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).

nor really? But a little bit? Or maybe amongst the thousands of miles
there ARE some?

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

How about arguing the other points?

Its too easy to pacify your bad conscious by finding a single weak
point

US-americans have been propagandises so much, they don't even
recognise it anymore. You are perfectly adapted to hold two opposing
concepts in your brains:

example:

socialism is bad for people

"Modern industrial civilization has developed within a certain system
of convenient myths. The driving force of modern industrial
civilization has been individual material gain, which is accepted as
legitimate, even praiseworthy, on the grounds that private vices yield
public benefits, in the classic formulation. Now, it has long been
understood, very well, that a society that is based on this principle
will destroy itself in time. It can only persist, with whatever
suffering and injustice that it entails, as long as it is possible to
pretend that the destructive forces that humans create are limited,
that the world is an infinite resource, and that the world is an
infinite garbage can. At this stage of history either one of two things
is possible. Either the general population will take control of its own
destiny and will concern itself with community interests, guided by
values of solidarity, sympathy and concern for others, or alternatively
there will be no destiny for anyone to control. As long as some
specialized class is in a position of authority, it is going to set
policy in the special interests that it serves. But the conditions of
survival, let alone justice, require rational social planning in the
interests of the community as a whole, and by now that means the global
community. The question is whether privileged elite should dominate
mass communication and should use this power as they tell us they must
-- namely to impose necessary illusions, to manipulate and deceive the
stupid majority and remove them from the public arena. The question in
brief, is whether democracy and freedom are values to be preserved or
threats to be avoided. In this possibly terminal phase of human
existence, democracy and freedom are more than values to be treasured;
they may well be essential to survival."

"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

Calif Bill bmckee=at-ix.netcom.com wrote:

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.

I'll believe a C-47, but you don't want to see a C-130 landing on a
highway. Let alone a B-36. I have seen C-130s land on improvised strips
before and the strip was usually not the same afterward. Admittedly some
of this was due to SOME pilots who crab the nosewheel on landing.

I'm not sure that I believe the claim of the highway being designed as
an alternate landing facility, but it's certainly been used as one
many times since it was built.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."