Hacker

Grand canyon's worth of difference between FedEx pushing for an unmanned freighter -- where the reason is cost savings -- and the USAF's reason for going unmanned is the safety of people. Completely opposite motives. We'll see it at FedEx before we see it at Uncle Sam airlines.

Don't lose a minute of sleep over it. Killing is killing, whether you're in danger or not. Hadji doesn't feel a twitch of moral guilt about activating an IED via cell phone from many miles away from danger and killing GIs or, worse, civilians. The sniper doesn't think it's an unfair fight picking off an @$$hole in a man-dress 1,500 meters away while he is safely in his hideout. GIs in 'Nam didn't feel any guilt about making Charlie into mincemeat via Claymores hooked up to tripwires around the firebase...while he was inside his hooch flipping through Playboy, "listenin' to punk rock music and bad mouthin' his country". This is part of the natural progression of warfare, and I don't see any moral ambiguity about it in any way. If you're all ready morally comfortable with your role as a warrior and killing of other humans, then it should be no different than strafing, LGBing, JDAMing, or whatever else.

Wow, don't I wish I were able to make that comparison!!

Here's my Mustang flight...N1451D.

In other news, the cougars will be out for new meat in Colorado Springs soon!

I'd like to see more public floggings of gangsta airmen like this. The military is the one place where "they" can say what you'll wear and how you'll act. So...tighten up or be ready to get ripped a new one.

The GI is a "traditional" 1911 -- more or less the way John Browning designed it and GIs carried it for 70 years. The Springfield is a very mixed bag. I own one and like it, but only because I "de-Springfield-ed" it. They have messed with the internal spring ratios to make the pistol "California safe" without adding the Series 80-style firing pin block that others use. They also added that "ILS" mainspring housing so that the gun can be locked. Springfield decided to make the firing pin thinner and out of titanium to minimize its mass, then put it against a very stiff firing pin spring to make it damn near impossible to move forward if dropped. To overcome that stiff firing pin spring, they had to make the mainspring stronger. Because the mainspring stiffness changed the timing of the slide, they had to change the radius of the bottom of the firing pin block and the power of the recoil return spring. All of that results in a pistol whose insides are all out of standard spec in which the 1911 was designed. It works for the most part...but it is just not correct. The first thing I did after buying my Springer GI was replace the firing pin with a standard steel pin, replace the FP spring with a stock weight, replace the mainspring (and MSH) with a stock unit, replace the firing pin stop, and replace the recoil spring. I've literally never had a single misfeed or jam with that thing since, probably a couple thousand rounds. 1911s work as designed when they are configured as designed. It's when you start f*cking with them they you get problems. No 1911 needs "upgrades" to be an accurate and reliable piece -- it simply needs to meet the tolerances under which it should have been made. Again, the 1911 was a dead-reliable pistol made by numerous manufacturers for the military for 50+ years. There would have been mutiny if GIs were whipping out the ol' Colt '45 and it was jamming on them every 3rd round. This idea that the 1911 needs work to work is very much a post 1980s idea when people decided that 1911s needed to be "tight" to be accurate -- which is also a fallacy to the extent that many think. There are now so many companies making the design, and with their own ideas on how to make it better and/or cut costs, that you almost never know what you're going to get with a particular brand of gun. If you want a 1911 to work correctly, you simply need to (or have a gunsmith do it if you don't feel you have the skill yourself) grab the Kuhnhausen 1911 shop manual, a micrometer, and a small metal file. Go over that thing from stem-to-stern and make sure the damn thing is built within tolerances. If it's not, then file off a few thousandths or hundredths to put it in the correct tolerance. Then grab a scale and make sure your springs are of the correct weight and specified number of turns. Replace them if they aren't -- but only with the weight specified in the manual -- no "extra power" springs or any of that crapola. Don't forget to look at the magazine, as that is the source of many problems with the 1911. Make sure the follower is the correct shape (with the dimple), and that the mag spring is correct. The pistol will work great if it meets specs. Part of the problem is that you can never be sure which manufacturers are going to have guns that meet spec. If there were 25 different makers of "Glocks", you would have the same issue. Even buying a good name is no guarantee. Personally, I have nothing for Kimber unless it's one of their Series 1 guns. I have seen just as many poorly built Kimbers as I have anything else. Hell, I've even seen some Colt's that are all messed up in very embarassing ways. Unless it is a Dan Wesson or Les Baer or one of those hand built pistols, it is always going to be a mixed bag in the current market place. On the other hand, if you buy a stock USGI model, I can almost guarantee you that it's going to run like a Timex with no tweaking.

Wow, I missed that one the first time I read it. Anyone who thinks that UPT bases have washout rates to maintain are really smoking something strong.

The Rock Island Tactical 1911 is in the same ballpark as the Taurus with respect to features, and lists for around $500. I'm a huge fan of Rock's customer service, and although this pistol is an Armscor product from the Phillipines (Which traditionally hasn't been all that good), the Rock Island line seems to have broken that mold. If you check the 1911 forums, the Rock gets extremely good WOM reviews and as I mentioned, the customer service is the best I've personally seen in the firearms industry -- seriously. You won't go wrong with either weapon, but don't pay more than $600 for the Taurus.

Isn't keeping the C model fleet grounded also doing wonders for fuel conservation? <snicker>

I just traveled on the Eurostar and TGV trains this weekend. Never had the chance to travel much by train, but I will say that the travelling experience was SOOOOO EASY compared to all of that TSA airline sh*t. Plus, trains that go 150 mph are pretty cool.

Here's an idea -- spend a day or two shadowing your SMO. Then you'll know. Go ahead and sit in on the OG standup every day and face the man to explain every NMC/PMC tail number, for every ETIC, for every GAB, for every MND. Spend some time up in the Ops Officer's neck of the woods working on flying hour contracts, and turn patterns, and configurations, and ASDs. Instead of making an ignorant statement like that...go find out. Hacker...the previous MX officer.

Nobody gives a rat's @ss where you were commissioned starting the day you show up at your first active duty station. We're all punk Lieutenants and equally worthless on that day. To think otherwise is ignorant and egotistical.

Well, to be honest, with airframes that were approaching and exceeding 15,000 hours when I was flying 'em in 98 (who knows how many hours they've got today), the Tweets needed to be put to pasture. Who knows how many times those tired things were rebuilt and SLEPd and the like...and as we all know the people who flew 'em over all those hours weren't exactly easy on them. None of this invalidates what a great trainer the Tweet is/was. The P-51 is an awesome airplane, too, but not all the avionics and engine upgrades in the world would make it a viable fighter today (a'la Piper PA-48). It is just time to let the Tweety go -- she's served us well. I'm actually a fan of the T-6...I think it's a great little airplane and probably does a great job teaching students. Certainly the fuel economy and range are a boon, too.

Still not following you. Although it's been many years since I flew the Tweet and had to think about the jet's ejection mins, there's some stuff I DO remember. The minimum ejection altitude with the zero delay lanyard attached was something like 100' AGL. I'd have to dig out my "Road To Wings' book to get the details, but as I remember there have been numerous pattern altitude ejections that have been successful. Sink rate and bank angle were always a big issue with the Tweet seat, and IIRC there was a "halfway around the final turn" rule of thumb -- that before halfway through the final turn (700-ish feet and 1500 fpm descent in 30 degree bank angle) you could punch out. After that, it was better to stick with the airplane. So, given the scenario of a midair at pattern altitude, I still don't see how you're predicting 4 morts simply based on the capabilities of the seat.

I've been issued knives by both of my fighter squadrons when deployed. Benchmades both times.

This statement is completely talking out your ass. You say this as if there weren't all ready several successful Tweet ejections that were a result of midairs. I can think of two in the last 5 years that were both midairs and both resulted in successful ejections of both crew. On the other hand I can think of zero unsuccessful ejections. So, what exactly was it about this midair and ejection that was within the capabilities of the T-6 seat but outside the capabilities of the Tweet seat? I don't get how people these days are thinking of the Tweet as some flying deathtrap that was about to kill you if you looked at it wrong. The Tweet is arguably the most successful pilot trainer in history...before you start making sweeping generalizations about how safe it was, ask yourself why it was kept in service 40+ years and trained something on the order of 100,000 pilots worldwide.

If only there were this thing called "visual lookout" and this technique called "see and avoid" that could supplant the NACWS as a method of keeping airplanes from having a midair.

Let's see...outside of the one at Randolph on 13 Aug 2000 and the one in Savannah on 3 April 2004...yes.

Wow. Thought those days were long gone!

Is there a particular one from that concessionaire that you are looking for? There are tons of great prints available online if you know what it is you're wanting.

Based on the e-mail chain, the original Cosmo dude's callsign is "Dollar" (see the post at the very bottom, which is the first one in the chain). Mr Mayor, point of order.....replot!

Here's the text of the original message, although the reply chain is more funny than the original email. Doesn't rank as high as the infamous "Lt MonkeySex" email in my book (and the chick was pretty hot, too), but still worth a chuckle.

That's nothing compared to B-1s, A-10s, and F-15Es out there trolling around doing "Air Effects" or XCAS in Afghanistan for hours and hours on end, only to be called in to drop a $20,000 bomb on that same guy with an AK or an RPG.

Hate to say it, but he's correct. The Piper Enforcer had very little engine torque on takeoff thanks to a yaw-SAS system. Here's a quote from one of only two USAF pilots to ever fly the Enforcer...an ex Raven FAC who also had significant flight time in F-100s, A-1s, and O-1s. He flew the Enforcer in the USAF's "Pave COIN" competition in 1971: There are actually a lot more issues with the PA-48 Enforcer design's adaptability to the current COIN role than you guys are thinking. It's a rugged, well built airplane, and the design has a LOT of potential. However, the primary problem the airplane had...and has...is that the nose was so long that it was not possible to see the target you were bombing at the time you had to release the bomb. The sight depression put the pipper squarely in the middle of the cowling, so it significantly complicated the bombing problem. It basically eliminated all of the progress that has been made in the last 40 years for computed bombing and took the art/science back to the Korean war! There were also literally pages of major stuff that did not meet USAF spec, even back in the 1980s. After the tests in the early 1980s -- and after the USAF said they didn't want to have anything to do with it -- Piper and the aircraft's original designer made some significant changes to the airplane for a production specification which would have corrected a lot of the problems. To bring the PA-48 back to life would take an incredible amount of time, money, and effort because it would be more than just blowing the dust off the design...it would mean completing the re-design and tooling up for a completely new aircraft. This is why taking an off-the-shelf aircraft like the T-6 and converting it into a killer is a better idea financially and practically. I've been writing a book on the Piper Enforcer for about the last 5 years, hence the interview quote. Really neat airplane...wish the AF would have bought it when it was ORIGINALLY built in the 1970s because it would have really kicked butt...but very much past it's prime today.