"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"TOliver" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote ...


Just this example tosses the whole argument. Better get the facts
straight. Ike built the interstate highway system after he saw the
autobahn in Germany during WW-11. When he was a mere junior officer, he
had to take a convoy across the US. 1920's I think, and took about 3
months to do it. So for strategic purposes the interstate system was
built,

Adequate rebuttal unto this point at which you travelled far afield into
the realm of urban legend.....


with the requirement that every so many miles the highway had to be
capable of being a landing field for airplanes.

A great legend, much and well debunked over time, especially in
alt.urban.folklore and at snopes, a tale which sounds good but is not
really true, among other reasons because all them power poles and lines
get in the way and barrow ditches are just not right for a/c (nor or the
roadway underpinnings in all cases really stressed for the "big thumps"
of landing heavy a/c).

Get your facts straight before launching your anti-capitolism rants.

You were right to respond to the knee deep BS of the previous poster, but
stick to fact, not legend.....(and actually, the autobahn system probably
had less to do with the interstate highway system than did the political
alliance between the White House, Western and Southern Senators and Reps
along with urban Congressfolk to whom the idea of federal funds - mostly
from fuel taxes - for better highways was more than attractive. That
military cargo could move along them was a great publicity justification,
but about #10 on the actual priority list).



The landing strips were part of the orginal spec. But put the landing
strips in the context of 1952. You did not have C-5's and F18's. Other
than F-86, it was mostly prop and C-130 cargo planes, with a lot of C47's.

You do understand the concept "urban legend", vectored by apparently
authoritative sources and swelling in size every time some journalist picks
up the hoary tale? If you wish to continue the claim, you'll need to
provide a cite (other than some of the popular fiction which continues to
convey the concept) from a credible government or other source (construction
company or whatever) providing some verification. If someone in Congress
may have been impressed by the idea that they could hypothetically be so
used, no reference exists in either legislation or specifications developed
for the IHs.

As for aircraft landing weights, C130s didn't arrive until well after the
Interstates were well under construction, but their were any number of
operational aircraft of the period with either high landing weights or high
landing speeds or both.....

B-47s, B-36s, C-74s, C-124s, C-69s, B-45s, ....the list of fast and/or heavy
goes on. .....And if interstates were such good places for the military to
use for emergency fields, don't you think they might occasionally have
practiced the art? Never did, did they.

It's a great tale, now almost a part of our cultural heritage, showing up in
countless books and magazine articles, but simply untrue. Workable,
perhaps, in some parts of the West, with long straight-aways and no power
poles, etc., a look at most interstates reveals all too many curves and a
notable lack of long straight stretches, and the wingtip-clipping barriers
of all those side roads leaping over the highway. All those emergency
airfields left from WWII operating bases provided Uncle Sam with an adequate
supply of "Bingo"/divert runways.

TMO