105-0
04-29-2012, 09:46 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,192
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
Not really an age-issue or design issue. The investigation showed that MacAir/nee "Boeing" built the fuselage longerons incorrectly (too small; not to design specs). This issue did not affect the E-model.
What I don't understand: Why couldn't the Air Force make Boeing liable for their mistake, and fix it?
The total cost estimated to repair the 150-ish jets affected was $500k each, or about $75 million. The Air Force instead opted to retire those airplanes, saying it "....wasn't cost-effective."
Instead, they advocated vigorously (and lost) an argument to replace those 150 jets with additional F-22s.
BTW: the cost to repair those jets? Half the price of ONE F-22. Smart move.
There is also no guarantee that the F-22 doesn't have a ticking bomb in it like this. Oh wait, OBOGS......
What I don't understand: Why couldn't the Air Force make Boeing liable for their mistake, and fix it?
The total cost estimated to repair the 150-ish jets affected was $500k each, or about $75 million. The Air Force instead opted to retire those airplanes, saying it "....wasn't cost-effective."
Instead, they advocated vigorously (and lost) an argument to replace those 150 jets with additional F-22s.
BTW: the cost to repair those jets? Half the price of ONE F-22. Smart move.
There is also no guarantee that the F-22 doesn't have a ticking bomb in it like this. Oh wait, OBOGS......
04-29-2012, 09:54 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Originally Posted by Riddler
If 105-0 was all that great, why would we need the F-22?
I really enjoyed the video. My first squadron had quite the furball with the Redcocks during Cope Thunder '96
Two months later we deployed to Iwakuni, Japan (sending quite a bit of time in Kadena) and saw neither hide nor hair of them during the entire time. Very unusual at the time. Great training opportunities missed on both sides 
USMCFLYR
04-29-2012, 10:53 AM
#14
Super Moderator
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,549
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
What I don't understand: Why couldn't the Air Force make Boeing liable for their mistake, and fix it?
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
There is also no guarantee that the F-22 doesn't have a ticking bomb in it like this. Oh wait, OBOGS......
Originally Posted by Mink
Can't say "head" or "box", but their squadron is called the Cocks?
Cool video - looks like fun.
Cool video - looks like fun.
04-29-2012, 10:35 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Posts: 165
Pretty good video.
Outstanding jet. I loved every minute I had the privilege to fly it. A killing machine.
After 20+ years of jokes during my career, not to mention the years before I got started, do you think they could have used a different callsign for the video? Maybe? Just this once?
Outstanding jet. I loved every minute I had the privilege to fly it. A killing machine.
After 20+ years of jokes during my career, not to mention the years before I got started, do you think they could have used a different callsign for the video? Maybe? Just this once?
04-30-2012, 02:43 AM
#17
China Visa Applicant
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Midfield downwind
Posts: 1,919
Originally Posted by Riddler
If 105-0 was all that great, why would we need the F-22?
The 1968 Camaro was a pretty awesome car, but nobody would ever argue that Chevrolet should build it today as a current model. It wouldn't meet standards for safety, emissions, customer demands for comfort, efficiency, features, etc.
The Eagle was a phenomenal aircraft for it's time...but so many folks do not understand that time is passing, and it will be well outclassed in the future.
04-30-2012, 04:49 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 840
Originally Posted by Hacker15e
"Was" being the operative word.
The 1968 Camaro was a pretty awesome car, but nobody would ever argue that Chevrolet should build it today as a current model. It wouldn't meet standards for safety, emissions, customer demands for comfort, efficiency, features, etc.
The Eagle was a phenomenal aircraft for it's time...but so many folks do not understand that time is passing, and it will be well outclassed in the future.
The 1968 Camaro was a pretty awesome car, but nobody would ever argue that Chevrolet should build it today as a current model. It wouldn't meet standards for safety, emissions, customer demands for comfort, efficiency, features, etc.
The Eagle was a phenomenal aircraft for it's time...but so many folks do not understand that time is passing, and it will be well outclassed in the future.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
