All seriousness aside, I would hate to see what the rate expressed in those terms would be. Accident rates are usually expressed per 100K miles since that’s about all that we can reasonably estimate. Time is a much different thing. AC have time meters so we can reasonably estimate time. To go 20 miles in Sandy Eggo, vs the same thing where I live in WNC, are two utterly different times (my commute to work is 33 miles, and I do it in 40 minutes. Try that in Dago, or LA.

The rate for the 104 is what I expected, in relative terms. The 100 was first line Tac fighter and saw hard use. I would expect the newer Ac to have lower accident rates, and that occurs up thru the 101. The 104 was an attempt to get the highest climb rate possible, and it beat all the others at the time. It paid a very high price for the ability.

I’m a bit curious if the rates are available on the internet. The comparison with the F-106 (an upgrade of the 102), and the newer AC, would be enlightening.

F-84: 52.86
F-86: 44.18
F-89: 24.54
F-100: 21.22
F-101: 14.65
F-104: 30.63
F-105: 17.83

Does anyone know the accident rate per 1,000 hours of driving in a major city?

Please re-read : “FDR was able to learn something about military service as Undersec, and it colored his time in WW2. On the whole it was successful because of it. Lincoln tried micro-managing and learned he could not and forced himself to allow Grant free rein. Lincoln learned while the north paid a very high price for his training.”

I did not say that FDR had “military” experience. He was an administrator who gained some knowledge about military service. It does say he served IN the military. Please don’t put words in my fingers.

Same goes for Reagan.

While Kerry was in combat, he really learned very little about the military. He was simply at the tail end of the time that having a military background was a good thing for a politician. McGovern, although being a decorated 8th AF pilot, we know he served because he was a communist sympathizer who wanted to support the Soviets by fighting Germans. While that takes nothing from his valor, it taints it dreadfully. He demonstrated that taint over and over again by giving aid and comfort to our enemies while our troops were under fire. You can read the dreadful details about the man in an Article on TakiMag by Paul Gottfried.

The point about experience is well taken, however, anyone that has the experiences like Reagan and FDR know what they don’t know. FDR was more referee than CIC, and Reagan knew who he could trust and give them their head. As a result, both succeeded. Carter failed because he was too arrogant and thought he could do things as well as those who had trained and studied all their lives. His ignorance, combined with that arrogance, is what made him the dismal he was, and still is.

Obama can succeed, but only if he knows what he doesn’t know, and conducts himself in accordance with that. He’s a blank slate at this point, and there seems to be some hope. However, the deceitful manner of his campaign has knowledgeable people nervous, and for good reason.

Geo-

Remedial driver’s training. Come on now. You know for a Tanker there are only two speeds, wide open or dead stop. In combat anyway. But, you’re right, it was a hoot. If I were young again, I’d probably do it again too.

George Washington himself led men in battle, was an inspiration, yet I doubt he had much knowledge of life in their tents with their feet wrapped in rags leaving that long, blood-marked trail back to Valley Forge to spend the winter of 1777.

Not that all didn’t suffer privations, you understand, just saying not all suffered the same.

Likewise, Hitler had combat experience but as a corporal he evidently didn’t quite understand the whole logistics part of a war, which Generals tend to fixate on. Germany lost World War 2 precisely because a corporal was in charge.

Lincoln and McGovern and Reagan and Bush and others each served their task, did their duty, I seem to recall an Eisenhower in there among them. I do not recall their military service being particularly relevant to the job, but I do seem to remember they knew and respected the tasks they were asking.

Carter? Nixon? Not so much.

Obama will be an interesting one to watch, in this regard. He may have the knowledge, he may be a leader, he may be a very good CINC. Experience in front-line combat doesn’t seem to be much of a factor in a job that is so far removed from the front lines.

I disagree that one need actual combat experience to make an effective POTUS. While Reagan served and McGovern was a decorated bomber pilot, Audie Murphy has them beat in spades and Joe Foss not only earned more honors he also ran the American Football League, which is more executive experience than anybody running the country today or in the next four years can claim. Shall we bring up folks like Gregory Boyington, certainly a man you want on your wing but probably not the guy you want running the country.

We’re arguing the same point, I merely contend that as CIC experience would temper the impulses of command, whereas some simply can’t make the jump from excellent soldier to CIC.

History is full of failures no matter the experience.

– Max

Recall the original thesis related to POTUS not possessing “military” (i.e. combat) experience upon gaining office. Certainly Dubya never engaged in combat.

QM: Reagan served, true, but he never (as I said in my original post) served in combat.

And I’ll be only too glad to hear an explanation on how the technical demands of flying a supersonic interceptor is the equivalent of “combat” experience.

QM acknowledges Roosevelt’s bureaucratic experience, yet attempts to equate an early 20th-century “Pentagon”-style desk job with “military service.” Sorry, I don’t consider bureaucrats the same as soldiers, even if the protocol officers do. {wry grin}

FDR’s greater strength was, rather, his knowledge of history.

I must repeat: neither Lincoln, FDR, Reagan, nor Dubya had any military (i.e. combat) experience. The whole “tip of the spear” thing.

On the contrary, Benito Mussolini served with distinction, including wounds in battle during WW1. Adolph Hitler received two Iron Crosses, 2nd and 1st class. Herman Goering was a famously decorated ace pilot.

George McGovern is a decorated bomber pilot, and John “do you know who I am!?” e’Fnn Kerry saw more real “bullets shot at me” combat time than Bush ‘43 ever has, and ever will.

Jimmy Carter was a noted Annapolis alumnus, as well as a graduate of Rickover’s notorious “nuclear Navy” program.

I might also add here the name of General Grant, who -while demonstrating tremendous personal virtue- turned out to be a terrible President.

In other words, the historical record demonstrates there is little correspondence between personal combat experience and national leadership in the United States of America.