|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... 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... There's a guy not too far from me who makes a living getting shot at by the Navy while flying his Chinese MiG-15. Maybe Paul Allen- I can't think of too many people who could afford to maintain an F-14. It would be a bit much even for John Travolta, who commutes to work in his 707 (which he parks in his driveway). No, really, right in Ocala, Florida. Guy named his kid *Jett*- can we say "obsession"? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... And this is worse than having a birth right President... how, exactly? :-) Hillary hasn't been elected, yet. 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.) Bill Gates' dad has spent money campaigning to *keep* the inheritance tax. That says a whole lot to me. 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. I used to think this was a problem, until I found out how much people are willing to pay to get an original P-40 shell ejection chute. This is a thing that could be made in a garage with a sheet of aluminum, and it's hidden inside the wing anyway (but then, some people chrome their carburators), so a fake one shouldn't make a difference. But it does. There *are* people who would buy them and fly them. There are even people who would pay big money at airshows for a ride. Hell, if some folks are willing to part with $200K for a suborbital lob, then there are folks who would pay $1K for a 20 minute flight in an F-14. Similarly, strip the F-14 of its weapons and sensors, and it's not a particularly remarkable aircraft. Yeah, but it looks cool. I, on the other hand, will stick to owning a model of one. Well, that is, until my kids found it... |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
"Craig Fink" wrote in message ink.net... 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. And it *still* beats the hell out of what most of the world's military flys. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote in message
... "Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... And this is worse than having a birth right President... how, exactly? :-) Hillary hasn't been elected, yet. I don't think she really would meet the definition of "birth right" here. Chelsea maybe. 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.) Bill Gates' dad has spent money campaigning to *keep* the inheritance tax. That says a whole lot to me. And Warren Buffet has said the same thing. As several other VERY rich Americans. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
On Jul 8, 4:29 am, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
snip Hell, if some folks are willing to part with $200K for a suborbital lob, then there are folks who would pay $1K for a 20 minute flight in an F-14. $1K won't cover the expense. On the other hand, in Russia you could (can?) get a ride in a Mig31 for $15K. You would even get the stick for a couple minutes. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
Hyper wrote: $1K won't cover the expense. On the other hand, in Russia you could (can?) get a ride in a Mig31 for $15K. You would even get the stick for a couple minutes. I think that was on a MiG-25, not MiG-31 The guy in the back of a Foxhound can't see forward, and has no ability to fly the aircraft from his hole. The MiG-25 trainer has a second seat where the radar used to be, with a seperate canopy: http://www.aeronautics.ru/mikoyan/mi...g-25pu-002.jpg But I think the instructor would be crazy to let the tourist fly the thing, because the aircraft is pretty lightly stressed, so one screw-up and you're dead. Pat |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 15:02:51 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Hyper wrote: $1K won't cover the expense. On the other hand, in Russia you could (can?) get a ride in a Mig31 for $15K. You would even get the stick for a couple minutes. I think that was on a MiG-25, not MiG-31 Mig-25, Mig-29 and Su-27. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
Kevin Willoughby wrote:
In article , says... 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... Nothing crazy in wanting one for static display. It would fine in any number of aviation museums. Even in your front yard, if you wanted one. I might even come by to take a look at it or sit in it, if you had one. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
F-14 being destroyed instead of...
Henry Spencer wrote:
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? :-) Ahh, so you see problem we're working on here to your South, Prince Bush. ;-) There is a rumor going around here among the Conservative Crowd (probably Liberal too) that historically True Republics only last a couple of hundred years before they decay into something else. We're currently just past the two hundred year limit, if there is such a thing. 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.) Are you sure it's not simply that the Queen is wanting to stay informed as to what the Prime Minister and Parlement are up to, so she summons the Prime Minister to inform her of the Common things that are going on? Smart, not looking ignorant about Common things of minor interest to her. I, like most United Statians (*of*, that was tough not saying, *Americans*) are pretty much ignorant of the intricate details of British Realm. I noticed the the Prime Minister of England's last official act was to see the Queen, did he "tell" her he was resigning as Prime Minister, or did he "ask" her to accept his resignation. "Cleared" is such a harsh word, like the Queen's words are subject to the Prime Minister approval. "Informed" would be much more neutral. 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.) Of the checks and balances written into our Constitution, that's probably one of the primary reasons we have the Second Amendment. All the weapons that our armed forces have in Iraq are the "Arms" that are mentioned in the Amendment. So, that a de-facto hereditary (or non-hereditary) aristocracy would not develop, rulers instead of public servants. I'm pretty ignorant on the origins of the inheritance tax, which is a tax on the middle class. Not the upper class who seem to always have a loop-hole. Or, the lower who have nothing to tax. I'd say the inheritance tax just makes it more likely that a de-facto ... would develop, by moving the middle class down. Growing the divide, so to speak. The other Roosevelt is reason why we have an Amendment to our Constitution to fix (implement in writing, the Rule-of-Law, the Constitution) the two term tradition he broke. The tradition that was set by George Washington. Another failing attempt, like the inheritance tax, to *prevent* the US from developing a ... You don't have a Second Amendment to ignore, do you? And, all the "Arms" belong to the Queen? Her Majesty's Ship (HMS) or in Canada's case Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS). Kind of makes things simple when England bans all "Arms" more modern than a broadsword. Here in the US we can't do that, we have to ignore the Rule-of-Law to do it, as the Constitutional process of Amending it seems to get in the way of our upper class. I think we are approaching the control of "Arms" in the hands of Commoners (the People) from two different directions. You've never had the right to own "Arms", we have, and wrote it down when we sent the King packing back to England. 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... Humm, didn't know that little fact, but I can believe it. Makes me wonder where we are headed, as the US degrades from the Rule-of-Law to the Rule-of-Man, as the Patriotic Act seems to be to give up our Freedom for the illusion of Safety. That's why I supporting Ron Paul in 2008, not because of the things he will do, but more for the things he will not do. All the Un-Constitutional things. It would be good for US to have a four or an eight year lesson on the Rule-of-Law, where 535 other Congressmen would actually read, think about, and follow our Constitution. 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. What a cool conversation piece parked in my garage. I still don't think it's crazy to what 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. Yeah, I agree the swing wing is dead and complex, but destroying them insures that we will not see any fly by at some future air show. I'd call that crazy. The P-38 a better analogy, I'd say the F-16 (the sports car of high performance jets) is the equivalent of the P-51. -- Craig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
JADE SAYS AUK WILL BE DESTROYED | Honest John | Misc | 30 | February 26th 06 09:23 PM |
Titan will be destroyed! | Pete Lawrence | UK Astronomy | 13 | January 15th 05 09:54 AM |
Titan will be destroyed! | Pete Lawrence | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | January 14th 05 07:21 PM |
Mars destroyed | Rodney Kelp | History | 15 | November 29th 04 10:26 PM |
Can a BH be destroyed? | BenignVanilla | Misc | 33 | April 7th 04 04:53 PM |