| Author |
Message |
|
AfterburnerDecalsScott
|
 Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 12:32 AM
|
 
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 10, 2005 - 07:45 PM
Posts: 1246
Status: Offline
|
It was as of last year...
Hey Sulfer, drop me a line....I have some questions about the 69th markings.
Thanks |
_________________
More people have died driving with Ted Kennedy than hunting with Dick Cheney.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 23, 2013 - 2:05 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieven
|
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 09:20 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Webmaster
Joined: May 23, 2003 - 04:44 PM
Posts: 2992
|
|
Rexxxx wrote:
According to previous posts and the article above, it was 89-2013, the wing jet.
Sorry for the confusion I might have caused.  The picture I added to the <a href="news_article1705.html">story</a> was only meant to illustrate 'a' jet from the 35th FW. I changed the picture now so it shows the actual jet that crashed. |
Last edited by Lieven on Mar 19, 2006 - 07:05 PM; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
tokenblkguy1785
|
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 01:09 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Dec 13, 2005 - 12:13 AM
Posts: 175
Location: SoCal
Status: Offline
|
| I have a friend here in Aviano that just came from Kunsan and he said the wing markings were put on A89-2099...is THAT the one that crashed or it's certain that it was <a href="f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-2861.html">2013</a>? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vegasfalconfixer
|
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 02:41 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Aug 23, 2005 - 09:49 PM
Posts: 45
Location: RAF Alconbury, United Kingdom
Status: Offline
|
| Edit: might have too much info. Statement retracted. All I will say is <a href="f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-2861.html">89-2013</a> is no longer the wing jet. |
_________________
Jeremy
Hill 96-00
Osan 00-01
Nellis 01-05
Kunsan 05-06
Spang 06-10
RAF Alconbury (Postal!) Pres-??
|
|
|
|
|
|
shiz302
|
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 04:23 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Dec 25, 2003 - 10:03 PM
Posts: 679
|
The wing jet is no longer the wing jet.  |
_________________
Ex 16 CC workin 'hawks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sulfer732
|
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 07:20 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Dec 11, 2005 - 09:01 PM
Posts: 157
Status: Offline
|
| Well, eventually the serial# will not be a secret. It is unfortunate to lose an old jet. Whether it be <a href="f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-2947.html">89-2099</a>, or <a href="f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-2861.html">89-2013</a>. I had opportunities to work on both of them. For you crew chiefs out there, I am sure that you will agree, if you ever lost a jet, that it is saddening to hear of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AfterburnerDecalsScott
|
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 08:10 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 10, 2005 - 07:45 PM
Posts: 1246
Status: Offline
|
Do you mean the serial # of the jet that went down, or the new wing jet....provided there is an actual wing jet....which might or might not have went down...or ever existed....at all.....or not.  |
_________________
More people have died driving with Ted Kennedy than hunting with Dick Cheney.
|
|
|
|
|
|
tokenblkguy1785
|
|
Posted: Mar 18, 2006 - 09:36 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Dec 13, 2005 - 12:13 AM
Posts: 175
Location: SoCal
Status: Offline
|
| Oops. Was I not supposed to throw out that serial #? Craaaap! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LetsFixer
|
|
Posted: Mar 19, 2006 - 02:28 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 03, 2005 - 06:53 PM
Posts: 46
Location: Kunsan AB, ROK
Status: Offline
|
Everyone knows the serial number already. It's no secret to anyone. The wing jet has been all over the korean news and even AFN. It was <a href="f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-2947.html">2099</a>. But outside of that, I can't say anything.
I hate talking to Colonels about this though, and drug tests are not fun. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
