On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 09:21:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, February 19, 2019 at 4:26:31 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 08:11:52 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 10:58:07 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 18:04:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Monday, February 18, 2019 at 4:30:23 PM UTC-8, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:44:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Exactly why has this group become on of little more than arguments? Frank and a few others seem to be taking offense at virtually anything.

While I certainly don't expect this to actually stay on the tech subject and perhaps I'm the largest contributor to wandering off subject this doesn't mean that it has to be angry conversations rather than rational discussions.

If you make comments that open yourself up to potshots don't be surprised if someone takes advantage of you.

The fault lies primarily with you and your continually touting of
"facts", that you apparently make up. You never provide any data to
back up your assertions and become very abusive if anyone points out
your errors. You are also well known for changing the subject when
anyone points out your errors and provides proof that you are wrong.

And yes, "if you make comments that open yourself up to potshots don't
be surprised if someone takes advantage of you".

One can only gaze with wonder at an individual that continually posts
"facts" with no evidence of accuracy and then complains about being
corrected. Or is this post just another example of you trying
desperately to justify your own foolishness?

--
Cheers,
John B.
I absolutely love some ass such as yourself saying something like that
while showing NO FACTS yourself. Especially the part of you being crew
chief on an aircraft that didn't exist much after WW II and then only
for about 5 years. That would make you, what, 95 years old? And in
order to be in position to be a crew chief you would have had to be in
the Army Air Corp already because when they switched over to the Air
Force the AAC filled ALL of the available rank slots for 15 years and
even when I was in a promotion from E3 to E4 had only ONE promotion in
the entire maintenance shops in four years.


Err... which airplane was that? The 98'th Bomb Wing's B-29's
http://www.strategic-air-command.com/wings/0098bw.htm
" The wings first three squadrons flew B-29 from 1948 to 1954, when
they received B-47s.

Or the 6091st Recon Squadron?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6091st...sance_Squadron
Aircraft:
RB-29 Superfortress (Photo-Recon), 1954
RB-50B Superfortress (Photo/Weather Recon), 1954 - 1961
RB-50G Superfortress (ELINT/Radar Recon), 1954 - 1961

As for age? I was born in 1932, joined the A.F. in 1952 and retired in
1972, so I'm not yet 90 years old although I'm getting there.

As for the Army Air Corps...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force
" The USAF was established as a separate branch of the U.S. Armed
Forces on 18 September 1947 with the passing of the National Security
Act of 1947".

As for promotions, I can only comment that I enlisted in 1952 and was
promoted S/Sgt before my 4 year enlistment was completed.

Your sob story about the AAC personnel filling all the slots for 15
years is utter B.S. I served from about 5 years after the changeover
and certainly from that period to my end of service there was little
change in promotions.

But I will give you credit for inventing a good excuse for some dumb
ass not getting promoted.

So once again you exhibit the trait that I mentioned above. Your
continually touting of "facts", that you apparently make up. You never
provide any data to back up your assertions and become very abusive if
anyone points out your errors."

So I suggest you've made an absolute ass out of yourself too many times to criticize anyone about anything.

Sorry old buddy, but as I demonstrated above it is not me that made an
absolute ass out of myself. It was that other guy who is apparently
devoted to telling lies and claiming that they are facts.

--
Cheers,
John B.

Passing off your imaginary tale isn't making it at all. When I joined in 1962 there were still all of the upper echelon from either WW II or Korea.

You are really sort of stupid, aren't you.

In 1962 I would guess that a majority of the senior NCO's would have
enlisted in a period from something like 1947, which would have given
then something in the order of 15 years service, or there about. Which
was perfectly normal during my 20 years of service.

But, as I say, you are probably making this up to compensate for the
fact that you weren't promoted as you thought that you should have
been. I mean a really brilliant chap like you should have been
enlisted as at least a general. Or maybe a Field Marshal?


The B50 was nothing more than a B29 with huge engines on it. The engines were unreliable and since they weren't contra-rotating they had to put that huge tail on it. The B50 was only produced until 1965 but the bomber version was out of service almost immediately.

So what. You stated that I couldn't have been a crew chief on a B-29
or B-50 which I then demonstrated were in service in the two
organizations I was assigned to at the time.

Now, as usual when you are defeated by actual facts you change the
subject, and pretty much get it wrong again. the B-29 had fuel
injected R-3350 engines that produced a maximum power of 3,500 H.P.
while the B-50's R4360's produced 3750 HP with water injection. So
roughly only about 7% more power but a far more reliable power plant.

After that most of those produced were air refueling tankers for B47's and photo reconnaissance; KB50 and RB50. The B29 was a flying piece of junk to begin with and was only produced for four years.

The first batch of B-29's was built in 1941 and the last was built in
1946, a period of 5 years so you almost got it right.

The B50 was only produced from '48 - '65 and was only a bridge heavy bomber until the B52 was initially brought into action in 1955.

Wrong again. The next heavy bomber after the B-50 was the B-36.

isn't that the time that you claim to have been a crew chief? How were you a crew chief on a B50 where there weren't any B50's flying? The F-ing landing gear would collapse if you landed very hard. They could even collapse on take-off. They had to re-design the landing gear so that the Tankers could take-off and land.

So far you are batting 100% errors. Yes, I was a crew chief on a B-50
in 1955 and the B-50's were still flying. The last B-50's left A.F.
service in 1965 when, by then, I had 13 years of service.

As for the landing gear collapsing... strange it never happened on any
of our airplanes and the KB-50 tanker squadron across the field never
had any problems with landing gear either.

Can you provide any data to prove your argument or is this (yet again)
one of your lies?


After the Buff was brought in they built them for 10 years and heavily modified they are still flying today. No other plane in history ever carried the bomb load that a Buff could. We had them so overloaded that we could have four 2,500 lb bombs in the bomb bays and 1,500 lbers on the wing nacelles.

What in the world are you talking about? You were attempting to
undermine my experience with the B-29 and B-50 and now you have
switched to the B-52?


--
Cheers,
John B.

I am not in the least surprised that you change the subject. I never once mentioned a B29 other than the B50 being a poorly designed extension of that aircraft.

You are the one claiming that you were a crew chief on a B50 when by the time you could have entered the service there were few is any B50's around and almost the entire fleet was KB50's and RB50's. The only thing these aircraft were good for were for very high altitude reconnaissance or very heavy load tankers.

You don't read well, do you. Or you are deliberately disregarding my
evidence that in fact that the 98th bomb wing, that I was assigned to
in Japan did not convert to B-47 until 1954, two years after I
enlisted and that the 91st and then the 6091st Reconnaissance Squadron
flew the B-50's until 1961, some 9 years after I enlisted and almost 5
years after I was promoted to S/Sgt.

As for KB and RB-50? Do you imagine that these were a different
airplane then the B-50? Well, I suppose that they were. After all the
RB's had cameras and the KB's carried big tanks in their bomb bays.

They were essentially replaced the second that the B47 came on-line and then went out of service after the B52 appeared.

What, they were essentially replaced... I posted you the official
history of the 6091st Reconnaissance Squadron which says that they
weren't replaced until 1961. Or do you believe that somehow you know
more than the official historians of the squadron.

Or perhaps you believe that if you somehow disregard any and all
historical data and just keep shouting loud enough that people will
believe you.

You really should read the story of "Chicken Little" who ran about the
barnyard shouting, "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!", Rather
like you do, and then when he reported that the "fox is coming" nobody
believed him.


Funny how your "experience" does seem to meet the facts. Your rapid advancement also didn't meet any of the realities I saw in four years in the Air Force. I didn't see ANYONE advancing because WW II and Korean War vets had all of the slots above E-3.

I hate to tell you but as the Korean war officially ended in July 1953
when I had already been in the A.F. for a year so I was there during
the period that you claim all the slots were filled by war vets and
your story is utter B.S. After all I was promoted so why weren't you?

The fact that you didn't advance is more then likely due to your own
lack of effort rather then your supposed excuse that the ranks were
full of people E-3 and above left over from the wars. After all, the
make up of the A.F. the ratio between officers, non-coms and enlisted
has remained about the same throughout its history.

But then, I knew folks that didn't seem to be able to get promoted and
when you looked into the matter you found that the reason that they
didn't get promoted was that they were essentially worthless. Little
job knowledge, lazy, and full of excuses as to why they shouldn't be
picked on.

In fact your stories about not being promoted because of the war vets
in the A.F. follows right along with your other stories about the
President causing you to lose your money, you can't get a job because
of prejudice, and, and, and.... And every time it is someone else's
fault.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

--
Cheers,
John B.