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"?

"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...

"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.

"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.

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.

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

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.

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.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Kansas City, this was Air Force One. Will you change
our call sign to SAM 27000? -- Col. Ralph Albertazzie

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

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.

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 @