P-38 on a stick

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 2:25 am

PbyCat-Guy wrote:

During my recent visit to McGuire AFB in New Jersey to schedule for my AFOQT so I can go fly an A-10

MD ANG is all ready sending you to OTS and UPT and you haven't even taken the AFOQT yet?

JDK · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 2:45 am

Randy Haskin wrote:

MD ANG is all ready sending you to OTS and UPT and you haven't even taken the AFOQT yet?

This post is also available in English.

warbird1 · **Joined:** Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:25 pm **Posts:** 2760

JDK wrote:

Randy Haskin wrote:

MD ANG is all ready sending you to OTS and UPT and you haven't even taken the AFOQT yet?

This post is also available in English.

I'll translate:

"The Maryland Air National Guard is all ready sending you to Officer Training School and Undergraduate Pilot Training and you haven't even taken the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test yet?"

Some of the terms:

MD ANG: This is the National Guard unit who fly's the A-10 to which the poster is referring to. In essence, the wing or squadron.

OTS: This is one of 3 commission sources to which all Air Force Pilots must utilize in order to be sworn in as a 2nd Lt. The other two are AFROTC (Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps) and the Air Force Academy (USAFA). It is Air Force regulations that any pilot must first be commissioned as an officer by one of the 3 sources prior to reporting to Pilot Training. OTS is basically a "gentlemen's course" on boot camp on how to become an Air Force Officer. It is the quickest and easiest of the 3 commission sources, lasting approximately 90 days.

UPT: Undergraduate Pilot Training: The Air Force Flight training school which lasts about one year. This is where a pilot candidate receives their training and wings upon graduation. UPT is actually an old term leftover from the 90's. It is now called SUPT (Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training). It's basically the same thing, except pilot trainees are "tracked" in their specialty airplanes early on during training. There are basically two tracks in SUPT - 1) bombers/fighters track and 2) everything else (all heavies).

AFOQT: This is a standardized test administered by the Air Force to test potential candidates on their aptitude. This measures some of the knowledge and abilities considered necessary for successful completion of pilot training. In other words, it's like a glorified "entrance exam".

I believe what Randy is saying is that he is shocked that the poster (PBYCat-Guy) has already been selected to fly the A-10 when in reality he hasn't even completed the first Air Force step toward the long road to fly that aircraft.

I believe PBYCat-Guy is just being an optimist and thinking positive that he has a good chance at success in realizing his dream.

Either one, please correct me if I have misinterpreted this!

JDK · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 4:52 am

Thanks. I was just being cheeky, having an allergy to acronyms used outside their specialisation.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 5:42 am

warbird1 wrote:

I believe what Randy is saying is that he is shocked that the poster (PBYCat-Guy) has already been selected to fly the A-10 when in reality he hasn't even completed the first Air Force step toward the long road to fly that aircraft.

Yep, exactly what I was saying.

I was just wondering, because ANYTHING is possible with an ANG unit!

Enemy Ace · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 5:46 am

Pby guy, just promise to be the Snack-o and you're in! See you in Afghanistan!

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 7:23 am

Jack Cook wrote:

Quote:

By the way it ended up there after it was wrecked.

It suffered a nose gear failure on the ferry flight there resulting in minor damaged that was quickly repaired.

Right so it was wrecked.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 7:29 am

Matt Gunsch wrote:

go look at any plane that sits outside, in the NJ weather, and I don't care how much care they recieve, they are going to rot. Sure they take it down and give it a coat of paint, and maybe clean a little external corrosion, but the point remains, they took a FLYABLE plane and stuck it on a pole to rot. It should be replaced with a fiberglass replica. Even the Hill AFB P-38 gets treated better than the NJ one, at least it is inside and on it's wheels.

Once again,

1) Have YOU seen it?

2) Are you familiar with their upkeep program?

3)Have you talked to the men and women at that base about what that aircraft means to them.

If you have a beef with the NMUSAF which you must since any chance you get to through a dig at the place you do, then fine. If you have a real problem with the P-38 then you must be jacked at Tallichet for selling it to them. I don't see how this aircraft would serve any better purpose for the people of this base if it was flying. By the way all of those KC-10's are outside. Are they rotting too?

Jack, I know what you mean, minor damage, just trying to prove a point.

Matt, I don't mean to start a battle over this, as most of what you say is true on just about every aircraft I have ever seen mounted on a pole. But there are exceptions. There was a Mig killer F-4 mounted on a pole at Wright Patt for years. Whne it came time to replace it with an F-15, the F-4 needed to be taken down. THe USAF had so well upkept the aircraft that they hooked up a power cart to it, and extended the landing gear on it's own power. Then with a crane took it down. This F-4 is now at the Museum of Aviation in Georgia. This P-38 is very well kept. Would I like to see it inside? Sure. One day it will happen. For now I am glad that it is being taken care of at such a great level.

Matt Gunsch · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 8:56 am

Yes, I have seen it,
there is no amount of maint that can be done to a plane that justifies sticking a flyable plane on a pole. Why don't they stick the Memphis Bell on a pole when they are done restoring it ? I am sure it will recieve the same amount of care as the P-38 does.
Just because the landing gear works when power was applied does not mean the plane was in good shape. That is like saying a terminal cancer patient is doing great because they can move thier legs.

The P-38 there is a symbol, and could be replaced with a fiberglass replica and serve the same purpose. If it means so much to the airman there, ask them about that plane, not the one it is painted as, and I bet not a one can tell you it's history.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 10:26 am

Matt the Memphis Belle was basically a gate gaurd for almost 60 years, and now it is being given the care it deserves. By the way the MB was in the hands of a civilian group, while it's condition went down hill. So does that make it better for you? This P-38 is kept in good condition, and this is nothing more than a way for you to continue to b*%^h and moan about the NMUSAF. have fun, I know it is one of your hobbies.

retroaviation · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 10:34 am

Simmer down, Chris. I don't think he was bad-mouthing the NMUSAF so much as he was bad-mouthing the decision to put a flying aircraft on a stick. I can't speak for Matt on the Memphis Belle issue, but I would be willing to bet that he didn't like the fact that it was kept outside and left to deteriorate in Memphis either. Whether it's civilian or the NMUSAF, the idea is to preserve these aircraft (especially historic ones) and not to allow them to deteriorate.

Sometimes, we cannot do more than "pretty them up" and stick them outside. That is more or less what I'm going to do with the F-105 for the Texas Air Museum. Do I like the fact that it has no shelter? No! But the difference is that the T.A.M. doesn't have the funding that some folks have in order to enclose their aircraft. Oh, and with that being said, we ARE trying to find a way to house the F-105, via sponsors, donations, etc. So, it can be done, it's just a matter of how hard you try.

I'm not trying to take sides on this, although I think most folks here would know my stand on the P-38 issue. The point to my rant here is that you gotta understand that sometimes the NMUSAF is just as bad for these airplanes as those "civilians" that had the Memphis Belle were to it. Make sense?

Gary

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 10:34 am

[
Just because the landing gear works when power was applied does not mean the plane was in good shape. That is like saying a terminal cancer patient is doing great because they can move thier legs. [/quote]

The F-4 in question was indeed kept in good condition. If a patient was in a comma for 10 years, then moved their legs, it would be a big deal.

RMAllnutt · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 10:36 am

A nose gear collapse requiring minimal restoration is not "wrecked". Wrecked implies a write-off... no a bump.

i was told by someone who should know the details that a lot of the skin was replaced with stainless steel, making it easier to keep looking shiny. This presents a bit of a problem though, as stainless steel and aluminum don't play well together. Hope there is not a lot of internal corrosion where the two metals meet.

Whatever you say MustangDriver, it's never good to keep a plane out in the elements. No matter how much maintenance you do, it will eventually corrode... you just can't get into all of the nooks and crannies... no one could.

Richard

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 10:44 am

And I agree with all of you for the most part. But the NMUSAF didn't steal this airplane from an airport and put it here. Someon sold it to them, and this base wanted it. There are aircraft that are in very bad shape that are gate gaurds. This is not one of them. They had a landing accident and had damage done to the aircraft. I call that a wreck. just as I would if you hit something with your car. I don't mean it to sound more than it was. It was a minor wreck.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Sun May 31, 2009 11:16 am

retroaviation wrote:

Simmer down, Chris. I don't think he was bad-mouthing the NMUSAF so much as he was bad-mouthing the decision to put a flying aircraft on a stick. I can't speak for Matt on the Memphis Belle issue, but I would be willing to bet that he didn't like the fact that it was kept outside and left to deteriorate in Memphis either. Whether it's civilian or the NMUSAF, the idea is to preserve these aircraft (especially historic ones) and not to allow them to deteriorate.

Sometimes, we cannot do more than "pretty them up" and stick them outside. That is more or less what I'm going to do with the F-105 for the Texas Air Museum. Do I like the fact that it has no shelter? No! But the difference is that the T.A.M. doesn't have the funding that some folks have in order to enclose their aircraft. Oh, and with that being said, we ARE trying to find a way to house the F-105, via sponsors, donations, etc. So, it can be done, it's just a matter of how hard you try.

I'm not trying to take sides on this, although I think most folks here would know my stand on the P-38 issue. The point to my rant here is that you gotta understand that sometimes the NMUSAF is just as bad for these airplanes as those "civilians" that had the Memphis Belle were to it. Make sense?

Gary

Gary I know what you mean. I think you are right with alot of it. I thinkt hat Matt is right that the plane should go inside, or put a plastic one up, but the plane is not rotting. The problem I have is that people can blindly bash the NMUSAF of NMNA because to they enjoy it. Even if it means trying to find a reason.

Warbird Information Exchange

P-38 on a stick

Who is online