PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Air Force?



sarongsong
2005-May-16, 07:22 AM
May 15, 2005 (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/399-full.html#189771)
"While the Cessna 150 was "threatening" Washington, D.C., Chicago Mayor..."We need the same protection as Washington, D.C.," Daley said, and he means F-16s..."

Sammy
2005-May-16, 03:55 PM
Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.

Bean Counter
2005-May-16, 04:24 PM
I agree. Maybe they could station them at Meigs Field since it's so close to the "downtown area"...

#-o

:lol:

Jpax2003
2005-May-16, 06:31 PM
I agree. Maybe they could station them at Meigs Field since it's so close to the "downtown area"...

#-o

:lol:Yeah... too bad he erased Meigs Field in the dead of night. I mean what's more important, defence of the city or running paths and concert venues? Maybe we'll get some missile batteries on the lake front and put the F-16s at Palwaukee and St. Charles instead.

Russ
2005-May-16, 06:50 PM
Maybe we'll get some missile batteries on the lake front and put the F-16s at Palwaukee and St. Charles instead.

F-16s??????????????????????????????? If we're actually going to try to protect a place, let's get some REAL plane in there! F-18's all the way! :D

Swift
2005-May-16, 09:25 PM
I thought United Airlines was the Chicago Air Force ( :oops: sorry Candy).

I can see an increasing amount of one-upmanship from various mayors around the nation now. "If Chicago gets two F-16s, New York should get three F-18s".

Of course the only people that will be affected will be the poor folks trying to do traffic reports or just fly their private planes. And the terrorists will just go get a ship or a truck and blow that up (I suspect terrorists read the newspaper and the internet too). #-o

PatKelley
2005-May-16, 09:29 PM
Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.

Uh, somebody already did slam a Cessna into the White House.

Boyer, in his interview with CNN, pointed out a 1994 suicide attempt, when a Cessna 152 crashed onto the grounds of the White House. Damage to the building was negligible. In other words, a Cessna 150 or 152 just doesn't pose that much of a threat to the seat of government.

pghnative
2005-May-16, 09:40 PM
But that's not really a relevant example. That particular Cessna was loaded only with a pilot. Add a couple hundred pounds of explosives and I'm sure that some serious damage could be done. Not sure how much, but enough to kill a few folks. As Sammy pointed out, had it gotten through and actually done something, everyone would be saying "how could you be so stupid to not shoot it down".

Darned if you do, darned if you don't....

PatKelley
2005-May-16, 09:45 PM
But that's not really a relevant example. That particular Cessna was loaded only with a pilot. Add a couple hundred pounds of explosives and I'm sure that some serious damage could be done. Not sure how much, but enough to kill a few folks. As Sammy pointed out, had it gotten through and actually done something, everyone would be saying "how could you be so stupid to not shoot it down".

Darned if you do, darned if you don't....

In terms of likelihood, consider that each of the large aircraft of the previous strikes was loaded with several thousand (tens of thousands in some cases) pounds of explosive fuel. Scale that down to a two-passenger non-cargo plane and you'll see the point. It would have done more damage if they'd shot it down over D.C.

Madcat
2005-May-16, 10:30 PM
The cessna did destroy a rather nice tree, that had happily made oxygen for us all for many years. :(

Maksutov
2005-May-16, 11:58 PM
Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.

Uh, somebody already did slam a Cessna into the White House.

Boyer, in his interview with CNN, pointed out a 1994 suicide attempt, when a Cessna 152 crashed onto the grounds of the White House. Damage to the building was negligible. In other words, a Cessna 150 or 152 just doesn't pose that much of a threat to the seat of government.
Then there was this guy (http://www.moviecitynews.com/arrays/2005/assassinaiton_byck.html) who tried to commandeer a DC-9 and fly it into the White House. He never got off the ground though.

tmosher
2005-May-17, 02:35 AM
Very cute of these guys to use quotes around "threatening." If some terrorist managed to slam a Cessna 150 with a couple of humdred pounds of explosive aboard (don't know it's exact load carrying capacity) into the Capitol or the White House, they would be screaming for the heads of everyone comcerned.

General aviation can continue to flourish without the right to fly over critical areas.

Two people and a full load of fuel (around 24 gallons) and the airplane is over gross weight.

Cessna 150's don't carry much and they'll only do around 100 mph.

Remember that Cessna 172 that a kid flew into a building into Florida?
Didn't do much damage at all.

I'll never forgive Daley for what he did to Meigs Field. Pity I never had the chance to fly into that airport except with Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Obviousman
2005-May-17, 08:19 AM
Aren't the local US Air National Guards under the control of the state governor until seconded to the National Command in times of emergency?

Why doesn't the Governor simply set up standing air patrols? 8)

Bean Counter
2005-May-17, 08:29 PM
Why doesn't the Governor simply set up standing air patrols? 8)

Because that would be horrendously expensive. It would be cheaper and less wear and tear on machinery and men to have them standing by ready to fly at a moments notice. Which is probably what he wants.

Isn't the Air National Guard funded by the state? Or does the DOD pick up the tab? Either way, sounds like he wants protection on someone else's dime.

pghnative
2005-May-18, 06:16 PM
But that's not really a relevant example. That particular Cessna was loaded only with a pilot. Add a couple hundred pounds of explosives and I'm sure that some serious damage could be done. Not sure how much, but enough to kill a few folks. As Sammy pointed out, had it gotten through and actually done something, everyone would be saying "how could you be so stupid to not shoot it down".

Darned if you do, darned if you don't....

In terms of likelihood, consider that each of the large aircraft of the previous strikes was loaded with several thousand (tens of thousands in some cases) pounds of explosive fuel. Scale that down to a two-passenger non-cargo plane and you'll see the point. It would have done more damage if they'd shot it down over D.C.

I don't understand your point. Are you saying that a couple hundred pounds of explosives would cause insignificant damage? Or that if it had gotten through, crashed into the Washington monument, exploded 200 lbs of C4, and killed 3 tourists, that the newpapers wouldn't be screaming "you stupid fools".