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.

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.

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

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.