F-14 being destroyed instead of...

being sold to the American People. What craziness, here we are at War in the
Middle East and we are busy destroying weapons.

Hummm, kind of makes me wonder....
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

On Jul 2, 7:51 pm, Craig Fink wrote:
being sold to the American People. What craziness, here we are at War in the
Middle East and we are busy destroying weapons.

Hummm, kind of makes me wonder....
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Do you have a link for this?

On Jul 3, 4:03 pm, JGDeRuvo wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:51 pm, Craig Fink wrote:

being sold to the American People. What craziness, here we are at War in the
Middle East and we are busy destroying weapons.

Hummm, kind of makes me wonder....
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Do you have a link for this?

The problem is, that no matter how much you or I may love the F-14
(and I loved it), the fact is that it was too expensive to maintain
anymore. Between wear on the airframe and the obsolescence of many of
its components (the parts aren't made anymore, or the people who made
them are out of business), the cost of keeping the planes flying in
the air was too much.

As far as destroying the airframes, I am not sure anyone . . . or any
foundation would have what it would take to keep an F-14 flying, like
is being done for the F-4. Perhaps if it was stripped of anything not
related to the safety of demonstration flight it could be done. But
the F-14 was complex and I am not sure it would be practical.

I just hope that anyone who wants one a gate guard or a memorial, and
has the money to pay to demil'ing the plane, transporting it, and
promises to take care of it, gets one


Take care . . .

John

On Jul 3, 11:08 pm, John wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:03 pm, JGDeRuvo wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:51 pm, Craig Fink wrote:

being sold to the American People. What craziness, here we are at War in the
Middle East and we are busy destroying weapons.

Hummm, kind of makes me wonder....
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Do you have a link for this?

The problem is, that no matter how much you or I may love the F-14
(and I loved it), the fact is that it was too expensive to maintain
anymore. Between wear on the airframe and the obsolescence of many of
its components (the parts aren't made anymore, or the people who made
them are out of business), the cost of keeping the planes flying in
the air was too much.

As far as destroying the airframes, I am not sure anyone . . . or any
foundation would have what it would take to keep an F-14 flying, like
is being done for the F-4. Perhaps if it was stripped of anything not
related to the safety of demonstration flight it could be done. But
the F-14 was complex and I am not sure it would be practical.

I just hope that anyone who wants one a gate guard or a memorial, and
has the money to pay to demil'ing the plane, transporting it, and
promises to take care of it, gets one

Take care . . .

John

They are being destroyed so that the parts don't fall into the wrong
hands. Any guess who might have some F-14's?

Some reason why private Americans shouldn't be allowed to buy them?

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
Some reason why private Americans shouldn't be allowed to buy them?

As of roughly the beginning of the Cold War, the US military reversed its
earlier surplus-aircraft policy and decided that civilians could not be
trusted with jet fighters.

In practice, you'd be crazy to buy one -- part of the reason they're being
retired is that they are hideously expensive to maintain -- but then, there
are some crazy people out there...
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Scott Hedrick wrote:
Some reason why private Americans shouldn't be allowed to buy them?

As of roughly the beginning of the Cold War, the US military reversed its
earlier surplus-aircraft policy and decided that civilians could not be
trusted with jet fighters.

In practice, you'd be crazy to buy one -- part of the reason they're being
retired is that they are hideously expensive to maintain -- but then,
there are some crazy people out there...

That's because your from Canada and still believe that Queen of England is
the sovereign entity, not the individual. Essentially, that we all aren't
created equal, that some are more equal than others, and have a birth right
over the land and people. Well, maybe you don't believe all that, but
that's the system you live under. You have a birth right Queen (or King).

I don't consider it crazy to what to take a ride in an F-14, or watch a
formation of F-14s fly by at an air show 50 years from now. Without the
high performance weapons, it's just a high performance jet. There are
probably a lot of others who would be willing to spend the dollars to
maintain it for "a" super sonic ride in a F-14.

scott wrote:

On Jul 3, 11:08 pm, John wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:03 pm, JGDeRuvo wrote:

On Jul 2, 7:51 pm, Craig Fink wrote:

being sold to the American People. What craziness, here we are at War
in the Middle East and we are busy destroying weapons.

Hummm, kind of makes me wonder....
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Do you have a link for this?

The problem is, that no matter how much you or I may love the F-14
(and I loved it), the fact is that it was too expensive to maintain
anymore. Between wear on the airframe and the obsolescence of many of
its components (the parts aren't made anymore, or the people who made
them are out of business), the cost of keeping the planes flying in
the air was too much.

As far as destroying the airframes, I am not sure anyone . . . or any
foundation would have what it would take to keep an F-14 flying, like
is being done for the F-4. Perhaps if it was stripped of anything not
related to the safety of demonstration flight it could be done. But
the F-14 was complex and I am not sure it would be practical.

I just hope that anyone who wants one a gate guard or a memorial, and
has the money to pay to demil'ing the plane, transporting it, and
promises to take care of it, gets one

Take care . . .

John

They are being destroyed so that the parts don't fall into the wrong
hands. Any guess who might have some F-14's?

Let's see, we sell F-14s to Iran therefore we must destroy all of our
F-14s... Talk about Blowback on the American people.

John wrote:

On Jul 3, 4:03 pm, JGDeRuvo wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:51 pm, Craig Fink wrote:

being sold to the American People. What craziness, here we are at War
in the Middle East and we are busy destroying weapons.

Hummm, kind of makes me wonder....
--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @

Do you have a link for this?

The problem is, that no matter how much you or I may love the F-14
(and I loved it), the fact is that it was too expensive to maintain
anymore. Between wear on the airframe and the obsolescence of many of
its components (the parts aren't made anymore, or the people who made
them are out of business), the cost of keeping the planes flying in
the air was too much.

As far as destroying the airframes, I am not sure anyone . . . or any
foundation would have what it would take to keep an F-14 flying, like
is being done for the F-4. Perhaps if it was stripped of anything not
related to the safety of demonstration flight it could be done. But
the F-14 was complex and I am not sure it would be practical.

It's just the Aerospace Engineer in me, but even the F-4 is a beautiful
flying machine. As ugly as it is, it exudes the raw power of it's engines,
a flying brick. The F-14s, F-4s are or a just the high performance military
aircraft of our time. The P-51 is their equivalent of an earlier time, many
were destroyed as they roll off the assembly line, but many are still
flying. Even formations of P-51s at air shows (or even air race). Today,
there would probably be someone who would want to own and fly every single
one of those P-51s that was destroyed.

Viewing a static display isn't quite the same as watching one fly or riding
in one.

In article . net,
Craig Fink wrote:
In practice, you'd be crazy to buy one -- part of the reason they're being
retired is that they are hideously expensive to maintain -- but then,
there are some crazy people out there...

That's because your from Canada and still believe that Queen of England is
the sovereign entity, not the individual...

Funniest posting I've read this week!

that's the system you live under. You have a birth right Queen (or King).

And this is worse than having a birth right President... how, exactly? :-)

At least *we* don't let them have any real power. (It may not be obvious,
but essentially everything the Queen says in public is cleared through the
Prime Minister's office first, and anything dealing with actual policy is
mostly written there.)

We can hope that Bush's near-elimination of the inheritance tax will be
rolled back as he departs, which will help. (If this sounds like a non
sequitur, note that Theodore Roosevelt instituted that tax mostly to help
*prevent* the US from developing a de-facto hereditary aristocracy.
Unlike a lot of more-recent occupants of the White House, TR was genuinely
concerned with the long-term future of his country.)

As for the relevance of political system to private aviation, note that at
one time, the few jet fighters in private hands "in the US" were mostly
kept in Canada, because the US government was so hostile to the idea. Ah,
the US, that bastion of individual freedom...

I don't consider it crazy to what to take a ride in an F-14, or watch a
formation of F-14s fly by at an air show 50 years from now. Without the
high performance weapons, it's just a high performance jet.

An exceedingly complex one, that even today's USN finds almost impossibly
expensive to operate. Deleting the weaponry, and more importantly the
sensors, will help, but it's still a complicated, high-maintenance, costly
aircraft. Fast jets generally are not cheap to run, but the F-14 is an
extreme case even by those standards. The situation will only get worse
as the aircraft age and the remaining spare parts get used up.

Note carefully: I didn't say it was crazy to want to see F-14s, or to
want to ride in one -- only to want to *own* one.

If you want high-performance-jet rides, and high-performance jets showing
off in airshows, there are much cheaper choices. There's a reason why,
after half a century, P-51s are everywhere while flyable P-38s are much
less common: the extra complexity and operating cost of the P-38 buy you
very little. Similarly, strip the F-14 of its weapons and sensors, and
it's not a particularly remarkable aircraft.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |