klintman Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Wow, I came across this by accident. My link Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mikejapan Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 That was a while ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 Yeah, sorry if this is old news. First I had heard anything about this. I searched the forum for F-2A and did not see anything posted about this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Antoine Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 They're F-2B. And of the eighteen, at least six are repairable. So we're far from the whole Japanese fleet of F-2A wiped out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
pollie Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Before you started this thread, did you bother to read the text of the link you provided??????? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 No,I can not read or write. Usually I communicate by beating a club and saying "BAMM!!! BAMM!!!". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
f14tomcat Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 No,I can not read or write. Usually I communicate by beating a club and saying "BAMM!!! BAMM!!!". Thanks, now I need a new laptop. Just blew my Pepsi all over it! Wayne ROFLMAO ;-) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 There were a few great photos of the aftermath done to the F-2's that would make for a great diorama. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 Well, the title of the post could have been better. "F-2B fleet damaged" not "wiped out" would have been more objective. F-2B's they are, thank you Antoine I was going on three day's of insomnia. Went into a virtual coma late last night though(thank god!). There are more updated and detailed articles on this. Why I can not find them with a search now is I guess murphys law. Browser history is cleared too...arugh! Anyway, the more detailed articles reported 4 aircraft are a total loss, 8 more are extensively damaged, and 6 are relatively intact according to a superficial inspection. Production of F-2B is shut down and no plans to repair the damaged aircraft are in motion. Given information at least at the time the articles were written. Pretty academic position with all the other issues the Earthquake caused. The need for the F-2B program was and is a hotly debated in Japan, it would be a shame if these aircraft never fly again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 Errr...I don't know if a diorama of the tsunami damage would be very sensitive....Given the scale of the overall destruction and a many other reasons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
PlasticWeapons Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Remember this thread? http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=227162&st=130 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scotthldr Posted December 24, 2011 Share Posted December 24, 2011 Errr...I don't know if a diorama of the tsunami damage would be very sensitive....Given the scale of the overall destruction and a many other reasons. So any diorama based on events during WWII or any other conflict/war would equally be unsensitive as all wars WWII especially caused far worse destruction and public suffering than any tsunami ever could. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 24, 2011 Author Share Posted December 24, 2011 with no death related directly to the planes destruction I guess my question of appropriateness is may be unwarranted. It is a bit soon though. A dichotomy between catastrophic natural disasters and man made destruction is an academic and philosophical debate. Historical significance can be attributed to both. Don't think I would do a diorama of a trailer home ripped apart with two legs sticking out of the rubble after the rash of twisters in the US southeast . Nor would I think Pan Am flight 103 all over Lockerbie would ever make an appropriate diorama. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) with no death related directly to the planes destruction I guess my question of appropriateness is may be unwarranted. It is a bit soon though. A dichotomy between catastrophic natural disasters and man made destruction is an academic and philosophical debate. Historical significance can be attributed to both. Don't think I would do a diorama of a trailer home ripped apart with two legs sticking out of the rubble after the rash of twisters in the US southeast . Nor would I think Pan Am flight 103 all over Lockerbie would ever make an appropriate diorama. And yet people make models depicting the wrecks of the Titanic and Bismarck. And there are many models of the Enola Gay, one of the most destructive aircraft in terms of loss of human life. Would you say such people are acting in poor taste? Edited December 25, 2011 by MiG31 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) I'm sure some do find these examples in bad taste. The Enola Gay dropping the first nuclear weapon is unquestionably a moment that changed the future thereafter. Not to mention politics, science, the superpower's influence on the rest of the world, ETC. The Titanic was an avoidable accident where a big ole ship sunk and people died. I was really asking a question "I don't know if a diorama of the tsunami damage would be very sensitive". "I don't know", not "I think that". I'm still interested in what someone closer to the tsunami events thinks. Edited December 25, 2011 by klintman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SBARC Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 In my humble opinion the F-2 diorama would be fine because it was simply a jet washed up against a hanger wall......at least that's the only image I recall. There was no evidence of human lives being lost in that instance of the F-2 being washed against the hanger wall. A diorama of the villages/towns being devastaed and people being washed away would be bring back bad memories if you were poart of the disaster..........but I suspect in 100 years such a diorama would be historically fascinating....as the people that would view it would have no direct first hand memories of the event. Events such as the Titanic are historical events that happened almost 100 years ago.....and I doubt there are any eye witnesses to the event......just people with a historical curiousity about the event. Mind you......I suspect there is a certain line in the sand with regards to historical events.......mass murder and torture come to mind........horrible acts of unspeakable cruelity would always be distasteful and would cause people to question the reason the individual chose to make a diorama about such events. Although a battle scene would be less distasteful because it was more an act of random violence and not a coldly calculated event of mass murder and torture of unarmed civilians. Maybe that's the distinction......unarmed innocents being killed or injured in cold blood? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 The Titanic was an avoidable accident where a big ole ship sunk and people died. It was a disaster involving a force of nature, not too unlike the 2011 tsunami. Whether people would find it insensitive or not doesn't really matter to the person who's making the diorama. And I suspect, considering the point SBARC brought up, given a century it would not be considered insensitive to create dioramas referencing the September 11th attacks. For reference, the last Titanic survivor, Millvina Dean, died in 2009. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 Thank you SBARC. Finally an opinion with substance and not a sarcastic question in answer to a question. The one sided Socratic lambasting of me was making me ill. "BAMM...BAMM!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 Thank you SBARC. Finally an opinion with substance and not a sarcastic question in answer to a question. The one sided Socratic lambasting of me was making me ill. With respect, where was the sarcasm in my comments? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) No, no. Sorry, not all the comments were to that effect. There were a few others that were constructive also. Answering a question with a question is a pet peeve of mine. Redundant and circular for the most part, but at times relevant. The examples of the Titanic and Enola Gay were a good point of reference. Why they are relevant would be content not contention though and not a question really. Which you put into context with content. The Titanic disaster being a force of nature like the tsunami, is debatable. The Titanic in fact did meet a force of nature, but the arrogance of the captain (full speed/modest change in logitude despite reports of icebergs far south), faith in a "unsinkable" ship, and lifeboats for less then half the crew/passengers were avoidable. A force of nature like the tsunami was not. The tsunami hit the island's the island's did not crash into the tsunami in a lack of manuverability. It is like saying a car traveling a mountain pass at breakneck speed with a drunk driver that flies over the edge is a force of nature. Physics may be, but not a force of nature. Edited December 25, 2011 by klintman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MiG31 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 The Titanic disaster being a force of nature like the tsunami, is debatable. The Titanic in fact did meet a force of nature, but the arrogance of the captain (full speed/modest change in logitude despite reports of icebergs far south), faith in a "unsinkable" ship, and lifeboats for less then half the crew/passengers were avoidable. Avoidable with the power of hindsight, yes. That said, sufficient lifeboats for all aboard would not have saved everyone that night. Consider that they were still preparing boats for launch as the boat deck was going awash. Life-saving kit training would have to have been addressed, as well. This is immaterial to the issue of taste with regard to diorama construction, though. I think time passed has more effect on that in some ways than how the tragedy took place. I, for one, would not really find a diorama of one of the WWII Jewish concentration camps to be in poor taste, depending on how it was carried out. Likewise for the Titanic, a model of the wreck, or even the sinking itself, if meant to convey an accurate depiction of the event or object, is fine. Something like this, however, is not. As for the relevant topic at hand, I had seen photos of the trashed F-2Bs within the days right after the earthquake/tsunami. I can't say diorama-building was foremost on my mind, but I don't see why it would be a problem at all. I've probably seen worse at model contests. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gmat Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) klintman, for me, it's OK to present old news as some may have not heard about it and even if I knew what you were talking about when I read your title, it was still fine, for me. I took a peek her, didn't I? Concerning the diorama, I think it would boil down to how it's labeled or presented. Extra words saying that it's in memory to those lost or still suffering would not arouse much criticism of the diorama. My two cents. Grant Edited December 25, 2011 by gmat Quote Link to post Share on other sites
klintman Posted December 25, 2011 Author Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) Merry Christmas all. Edited December 25, 2011 by klintman Quote Link to post Share on other sites
vince14 Posted December 25, 2011 Share Posted December 25, 2011 (edited) Vince Edited December 25, 2011 by vince14 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.