irrelevant and ridiculous accusations that I was somehow defending Bush. I never defended Bush from anything. I clarified that he was at one time a qualified USAF fighter pilot. That's it. Get over yourself and take your political agenda to another website.

Due to continued off-topic posts, personal attacks, flamebait posts and other issues this thread will be locked. Please note that political arguments and postings are for the non-aviation forum.