Heinemann's HotRod...
Posted on 09/13/2008 6:58:49 AM PDT by pabianice
And all this time I thought William Holden was a fighter pilot when he flew as a carrier pilot bombing the briges at Toko Ri in the Korean War, in the movie “Bridges at Toko Ri.” Since he flew a bombing mission, was he a bomber pilot rather than a fighter pilot? His plane was the Gruman Phantom.
'Actually the “V” stands for “Fixed Wing”.'
Yes indeed. I remember asking my late Father about the V designator in the VF-41 of his squadron when he was Skipper back in the late 1960s. He had told me that originally the 'V' was for heavier-than-air squadrons with 'Z' being for lighter-than-air squadrons (i.e., blimps) and that during late WWII the 'V' became fixed-wing, 'H' was added for rotary winged and 'Z' was maintained for lighter-than-air. I guess the Navy got the 'Z' from the German Zepplins of WWI fame...
As far as the McCain history as a Naval Aviator, he was an Attack pilot in A-4s during Vietnam. My Father flew F-4Bs in VF-96 during the 1964-1967 period over Vietnam. I am sure that he would be a bit amused to hear McCain described as a fighter pilot given the rivalry between the 'Fighter' and 'Attack' communities that existed in that day. Now days with the advent of the 'strike-fighters' with the various models of the F-18 and the retirement of the A-7, A-6 attack aircraft and the F-14 fighters, no such split still exists.
Besides, my three sisters tell me that our Father looked like a recruitment poster for US Navy fighter pilots, while John McCain had that scruffier attack pilot look... :-) I'll have to scrounge up a picture to post someday...
dvwjr
Fighter Jet: Any military aircraft less than 100,000 pounds that drops bombs or fire's missiles.
Tank: Any military vehicle that has tracks or has a turret.
Battleship: Any naval vessel with guns or missiles.
Christian: Person who believes in Santa and Easter Bunny
Fundamentalist Christian: Person who believes in God and goes to church weekly.
Radical Christian: Person that talks about Jesus without using the name in vain.
Far Right: Not a Democrat
Moderate Republican: A Democrat
A Democrat: A socialist
Pro-Choice: In favor of infanticide
Windfall profits: 9%
Inexperienced executive: 12 years of executive experience
Experienced executive: 0 years of executive experience
Heinemann's HotRod...
I've never heard anyone that was an attack aircraft pilot refer to themselves as a fighter pilot. When the A-7's were switching to F/A-18s, one of our sister squadrons in CAG-3 forbid the pilots from referring to themselves as fighter pilots. He wanted them focused on the attack mission and not going all Air Force on him.
Of course many attack aircraft had air-air capability, but that doesn't make them fighter aircraft. The USAF created enormous confusion by mislabeling many aircraft.
by the looks of where the stick is, thats prolly how he got his leg broken on ejection...
Speaking of the movie, “The Bridges at Toko Ri,” it had prop driven AD-1’s in it, the Navy called them “Able Dogs.” Used extensively in the Vietnam war also by both Navy and Air Force.
Surely no one would classify Able Dog drivers as fighter pilots! The AD-1’s were a great airplane.
I believe this argument is mostly made by left-wing anti-war activists, to try to belittle McCain.
Then they note that we bombed civilians, were criminals, and McCain deserved to be punished for his crimes.
So no, I don’t think I want to call him anything but a Hero and a Fighter Pilot, or Aviator.
I recall reading Scott O'Grady's book about being shot down over Bosnia, and he described meeting representatives from the different aircraft types after primary school. He filled out his Dream Sheet to pick F-16 first, F-15 second and A-10 third. He described the A-10 pilots:
There was a definite mentality among the A-10 pilots: rugged, down-and-dirty, indifferent to glory--well grounded, if you will. They were Warthogs and proud of it. They even seemed to be built the same: short and stocky, like fireplugs.
“Of course many attack aircraft had air-air capability, but that doesn’t make them fighter aircraft.”
Sure it does. You’re revealing your prejudices. Don’t go “all Navy” on us. A bomber looks like a B-52 or a B-1 or a Bear.
This a minor point to the press that doesn’t know anything that is not in the AP style book where concrete is always cement, an oxy acetylene torch is a blow torch and any steel or concrete structural component is a always beam.
So a B-17 was a fighter because it had air-air capability? Supposedly bombers had more air-air kills in WWII than fighters.
Mark
Funny, but I don’t recall a preference to be called an aviator as opposed to pilot. Stud, maybe.
Didn’t make much difference as long as I wore the wings.
Actually it was an F-9F Panther, a carrier fighter bomber. As was the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, F-105 Thunderchief, and F-84 THUNDERSTREAK, P-38 lightning, F4U Corsair, occasionally the P-51 Mustang, The McConnell Douglas F-4 Phanthom and any other aircraft that gets designated to the ground attack role, often because of tactical circumstances.
I knew you would try that lame response; too predictable.
B-17: Proud to be called bomber-pilots.
A-4: Did not call themselves bomber-pilots.
“If it looks like a duck....”
"Attack pilot". That's the term.
Every A-1, A-4, A-6 and A-7 Naval Aviator / Naval Flight Officer that I've ever known referred to themselves as "attack" not "fighter", and they were proud of it. Furthermore, they would have been laughed out of the wardroom if they started calling themselves fighter pilots.
Designations like "A" and "F" exist for a reason, even if the USAF had an identity crisis over close-air-support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.