Title :
link :
WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDAY
.BLOGSPOT.COM
Monday, Jan. 29, 2018
All Gave Some~Some Gave All
Laugh of the day
If someone asks you what the difference is between most of the Obama/Hillary/Bernie supporters and most of the Trump supporters, instead of stammering and stuttering and trying to come up with a long answer, just tell them...
The Trump supporters sign their checks on the front, and the liberal
supporters sign their checks on the back.
I NEVER REALIZED THAT IT WAS THIS SIMPLE!
A beautiful woman is like an ageless melody.
With Farrakhan (Hidden picture)
Fifteen beautiful pictures of P-Town…. Enjoy! (From our pal George)
http://ift.tt/2Gqux4j
Joe Manchin Tries to Run for Re-Election as Pro-Gun Candidate Rejected by NRA
by AWR HAWKINS
With November 2018 getting closer Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is trying to run for re-election as the pro-gun candidate rejected by the NRA.
Machin’s Senate career began with a 2010 special election victory in which he ran as pro-gun and enjoyed NRA support. However, once in office Manchin expressed many of the same gun control views as Michael Bloomberg and spearheaded Barack Obama’s gun control push following the attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School. PBS reported that the Obama White House trusted Manchin to beat the NRA on gun control.
To be clear, Manchin’s gun control support has paid dividend among leftists. For example, Bloomberg held a fundraiser for Manchin on July 22, 2013, and Breitbart News reportedthat Manchin attended the fundraiser. Yet while leftists were giving Mancin money the NRA was severing its relationship with him.
Moreover, the NRA ran an ad in West Virginia highlighting Manchin’s embrace of gun control:
But Manchin did not recant his gun control support. Instead, he made efforts to reinvigorate his failed Sandy Hook gun control package whenever afforded the opportunity. Following Pres. Trump’s election, Manchin even expressed his hope that Trump could be persuaded to join the Manchin gun control campaign.
On April 7, 2015, Breitbart News reported that Manchin attempted to explain away the NRA’s rejection of him by suggesting the NRA was no longer the group it used to be. He claimed the NRA used to stand for “gun culture” but morphed into standing for “big business.”
Now Manchin is running for re-election in gun-loving West Virginia and the onus is on him to convince residents that he pro-gun despite being pro-gun control. Doing that will require him to run as a pro-gun candidate rejected by the NRA.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News, the host of the Breitbart podcast Bullets, and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.
Moe note: Manchin is likely the biggest disappointment of the year. He talks a good game. Joe has sold himself as a conservative. He’s with us (NRA types) except when it counts. He’s my personal #1 flop for the year. I don’t care who he loses to. This charleton has to go.
Exclusive to Breitbart — Sen. Chuck Grassley: ‘America First’ Means a Modernized NAFTA
by SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA)
AP Photo/Charlie Neiberg
During his speech to the American Farm Bureau at its annual convention, President Trump said that “farmers deserve a government that serves their interest and empowers them to do the hard work that they love to do so much.” As a family farmer, I couldn’t agree more.
Agriculture is a vitally important economic driver that stimulates jobs on and off the farm throughout rural America, which was among the hardest hit by and slowest to recover from the recession. Exporting commodities and value-added agricultural products is key to the quality of life rural America. In fact, the United States is the world’s top exporter of food and agricultural products.
In my home state of Iowa, one out of five jobs is trade-dependent. Every third row of soybeans is planted for export, 60 percent of Iowa corn exports and 77 percent of poultry product exports are exported to countries in the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, and, as the number one hog producer in the United States, Iowa exports more than 25 percent of its pork to foreign markets, valued at $1 billion in 2016. Needless to say, smart trade policies have a major and direct impact on the health of the economy in Iowa.
In particular, NAFTA is a pivotal component to successful comprehensive U.S. trade policy. From 2010 to 2012, 27.5 percent of all U.S. agriculture exports were to Canada and Mexico, a number that has grown over the last two decades. This growth has resulted in tens of billions of dollars being pumped into local economies and is made possible through strong, cooperative trade policies that benefit America’s farmers while increasing jobs and strengthening the rural economy.
Revenue generated through NAFTA has boosted the financial health of Americans who grow, process, market, transport and sell food, renewable fuels and fibers. This contributes to the success of the national economy. Considering NAFTA’s significant and overall positive economic impact, I caution any serious changes to the agreement without a clear understanding of the short and long-term repercussions.
Recent discussions on NAFTA and America’s participation in it have ranged from renegotiating terms to exiting the agreement entirely. In an “America First” agenda, withdrawing from NAFTA would be a mistake and cause serious, negative consequences.
President Trump has regularly expressed and demonstrated his support for rural America and agriculture. Over the past year, the Trump administration has taken tremendous steps forward in making life better for the farming communities that have been largely overlooked for too long. One step was the establishment of the Rural Prosperity Task Force, which helped identify legislative, regulatory and policy changes necessary to secure prosperity for rural America. In fact, it’s already working.
The passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is another victory for American agriculture. Since most farms are organized as pass-through businesses, they will benefit from both lower across-the-board tax rates and a 20 percent deduction in their taxable income. The doubling of the estate tax exemption will allow family farms to be passed from one generation to the next with less hassle, and farmers will now be able to expense 100 percent of their capital investments, such as equipment, over the next four years.
These are only some of the examples of the progress made under President Trump on behalf of the agriculture community in America. A smart renegotiation of NAFTA would continue building on these early successes. Improvements to the agreement would unlock additional potential for productivity and prosperity in America’s heartland.
Efforts to secure a better, fairer deal that increases U.S exports will help create better-paying jobs for American workers, unleash investment and ramp up innovation in America. U.S. agriculture depends on access to international markets in which to sell their products. Lowering trade barriers and expanding access to more markets can serve as a game changer to revitalize American agriculture for generations to come.
As talks about the future of NAFTA move forward, I will continue to voice the importance of the agreement to the country’s agriculture communities and overall economic success. I’ll also continue to encourage the president and his administration to remain committed to an “America First” agenda that includes strong support for agriculture and trade.
American agriculture not only anchors U.S. food and national security, it also boosts our balance of trade, broadens the tax base and reaches deeply into the nation’s economy. The country needs strong agriculture and trade policies. President Trump was right when he said that “farmers deserve a government that serves their interest and empowers them” to do the work they take so much pride in doing. I’m confident that we can negotiate a fair deal that will put farmers first and encourage continued economic growth and prosperity in rural America.
Senator Chuck Grassley is a Republican U.S. senator from Iowa and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Dennis Prager: ‘My Opposition to Donald Trump Was Wrong,’ He Is a ‘Great President’
by ROBERT KRAYCHIK
“My opposition to Donald Trump was wrong,” said Dennis Prager, describing Donald Trump as a “great president” whose political successes are connected to a disregard for the left-wing and partisan Democrat news media narratives.
Prager’s comments came during Thursday’s episode of his eponymous radio show. While Prager has said that Trump was his last choice during the Republican primaries, he supported him vigorously in the general election against Hillary Clinton.
“The only way to govern [while advancing] the principles of conservatism,” said Prager, was to disregard left-wing and partisan Democrat agitation pushed across the news media landscape. Prager said:
I was wrong. My opposition to Donald Trump was wrong, in retrospect. I was wrong. I had friends who supported him, and I didn’t understand them. I said, “Are you not aware of what he said about John McCain? Isn’t that enough to disqualify the guy?” They perceived in him what I did not perceive in him, that these over-the-top statements – as objectionable as the statements themselves may be, and none of them defended the statements – nevertheless, what they perceived was accurate: a man who doesn’t give a damn about what the press says about him. That is the only way to govern. It is the only way to advance the principles of conservatism in the United States is to not give a damn.
“[Donald Trump] is so much better a president than Mitt Romney would’ve made,” said Prager, describing Romney as “tepid” and concerned with appealing to news media outlets such as The New York Times.
A president’s actions are a more important metric of presidential success than a president’s demeanor, said Prager:
Would I like Donald Trump to have Mitt Romney’s temperament, or for that matter Barack Obama’s temperament? Yeah. So what? I would like a whole host of things. People are packages. What a president does is more important to me than a president’s demeanor. He is so much better a president than Mitt Romney would’ve made. Mitt Romney would have awakened every day to read The New York Times editorial page to see how he’s covered. Mitt Romney gave us Romneycare in Massachusetts. I campaigned for Mitt Romney, he would’ve been a better president [than Barack Obama]. Any Republican is better than any Democrat, that’s just the way it is. Having said that, Romney would’ve been a tepid president. Nothing comparably conservative compared to Donald Trump.
Concerns with a president’s demeanor should be secondary to broader analyses of a president’s impact, said Prager.
“He has turned out to be a great president with big communication flaws, in the way he tweets and some of the things he says and his temperament,” said Prager. “My temperament is the opposite. I love dignity. I love understatement. Okay, so be it. So what? I’m not sure I’d be as good a president as he. How do you like that? That’s how good he’s been.”
In April of 2017, Prager invited ostensibly conservative NeverTrump news media figures to celebrate Trump’s presidency. “Do conservatives — or non-leftists, for that matter — appreciate just how terrific Donald Trump has been as president?” he asked. “And how lucky we are that he won the presidency?”
“What I do know is that they ought to be deeply appreciative of him, and deeply grateful for luck or providence, and certainly for Trump himself, that he was elected president,” continued Prager. “First, it is unlikely that any other Republican would have defeated Hillary Clinton. Second, he has not only surpassed many of our expectations but also thus far governed in a manner more consistent with conservative principles than any president since Ronald Reagan, and arguably Calvin Coolidge.”
Hillary Just Phoned Staffer Who Was Sexually Harassed by Campaign Aide
By Dick Morris
Trying to get ahead of the outrageous story in The New York Times that Burns Strider, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “faith adviser” in her 2008 campaign, sexually harassed a woman aide and was not fired but only docked two weeks pay for the offense, Clinton today said that she phoned the aide to compliment her on her courage.
Hillary blandly issued a statement today saying:
“A story appeared today about something that happened in 2008. I was dismayed when it occurred but was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed.
“I called her today to tell her how proud I am for her and to make sure she knows what all women should: we deserve to be heard.”||Wow. What a masterpiece of evasion!
Hillary blandly issued a statement today saying:
“A story appeared today about something that happened in 2008. I was dismayed when it occurred but was heartened the young woman came forward, was heard, and had her concerns taken seriously and addressed.
“I called her today to tell her how proud I am for her and to make sure she knows what all women should: we deserve to be heard.”||Wow. What a masterpiece of evasion!
Hillary won’t recount what that “something” that happened in 2008 was.
She says that docking her aide two weeks pay was adequate to “address” his sexual harassment.
She doesn’t mention that she fired the woman — but not the man, punishing her for being the victim while aggressor got a slap on the wrist.
Hillary also ignores the fact that the same aide was hired by David Brock in the 2016 campaign for a Hillary campaign front group and continued to send Mrs. Clinton daily devotional messages, getting many replies from her in return.
And then, sure enough, Strider again sexually harassed another woman and, this time, was fired.
Because she phoned the woman who was harassed in 2008, we are supposed to believe that Hillary takes accusations of sexual harassment seriously, despite the evidence of her failure to do so when her husband was involved.
The revelation of sexual harassment — twice by the same man — in Hillary’s inner circle underscores her failure to take sexual harassment seriously.
Whether it was her enabling of Bill by defending or ignoring his conduct or her reluctance to condemn her mega donor Harvey Weinstein, Hillary is betraying the hypocrisy of her staunch support of woman’s rights.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
She says that docking her aide two weeks pay was adequate to “address” his sexual harassment.
She doesn’t mention that she fired the woman — but not the man, punishing her for being the victim while aggressor got a slap on the wrist.
Hillary also ignores the fact that the same aide was hired by David Brock in the 2016 campaign for a Hillary campaign front group and continued to send Mrs. Clinton daily devotional messages, getting many replies from her in return.
And then, sure enough, Strider again sexually harassed another woman and, this time, was fired.
Because she phoned the woman who was harassed in 2008, we are supposed to believe that Hillary takes accusations of sexual harassment seriously, despite the evidence of her failure to do so when her husband was involved.
The revelation of sexual harassment — twice by the same man — in Hillary’s inner circle underscores her failure to take sexual harassment seriously.
Whether it was her enabling of Bill by defending or ignoring his conduct or her reluctance to condemn her mega donor Harvey Weinstein, Hillary is betraying the hypocrisy of her staunch support of woman’s rights.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Bill Clinton as well as a political author, pollster and consultant. His most recent book, “Rogue Spooks,” was written with his wife, Eileen McGann.
TRANS-AGE: Pedophile Charged With Abusing 3 Girls Says He's A 9-Year-Old Trapped In Man's Body
The 38-year-old pedophile claims he's trans-age.
Cook County Sheriff's OfficeA Chicago man accused of sexually assaulting two six-year-olds and an eight-year-old on repeated occasions, told police officers that he's really "a 9-year-old trapped in an adult's body," prosecutors revealed on Wednesday.
Thirty-eight-year-old Joseph Roman is charged with repeated predatory criminal sexual assault. The numerous attacks began in 2015 and continued until earlier this month.
Roman has reportedly confessed to some of the attacks to authorities. His victims were the daughters of his friends.
According to The Chicago Tribune, "Prosecutors said the attacks began when the family of one of the girls moved into Roman’s home for 10 weeks. Roman is accused of regularly assaulting her between August 2015 and December 2017 while the other family members were sleeping. The girl was 6 when the assaults began."
The other victims were similarly preyed upon.
The eight-year-old was assaulted while her family stayed with Roman for 10 weeks, starting in October of 2016. According to prosecutors, the girl's mother worked a shift at night and Roman would take care of the children. During one of the attacks, two of the victim's younger siblings were watching a movie on a cellphone in the same room, say prosecutors.
The victim was allegedly continuously attacked, even after the family moved out.
The other six-year-old victim was allegedly assaulted while she slept in his home for one year, from January of 2017 to the present month.
"The girl's family, and the family of one of the other victims, confronted Roman after an attack Jan. 6," reports the Tribune.
The "trans-age" male was charged with a Class X felony and taken into custody on Monday, where he made a video confession of his crimes. Roman was ordered to be held without bail during Wednesday's hearing.
Super Bowl will feature a SPIT IN THE FACE to veterans (worst yet)
The overpaid bullies of the NFL have spent the season insulting the flag, police, veterans, and America herself. Now, they want to use the last game of the season to spit in the face of veterans one last time.
The NFL rejected a Super Bowl ad from a national veterans organization that asks players to stop disrespecting our flag and our national anthem.
The league rejected a full-page ad for Super Bowl LII’s program from American Veterans (AMVETS) that shows soldiers holding a flag and asks everyone in the stadium to “#PleaseStand.”
The NFL rejected a Super Bowl ad from a national veterans organization that asks players to stop disrespecting our flag and our national anthem.
The league rejected a full-page ad for Super Bowl LII’s program from American Veterans (AMVETS) that shows soldiers holding a flag and asks everyone in the stadium to “#PleaseStand.”
“It’s a simple, polite request that represents the sentiment of our membership, particularly those whose missing or paralyzed limbs preclude standing,” wrote AMVETS National Commander Marion Polk in a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.But the NFL said it wouldn’t print the ad – because honoring the flag is too “political”!
Besides, the program is supposed to put players on pedestals, not on notice.
“The Super Bowl game program is designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, teams, and the Super Bowl,” said NFL Vice President of Communications Brian McCarthy. “It’s never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement.”
The league claims that telling people to stand for the Stars and Stripes is a controversial statement – but encouraging players to kneel and link arms to protest our flag isn’t?!
McCarthy said the NFL would be happy to take the vets’ money and let them run an ad – as long as it does not carry this patriotic message.
He told the vets to change the wording to “Please Honor our Veterans,” or “Please Stand for Our Veterans.” McCarthy pointed to an ad from the VFW that says, “We Stand For Veterans.”
But telling other people – like the players – that they should stand up and honor our country is off-limits.
The NFL is saying: Who do these veterans think they are to tell football players what to do?!
But the vets say they weren’t the ones who turned the national anthem into a sideshow to put a radical political message.
“We respect the rights of those who choose to protest, as these rights are precisely what our members have fought – and in many cases died – for,” Commander Polk wrote to Goodell.
But the NFL’s “corporate censorship to deny the same rights to those veterans who have secured it for us all is reprehensible and totally beyond the pale.”
The players shouldn’t even need a reminder to stand for the flag and the “Star Spangled Banner” since the two teams who will face off on February 4 have such patriotic names: the New England Patriots and the Philadelphia Eagles.
But if pro football’s bigwigs won’t listen to the veterans, maybe they’ll listen to the millions of ex-fans who aren’t watching their game, buying their tickets, or cheering on their anti-American players anymore.
The NFL’s TV ratings are down, and in a major way. “Thursday Night Football” viewership rose in 2016 but fell – sharply – this season.
What’s more, ratings are down because of the players’ political stunts – and they know it.
Most of those 1.5 million ex-viewers said they tuned out the NFL this year because of the national anthem protests, according to a poll from Seton Hall University.
And they’re siding with the league’s biggest enemy: President Trump. One-third of people say they quit watching the NFL “in support of Donald Trump,” according to another poll from Ozy Media.
Patriotic football fans don’t want to watch millionaires complain about how unfair America is – and it’s starting to hit the teams where they live.
In December, NFL tickets were going for as little as $10, $7 – even $2 dollars a ticket!
That made some of the owners finally start to own up to the problem. The week of Christmas, Baltimore Ravens owner Dick Cass sent a letter to seasons-tickets holders admitting that the number of fans skipping the games is “noticeable,” and “surely the one-time (kneeling) protest in London has been a factor.”
If league officials won’t do the right thing for our country, tell them to do it for the money.
There are approximately 18.8 million veterans living in the United States. Around 150 NFL players kneeled during week three of the season, the height of the protest.
Give up, Goodell. They’ve got you surrounded!
Every reader can help the NFL do the right thing, right now.
Call the NFL at (212) 450-2000, and tell them to run AMVETS ad – even to run a picture of the advertisement as a PSA on the Jumbotron before the game.
Tell them players who break NFL rules by kneeling during the national anthem should be fired.
Tell them you won’t be watching the Super Bowl – or any other game – unless they do.
We owe our veterans a debt we can never repay. The least we can do it pay them the honor and respect they deserve.
— Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”
Facts from WWII. A fascinating read. (Thank you G.C.)
Interesting piece, especially for WWII buffs. Amazing WW2 Aircraft Facts
On average 6600 American servicemen died per MONTH, during WW2 (about 220 a day).
People who were not around during WW2 have no understanding of the magnitude. This gives some insight.
276,000 aircraft manufactured in the US .
43,000 planes lost overseas, including 23,000 in combat.
14,000 lost in the continental U.S.
The staggering cost of aircraft in 1945 dollars.
AT-6 $22,952.
B-17 $204,370
B-24 $215,516
B-25 $142,194
B-26 $192,426
B-29 $605,360
C-47 $88,574
P-38 $97,147
P-40 $44,892
P-47 $85,578
P-51 $51,572
PT-17 $15,052
From Gemany 's invasion of Poland Sept. 1,1939 until Japan 's surrender Sept. 1945 = 2,433 days.
America lost an average of 170 planes a day.
A B-17 carried 2,500 gallons of high octane fuel and carried a crew of 10 airmen.
9.7 billion gallons of gasoline consumed.
108 million hours flown.
460 thousand million rounds of aircraft ammo fired overseas.
7.9 million bombs dropped overseas.
2.3 million combat flights.
299,230 aircraft used.
808,471 aircraft engines used.
799,972 propellers.
WWII MOST-PRODUCED COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Russian Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik 36,183
Yakolev Yak-1,-3,-7, 9- 31,000
Messerschmitt Bf- 09 30,480
Focke-Wulf Fw-190 29,001
Supermarine Spitfire 20,351
Convair B-24/PB4Y Liberator/Privateer 18,482
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt 15,686
North American P-51 Mustang 15,875
Junkers Ju-88 15,000
Hawker Hurricane 14,533
Curtiss P-40 Warhawk 13,738
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress 12, 731
Vought F4U Corsair 12,571
Grumman F6F Hellcat 12,275
Petlyakov Pe-2 11,400
Lockheed P-38 Lightning 10,037
Mitsubishi A6M Zero 10,449
North American B-25 Mitchell 9,984
Lavochkin LaGG-5 9,920
Grumman TBM Avenger 9,837
Bell P-39 Airacobra 9,584
Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar 5,919
DeHavilland Mosquito 7,780
Avro Lancaster 7,377
Heinkel He-111 6,508
Handley-Page Halifax 6,176
Messerschmitt Bf-110 6,150
Lavochkin LaGG-7 5,753
Boeing B-29 Superfortress 3,970
Short Stirling 2,383
The US lost 14,903 pilots, aircrew and support personnel plus 13,873 airplanes ---inside the continental United States.
There were 52,651 aircraft accidents (6,039 involving fatalities) in 45 months.Average 1,170 aircraft accidents per month---- nearly 40 a day.
It gets worse.....
Almost 1,000 planes disappeared en route from the US to foreign climes.
But 43,581 aircraft were lost overseas including 22,948 on combat missions(18,418 in Europe ) and 20,633 due to non-combat causes overseas.
In a single 376 plane raid in August 1943, 60 B-17s were shot down.
That was a 16 percent loss rate and meant 600 empty bunks in England .
In 1942-43, it was statistically impossible for bomber crews to complete the intended 25-mission tour in Europe.
Pacific theatre losses were far less (4,530 in combat) owing to smaller forces committed.
The B-29 mission against Tokyo on May 25, 1945, cost 26 Superfortresses, 5.6 percent of the 464 dispatched from the Marianas
On average, 6,600 American servicemen died per month during WWII,about 220 a day.
Over 40,000 airmen were killed in combat and another18,000 wounded.
Some 12,000 missing men were declared dead, includingthose"liberated" by the Soviets but never returned. More than 41,000 were captured.
Half of the 5,400 held by the Japanese died in captivity, compared with one-tenth in German hands.
Total combat casualties were 121,867.
The US forces peak strength was in 1944 with 2,372,000 personnel, nearly twice the previous year's figure.
Losses were huge---but so were production totals. From 1941 through 1945,American industry delivered more than 276,000 military aircraft.
That was not only for US Army, Navy and Marine Corps, but also for allies as diverse as Britain , Australia , China and Russia.
Our enemies took massive losses. Through much of 1944, the Luftwaffe sustained hemorrhaging of 25% of aircrews and 40 planes a month.
Experience Level:
Uncle Sam sent many men to war with minimum training. Some fighter pilots entered combat in 1942 with less than 1 hour in their assigned aircraft..
The 357th Fighter Group (The Yoxford Boys) went to England in late 1943 having trained on P-39s, then flew Mustangs. They never saw a Mustang until the first combat mission.
With the arrival of new aircraft, many units transitioned in combat.
The attitude was, "They all have a stick and a throttle. Go fly `em."
When the famed 4th Fighter Group converted from P-47s to P-51s in Feb 44, there was no time to stand down for an orderly transition.
The Group commander, Col. Donald Blakeslee, said, "You can learn to fly 51s on the way to the target".
A future P-47 ace said, "I was sent to England to die." Many bomber crewswere still learning their trade.
Of Jimmy Doolittle's 15 pilots on the April 1942 Tokyo raid, only five had won their wings before 1941. All but one of the 16 co-pilots were less than a year out of flight school.
In WW2, safety took a back seat to combat.
The AAF's worst accident rate was recorded by the A-36 Invader version of the P-51: a staggering 274 accidents per 100,000 flying hours.
Next worst were the P-39 at 245, the P-40 at 188,and the P-38 at 139. All were Allison powered.
Bomber wrecks were fewer but more expensive.
The B-17 and B-24 averaged 30 and 35 accidents per 100,000 flight hours respectively a horrific figure considering that from 1980 to 2000 the Air Force's major mishap rate was less than 2.
The B-29 was even worse at 40 per 100,000 hours; the world's most sophisticated,most capable and most expensive bomber was too urgently needed to be able to stand down for mere safety reasons.
(Compare: when a $2.1 billion B-2 crashed in 2008, the Air Force declared a two-month "safety pause").
The B-29 was no better for maintenance. Although the R3350 was known as a complicated, troublesome power-plant, only half the mechanics had previous experience with it.
Navigators:
Perhaps the greatest success story concerned Navigators. The Army graduated some 50,000 during WW2.
Many had never flown out of sight of land before leaving "Uncle Sugar" for a war zone.
Yet they found their way across oceans and continents without getting lost or running out of fuel - a tribute to the AAF's training.
At its height in mid-1944, the USAAF had 2.6 million people and nearly 80,000aircraft of all types.
Today the US Air Force employs 327,000 active personnel (plus 170,000 civilians)with 5,500+ manned and perhaps 200 unmanned aircraft.
That's about 12% of the manpower and 7% of the airplanes of the WW2 peak.
SUMMATION:
Another war like that of 1939-45 is doubtful, as fighters and bombers have given way to helicopters and remotely-controlled drones, eg. over Afghanistan and Iraq .
But within our living memory, men left the earth in 1,000-plane formations and fought major battles five miles high, leaving a legacy that remains timeless.
G’ day…Ciao…
Helen and Moe Lauzier
Thus articles
that is all articles
This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.
You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2018/01/www_28.html
0 Response to " "
Post a Comment