Spy Plane : Put it in Chinese Museum
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jackonicko
Your suggestion that the EP-3 engines be exchanged for an F8 (for the Smithsonian) won’t happen. The Chinese will want that EP-3 No1 engine and its damaged propeller to be fully attached to the wing. It will be something to point out to the groups of school children that visit the Chinese Aviation Museum. The problem of moving the EP-3 to Beijing is something the Chinese could do in their stride. To ship it from Hainan to Beijing is no big deal and they might even consider calling in a western mercenary crew ( with time on type ) to fly it there. According to the so-called damage reports emanating from CNN all that would be required is to feather the No 1 propeller and lock up the engine , then patch up the nose cone, select the pitot static system to alternate and it could be three engine ferried out ( airlines three engine ferry without passengers regularly ). It does not matter what the “ hero makers “ say it is my opinion that the aircraft is flyable.
KIFIS
Your suggestion that the EP-3 engines be exchanged for an F8 (for the Smithsonian) won’t happen. The Chinese will want that EP-3 No1 engine and its damaged propeller to be fully attached to the wing. It will be something to point out to the groups of school children that visit the Chinese Aviation Museum. The problem of moving the EP-3 to Beijing is something the Chinese could do in their stride. To ship it from Hainan to Beijing is no big deal and they might even consider calling in a western mercenary crew ( with time on type ) to fly it there. According to the so-called damage reports emanating from CNN all that would be required is to feather the No 1 propeller and lock up the engine , then patch up the nose cone, select the pitot static system to alternate and it could be three engine ferried out ( airlines three engine ferry without passengers regularly ). It does not matter what the “ hero makers “ say it is my opinion that the aircraft is flyable.
KIFIS
Guest
Posts: n/a
KIFIS,
Go ahead, keep the piece of junk. My vote is for reactivating the SR-71 Blackbird Then the U.S. can use our almost 40 year old aircraft to take the pictures of the skilled Chinese fighter pilots looking up from 6 miles below. We could also map every square inch of China and put the pictures on a website for free.
When you do fly the EP-3 to your museum, make sure all the Chinese fighter pilots in the country are on the ground. After the battle accounts from Wang's wingman, it's possible that even the sight of this aircraft could cause many F-8 pilots to eject , or split "S" into the ground.
Go ahead, keep the piece of junk. My vote is for reactivating the SR-71 Blackbird Then the U.S. can use our almost 40 year old aircraft to take the pictures of the skilled Chinese fighter pilots looking up from 6 miles below. We could also map every square inch of China and put the pictures on a website for free.
When you do fly the EP-3 to your museum, make sure all the Chinese fighter pilots in the country are on the ground. After the battle accounts from Wang's wingman, it's possible that even the sight of this aircraft could cause many F-8 pilots to eject , or split "S" into the ground.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanks JACKCO. I viewed the film clip and I am still unconvinced.
Good story line. I suppose it is somewhat irrelevant whether it was
an actual email address or a radio freq. as this type of close formation
flying has and will continue. It therefore follows that accidents will
happen and no one should therefore be surprised at the outcome.
My earlier mention of being aware of what you are viewing re photo/video
images is substantiated in this film clip which appears to be shot with
telephoto lenses, thus making the aircraft appear closer than it was,
but again that is irrelevant as the aircraft hit each other. My point is
just do not use such photographic material as your sole source of
evidence. The camera can and does lie.
As to Taiwan 'already' being independent. Can someone explain why they
share the same B- registration prefix as mainland China and do not have
a national civilian registration prefix of their own?
Good story line. I suppose it is somewhat irrelevant whether it was
an actual email address or a radio freq. as this type of close formation
flying has and will continue. It therefore follows that accidents will
happen and no one should therefore be surprised at the outcome.
My earlier mention of being aware of what you are viewing re photo/video
images is substantiated in this film clip which appears to be shot with
telephoto lenses, thus making the aircraft appear closer than it was,
but again that is irrelevant as the aircraft hit each other. My point is
just do not use such photographic material as your sole source of
evidence. The camera can and does lie.
As to Taiwan 'already' being independent. Can someone explain why they
share the same B- registration prefix as mainland China and do not have
a national civilian registration prefix of their own?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Bottoms Up
The government in Taiwan was the government of China when the registration came into being. In fact they still consider themselves the government of China.
The mainland government doesn't see it that way and uses the prefix because they consider themselves the government of China.
Neither government recognizes that they are two different countries now.
We probably won't see either side give in on the registration issue as that would lend validity to the other's claim of being the legitimate government of China. It would also mean admitting that there are now two seperate Chinese states.
The government in Taiwan was the government of China when the registration came into being. In fact they still consider themselves the government of China.
The mainland government doesn't see it that way and uses the prefix because they consider themselves the government of China.
Neither government recognizes that they are two different countries now.
We probably won't see either side give in on the registration issue as that would lend validity to the other's claim of being the legitimate government of China. It would also mean admitting that there are now two seperate Chinese states.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regardless of the 'rights' or 'wrongs' of this particular incident it is interesting to note that every action has a reaction. It would begin to appear that the agressive Chinese stance has produced a reaction from the USA. The flights will continue. A package of military aid to Taiwan has been approved and does include items which it might not have before. The Favoured Nation trade status enjoyed by China with the US is now under increasing tension and review. The Olympic bid can be considered under the same state.
It is quite within a sovereign nations power to behave in whatever way it wishes, it must be realised however that this behaviour does produce it's own reaction when viewed by others. Does China care about others reactions. Logic would dictate that certain reactions are not welcome. This may modify the behaviour. Time will tell.
Kifis you may, just may, not see your EP-3 in your favourite museum.
Jacko I have to say I thought your question on expansionism was answered. They are. And probably will be more so. Just my opinion and couple of cents worth, and it's OK I got the money thanks
It is quite within a sovereign nations power to behave in whatever way it wishes, it must be realised however that this behaviour does produce it's own reaction when viewed by others. Does China care about others reactions. Logic would dictate that certain reactions are not welcome. This may modify the behaviour. Time will tell.
Kifis you may, just may, not see your EP-3 in your favourite museum.
Jacko I have to say I thought your question on expansionism was answered. They are. And probably will be more so. Just my opinion and couple of cents worth, and it's OK I got the money thanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just in reply to KIFIS,
Yes, assuming that the other three engine/props are serviceable, they could fly it out China, but...
a/ The P3 doesn´t have an alternate static or pitot system.
b/ The engines have an inbuilt ´prop brake´system that locks the prop in the feathered position, until either the starter is engaged, or the prop is unfeathered inflight. The prop goes slightly past the fully feathered position, and initially tries to rotate backwards, thus engaging the prop brake, during inflt. shutdowns.
Also, I just noticed, the last time I looked at the pictures of the aircraft, that damage that has been refered to all along as flap damage, in that shot with the black antenna and the underside of the wing.
Those three fluted vents shown adjacent to the ´flap´, are actually fuel tank air vents, and they are located at the very tip of the left wing, about 2 ft in from the tip,
I know it´s the left wing, since there are only two on the right, the extra one is for the centre tanks, so the damage is definetly to the LHS aileron, in that photo.
Cheers!
Yes, assuming that the other three engine/props are serviceable, they could fly it out China, but...
a/ The P3 doesn´t have an alternate static or pitot system.
b/ The engines have an inbuilt ´prop brake´system that locks the prop in the feathered position, until either the starter is engaged, or the prop is unfeathered inflight. The prop goes slightly past the fully feathered position, and initially tries to rotate backwards, thus engaging the prop brake, during inflt. shutdowns.
Also, I just noticed, the last time I looked at the pictures of the aircraft, that damage that has been refered to all along as flap damage, in that shot with the black antenna and the underside of the wing.
Those three fluted vents shown adjacent to the ´flap´, are actually fuel tank air vents, and they are located at the very tip of the left wing, about 2 ft in from the tip,
I know it´s the left wing, since there are only two on the right, the extra one is for the centre tanks, so the damage is definetly to the LHS aileron, in that photo.
Cheers!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Without wanting to pander to your stereotypes, I thought some of you would enjoy this. 
Is it Jacko saying "Try that for aggressive expansionism" or is it a hero from the PLA being non-expansionist? You choose!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 29 April 2001).]
Is it Jacko saying "Try that for aggressive expansionism" or is it a hero from the PLA being non-expansionist? You choose!
[This message has been edited by Jackonicko (edited 29 April 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
JACKONICKO
You wrote:
"If you want to get upset about expansionism and the illegal occupation of territory take a look at the land allocated to Israel under the 1947 Partition (the best half of what was then Palestine) and look at what they've since grabbed and illegally occupied by force of arms. Huge swathes of Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. And what the Eretz Israel lot claim as being rightfully theirs is even more frightening"
Go and study history before you speak. You do not know half of the facts!
You wrote:
"If you want to get upset about expansionism and the illegal occupation of territory take a look at the land allocated to Israel under the 1947 Partition (the best half of what was then Palestine) and look at what they've since grabbed and illegally occupied by force of arms. Huge swathes of Palestine, Jordan and Egypt. And what the Eretz Israel lot claim as being rightfully theirs is even more frightening"
Go and study history before you speak. You do not know half of the facts!
