The Concorde had glass ... over the steam gauges. It was on an instrument par with an A-4.Fly Navy said:
Please note Mach .95 ... the best we could do feet-dry CONUS.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Low Flying B-52
- Thread starter HAL Pilot
- Start date
Please note Mach .95 ... the best we could do feet-dry CONUS.
Fly Navy said:
Silly stickmonkeys
jmiller82
Registered User
I'm not exactly certain as to whether or not this is a fake, but there are some apparent points that support it, and then one that doesn't.. The supporting:
If you look atthe first photo, with carrier in background, it was obviously taken by another ship or aircraft. Further examination of the second photo reveals a smaller, yet visible aircraft just above the B-52 in the distance. I'm guessing a helo, but can't be sure if it's SH-60 or another. Furthermore, the first picture MUST be zoomed.. The second is actually taken from about 500 feet (assuming the bridge or vulture's nest is about 200 feet from the edge of the deck.. The size is actually relative and looks correct by ratio..
Something against it: wouldn't the ATC call the B-52 off at such a close distance to the flight pattern (especially with a helo or another aircraft approaching), or does this AF guy have balls of steel and could care less?
If you look atthe first photo, with carrier in background, it was obviously taken by another ship or aircraft. Further examination of the second photo reveals a smaller, yet visible aircraft just above the B-52 in the distance. I'm guessing a helo, but can't be sure if it's SH-60 or another. Furthermore, the first picture MUST be zoomed.. The second is actually taken from about 500 feet (assuming the bridge or vulture's nest is about 200 feet from the edge of the deck.. The size is actually relative and looks correct by ratio..
Something against it: wouldn't the ATC call the B-52 off at such a close distance to the flight pattern (especially with a helo or another aircraft approaching), or does this AF guy have balls of steel and could care less?
or it was staged...
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
I think that it's real. See the rather lenghty description as to why, above. As to ATC, you can get a fly-by approved by the Boss. They wouldn't approve this type of thing with a/c in the pattern and only somebody extremely stupid and/or desperate to lose his wings would try it. This ain't Top Gun.
Uh-oh .... here we go again. And just when I was recovering from the last time I thought you showed some promise -- for an AG USMC --- and then you stabbed me in the face, etc., etc. .... blah, blah, blah.Harrier Dude said:
I, me, I, requested and GOT a 500 KIAS below flight deck fly-by ... TWICE !!!
... once on the Hancock and once on the Midway . the people looked so tiny ... just like little ants. Never did it on the Kitty Hawk --- just led a 3-plane fan break there .... got yelled at and grounded by the Squadron CO/XO but the ship's CO loved it. Grounding lifted ...
There MUST be a lesson there somewhere ....
Harrier Dude
Living the dream
A4sForever said:Uh-oh .... here we go again. And just when I was recovering from the last time I thought you showed some promise -- for an AG USMC --- and then you stabbed me in the face, etc., etc. .... blah, blah, blah.
I, me, I, requested and GOT a 500 KIAS below flight deck fly-by ... TWICE !!!
Never did it on the Kitty Hawk --- just led a 3-plane fan break there .... got yelled at and grounded by the Squadron CO/XO but the ship's CO loved it. Grounding lifted ...
There MUST be a lesson there somewhere ....
I think you misunderstood my post. I didn't say you couldn't do it, or that it would be stupid. I've done them myself. I was talking about it being stupid to do while there were aircraft in the pattern and without permission of the Boss. The Top Gun reference was about doing random unapproved fly-bys and getting nothing more than an ass-chewing.
NavyLonghorn
Registered User
A4sForever said:The Concorde had glass ... over the steam gauges. It was on an instrument par with an A-4.
Please note Mach .95 ... the best we could do feet-dry CONUS.
The prop pilot in me is really bothered by that turn ball.
The "inclinometer"??NavyVance said:
Perhaps it's only the camera angle??? But in all truthfulness, or at least some truthfulness .... I think I can count the number of times on one hand that I've had a quality-of-turn "centered ball" in a commercial jet . Certainly count 'em on two hands ...
I just let "George" do it --- works. 727, 737, DC-10, 747 .....
NavyLonghorn
Registered User
A4sForever said:The "inclinometer"??
Perhaps it's only the camera angle??? But in all truthfulness, or at least some truthfulness .... I think I can count the number of times on one hand that I've had a quality-of-turn "centered ball" in a commercial jet . Certainly count 'em on two hands ...
727, 737, DC-10, 747 .....
"hey man.. whats that knocking on your window?" "umm.. I dunno sir.." "I think its the ball dude, it wants back in"
Thas an actual conversation I had with an IP.
And by "had" I mean, yesterday.
That's different --- flying your kinda stuff and most things Navy --- trim, trim, trim, and then trim some more. "George" doesn't work here ...NavyVance said:
NavyLonghorn
Registered User
A4sForever said:
I defenitly understand that, Im making fun of myself here more then anything.