Evan Burton
-
Posts
4,419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Evan Burton
-
-
John,
No, there wasn't one then... but the US acquiescence to the launching of Sputnik would suggest that 'space' was international, whilst 'airspace' was national.
Controlled airspace limits have traditionally been up to FL600 or 60,000 feet... or at least that is the extent to which NOTAMs will extend (unless describing a danger area, in which they will give the limits of the dangerous activity. A danger area is not restricted or prohibited airspace; it is simply a warning that a danger to aviation exists within the designated area).
-
I am not insisting that it was sabotage, or enemy fire, or mechanical malfunction, I'm just saying that sabotage must be figured into the equasion as it happened to Hyde in the past, and that the downing of a U2 at anytime is a significant event that deserves special attention, and can't be just dismissed as routine.
And I agree - it was NOT a routine event and should be subjected to scrutiny.
Apparently the ground crew playing such practical jokes is customary and routine in the Australian Navy, and not considered sabotage, but call it what you will, the guy who did it to Hyde got punched out, and it seems like he got what was coming to him. And Hyde wasn't reprimanded as he continued to fly until Nov. 20, 1963.An undeserved insult to the hard working maintenance personnel who keep the ADF's aircraft serviceable and airborne, and one that I am surprised to come from a person who has always shown even temperament and good judgment.
The T-33 incident involved a check pilot, and they stupidly decided to shut down the engine on short finals in order to 'evaluate' the performance of the pilot under review. I can fully understand Hyde's anger and decision to flatten the idiot who did this. The lack of subsequent charge (CUBO?) would seem to indicate his superiors agreed with his opinion of the check pilot. As I have said before, a stupid and dangerous technique.
And I doubt very much his mission was to routinely look for Ruskie Missiles, since the Cuban Missile Crisis had been resolved for 13 months.BK
Are you sure? Was not regular reconnaissance of Cuba a strategic aim? If not of the CIA then of the US DoD in general? I seem to remember some declassified CIA documents saying such, but will try to find them (if I have remembered correctly).
-
So then, that IS an option in the determining of what became of Hyde's U2, that went down within days of President Kennedy's assassination, and was based at the SAC base in La. where SAIC John W. Rice was at the time of the assassination, and like Power's U2 downing that spoiled Eisenhower's detante with the USSR, and the U2 shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which LeMay wanted to use as an excuse to exercise "rules of engagement" and retaliate by knocking out the missile site, thus sparking WWIII, it appears that the downing of a U2 during a major international crisis is not a coincidence but should be the subject of special attention.
Yea Evan, it wasn't sabatoge by an enemy combatant, it was just a practical joke by one of his ground crew.
Bill,
I don't know why you keep missing the point I am making. Was sabotage possible? Yes - but you have no proof of it. I can make a hypothesis that the aircraft was brought down by a SAM. I can put forward a hypothesis that it was brought down by a MiG 21.... but there is no evidence to support these hypotheses, even though there is nothing to say they are wrong. What I am also saying is that there is nothing to says that the AIB was wrong in their conclusions.
You can be certain that if it was me on a mission, I wouldn't accept you as a wingman.Well, everyone is entitle to their own opinion but luckily for me you are not an aviator.
-
Bill, the reason I ask because what you have highlighted above is NOT sabotage in my opinion. It is an incredibly stupid move by a check pilot but it is not sabotage in the mainstream meaning of the word. Unfortunately, this type of stupidity still turns up even today. Cases in point: a few years ago, the RAAF had a B707 crash because they practiced engine out asymmetric handling in flight, rather than in the simulator. It seems a similar situation was responsible for a crash recently in Darwin.
-
A friendly reminder to all concerned:
(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum. -
Bill,
What intentional sabotage do you refer to? The T-33 incident?
-
Evan, could you state the max achievable altitude of the early sixties U2, please?
John,
The operational limitations are not disclosed as the aircraft is still in service, but it is known that the U-2C could loiter at 70,000 feet.
-
Bill,
Here is my input into the discussion.
The differences between a T-33 on short final and a U-2 at altitude are vast. It has been documented that the U-2 at altitude required a skilled hand in order to keep it within the envelope. Straying outside the envelope lead to major problems.
It was a known weakness of the U-2 design and accepted as such, and all pilots were aware of it. There are examples of skilled pilots inadvertently straying outside the envelope and getting themselves into trouble.
There were also documented examples of U-2 pilots suffering hypoxia problems; this alone offers a reasonable explanation for the Hyde loss (and was hypothesized by some) although not supported by the accident investigation board.
The hypothesis put forward by the AIB was that it was most likely a "mach tuck" situation, where the pilot exceeded limits and found themselves in an uncomfortable situation.
Is it possible that sabotage or foul play of some description occurred? Most certainly... but my limited examination has not produced any evidence to support that conclusion.
-
Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:
"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."
I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too.
It would seem Judyth has an account here and as such is a member. The rule should apply.
I haven't read the thread, but is there a reason that Judyth does not post herself?
-
John Maxwell has never been refused membership. I have sent him an invitation to join.
Something does not jive here. I have recently received messages from two people
(one of them researcher John Armstrong) that upon trying to join, they received
an automatic message saying THE FORUM IS NO LONGER ACCEPTING NEW MEMBERS.
Now either this is so or not so. Which is it?
Jack
Jack,
You are correct - that is the e-mail that is sent to them. I'm not sure how John wishes membership to run but I think it might be 'by exception'. I'll confirm John's intentions and keep everyone updated on this thread.
-
Jack,
Please make sure Mr Maxwell is aware of this post:
Message sent to everyone who applies:If you send me a biography and photograph I will register you. See the following for examples:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=37
John Simkin
johnsimkin1945@hotmail.com
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=188189
My guess is Mr Maxwell could not apply for membership, not that he was refused membership.
-
Reports are still sketchy, but it is looking more and more likely that it was either a mine or an internal explosion. I can't find diagrammes of the ship's layout, so don't know if the depth charge storage / torpedo storage areas were about amidships.
-
Ah! Thanks for that Greg - I misunderstood.
-
(Posted on behalf of JVB) I can't wait to learn more about "the false defector program".
Excuse my interruption, but I find that comment a little strange. I wouldn't pretend to know even one hundredth of the JFK assassination details that Prof Fetzer, Jack White and others know but even I am aware that both the US and the USSR "planted" defectors (e.g. TOP HAT, FEDORA, etc)
-
It'll also be interesting to see what affect this has on the US troop withdraw from South Korea.
-
SHIPS and aircraft searched choppy and frigid seas yesterday for survivors of one of South Korea's worst naval disasters, but hopes faded for 46 seamen missing after an unexplained explosion tore a warship in half.
The tragedy happened near the tense disputed Yellow Sea border with North Korea, scene of bloody naval clashes in 1999 and 2002.
Seoul officials said there was no sign so far that the North was to blame.
Full story:
http://www.smh.com.au/world/warship-blown-...00327-r45k.html
I'm guessing that because it split in half and sank so rapidly that it was a pretty big explosion. Wayward mine, perhaps? Torpedo? Or were they carrying something that exploded (although initial reports say the blast was external)?
-
-
They continued to do regular overflights of Cuba, so I presume it was just one of those. Just a guess though.
-
Just my opinion, but I think when he said "...Nor were sorties over Cuba just routine..." I believe the author was referring to the fact that the missions themselves were hazardous due to the threat from the SA-2, and not saying that the mission itself was unusual.
-
The A-7 is an attack aircraft, not a fighter. To the best of my knowledge there was never a recon variant (RA-7) nor even a recon pod for aircraft. In USN service, the recon role was normally done by the RF-8, the RF-4 or the RA-5C.
-
This might be of interest - it's an article about that mission written by Joe Hyde's son:
http://www.hydeinteractive.com/projects/sk...rns-your-memory
-
Bill - slight correction to your post. RF-8 Crusaders were used in Cuba, not the A-7 Corsair II though they look similar and were built by the same company.
-
Is the Clark orbit considered ''space'' in terms of recognising space as international territory? The first geosynchronous satellite was launched (concieved '26) in '64.
Well, there is no internationally agreed definition of outer space, but most agree it it starts at 100km altitude. A "Clarke orbit" is at about 36,000km.
-
The U-2, like the SR-71, has the advantage of being able to be tasked to any area at very short notice. Satellites can only image the areas under their orbital path. They can change orbits, but to do so is prohibitively expensive in RCS fuel.
The Crash of the U-2 on November 20, 1963
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Thank you. Without groundies no-one would fly... at least safely
I NEVER said this was a routine procedure in the RAN. I said that a similar event occurred in the RAAF some years ago. I also highlighted an event which was believed to be the cause of an accident (the report hasn't been finalised as yet). I also said that some people still commit some similar stupid acts (If you like, I'll go through the NTSB accident database and give some examples).
What was the purpose of that particular mission? I do not know - but I can suggest it was part of the regular surveillance missions flown.
I'll look for the events you mention Bill... but, again you have no evidence that the mission was specifically meant to detect Soviet ICBMs; all I know is that the aircraft was tasked to conduct overflight of Cuba. When someone shows us more detail, we'll have a better understanding of what it was doing.