Fighter vs. Interceptor and why I say wrong, BenBurch...

[catnhatnh]

First you have to split what the two type of aircraft are...and both are killers...A fighter is made to take it to the enemy and an interceptor is ONLY made to kill the enemy when he attacks you...and the difference is air endurance....think WW2 and mustang-the first fighter that could defend our bombers by flying all the way to Germany.The hot challenge in 1945 was the ME-262,the worlds first air superiority aircraft and one of the first interceptors..the mustang could fly the distance and the 262 could only defend....not enough onboard tankage to trouble England...So in the 60's Bush flies a plane that AIN'T heading to Vietnam-it only works if other guys are attacking you-onboard fuel only allows a 1-2 hour flight....by the by-these boys turn faster,drive harder and strike harder,just because 90 minutes of fuel weighs less than 4-5 hours worth does...He flew them-not necessarily well or aggressively,but no,auto-pilot did not get it...I believe he was a poor pilot-but not as poor as people with muslim names...But till Ben gets fighter vs. interceptor......

[benburch]

1. Couldn't post this in the original thread?

Gotta call me out by name?

Not good.

And you are still wrong. He was no sort of combat pilot because the F-102 is an AUTOMATIC AIRCRAFT. He just has to take off and land.

[benburch]

2. Oh, and I clearly understand the difference.

I can talk in detail about most aircraft in the US arsenal since the JN-4. You, however, failed to read my posting.

[catnhatnh]

3. Really Ben???

JUST take off and land??? I like you but you should know better-when do most aircraft crash???

[benburch]

4. Most transport aircraft yes.

But Bush the Feckless never had to learn any REAL flying.

[catnhatnh]

11. Ben-I really do like most of what you post...

...and believe that the idiot-in-chief is just that....But back then there was a difference between "liking flying" and "performing flying" and one kept you from being 11 bravo....the 102 was NOT a cupcake...nor the most challenging ever...but either he has 100+ hours in the bitch or he don't-you don't NEED automatic flying if you can both take off and land-he is a jerk-this just ain't why...as to his air of superiority,combined with his poor cessna performance,why are you surprised??

[SPKrazy]

5. So You Are Broad Brushing Pilots With Muslim Names?

and defending *'s piloting?

uh huh

[benburch]

7. Looks that way to me.

I sense a deep cover suicide run here.

[Dhalgren]

6. Is this a joke?

"I believe he was a poor pilot-but not as poor as people with muslim names." Or is there something from the original thread that serves to make this NOT a racist statement? Just asking...

[benburch]

8. You understand this correctly.

Not only is this Calling Out, but it is an unmasking.

[catnhatnh]

12. Okay,

I did NOT call you out-I said you were wrong.But appearently to say I believe you were mistaken is an attack sign to you???You appearently CAN NOT BE WRONG-whether speaking on political stuff (which you have and on which I believed you) or on when you speak on aviation in which I have an enduring interest and knowledge of....but in short,your anger on this disturbs me, if only because it shows a short fuse...I'm sorry if your name in the title line angered you but in this case I believe you are mistaken....

[benburch]

13. From the DU rules, which you agreed to.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

Sorry, but that is very clear. It would have been OK to post this in the original thread, but to post it separately, and call me out BY NAME in the post title is a clear violation.

[catnhatnh]

17. Jesus Christ Ben...

I promise not to "stalk" you again...I said you were wrong-how dumb of me to interject stupid shit like facts-to point out the difference between fighter and interceptor aircraft, which was
obviously a clarion call that I am a freeper and a freak who would dare oppose your massive intellect.Foolishly I pointed out that EVEN if the plane could go and fly it's mission on autopilot,that take-offs and landings might still require a modicum of skill...and to say that even if it scared him SHITLESS, he may have found it more endurable than being shot at...
Now WHERE did I "follow" you to???Did I pick a fight?If someone says you are wrong or mistaken,is that picking a fight?I have read many of your posts-this time when I believe you are wrong I said so-If no criticism is allowed I will take my punishment...

[converted_democrat]

16. "Fighter vs. Interceptor and why I say wrong, BenBurch..."

That's calling a member out by name, if I've ever seen it..

[Dhalgren]

9. From what I have read, BUsh wasn't a "certified" pilot of any

kind. He never reached certification (or maybe he never flew after "certification" was "given" to him)...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Most.Stupid.Thread.Ever.

Ridiculously immature. It so easily could've been done via PM or the original thread.

Calling another poster out like this is utter bullshit. Furthermore, it isn't bad enough that you did it, but you didn't even post anything meaningful, inspiring, thought-provoking, or anything that anyone else on DU could give a rats fat ass about at all. Just a waste of GD space. Next time, PM him or just respond in the thread. This is useless.

[catnhatnh]

14. Actually...

I had been away for a while and Ben's post had been several hours before I came back and I decided to address him directly...from what I had seen of his stuff before I thought that maybe facts would be interesting to him-I liked his political stuff...Nothing meaningful-I thought we were discussing America's air defense posture in the 60's....If you don't realize the difference between fighters and interceptors it would be easy to draw incorrect assumptions...we needed both fighters,to escort our bombers heading towards the bad guys, and interceptors here to stop both their fighters and bombers heading our way...an interceptor has the inherent benefit of carrying much less fuel-when they meet, the fighter and interceptor carry the same (or nearly) percentage of fuel load-about 65%-But the interceptors fuel load only has to carry it till a safe local landing-a fighters must carry him back home no matter how far.Sp the lighter,faster, interceptor gets it's advantage from being the local hero-with the same engine and lower weight,it SHOULD win...
Anyhow-that was what Bush was trained to-a max 2 hour mission with the home team advantage...

[Kingshakabobo]

15. In other words, you had no reason not to post in the OP.

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[Moderator]

18. Locking

Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html