|
Tin Tin owns, you should read it.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Tin Tin already has planes and a bonus inflight refueling scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0CCWk8mRow
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Booblord Zagats posted:My brother always said the nicest/most "has his poo poo together" guys from flight school seemed to become Prowler guys My brother would agree with your brother (except for the flight school part), since he's a Master Sgt. in the Marine Corps in charge of taking care of Prowlers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
I have a pet theory that the guy at Grummer who designed the Intruder/Prowler had a catapult guy gently caress his wife or something because when I stood up close to an Intruder at the Naval Aviation Museum the front gear/intake proximity had me all NOPE. (Yeah yeah we've all seen THAT video a hundred times) Really cool aircraft, though, shame about the retirement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Wow, someone actually managed to make a 747 ugly 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Cann birds are a fact of life in most USAF mx units. Most AF mx units have more than ~15 birds on the ramp. Booblord Zagats posted:My brother always said the nicest/most "has his poo poo together" guys from flight school seemed to become Prowler guys I've had mixed results. The Prowler was the only aircraft I "lost" while controlling at WTI, because they weren't paying attention to the radio in between strike waves (there was about a 15-20 minute break in the middle, they stayed out in "bad guy land" instead of coming back with everyone) and missed three or four threat calls. They finally turned away when the adversary's missile was halfway through it's time of "flight." Then there were the Prowler guys who were just busting airspace or altitude blocks or something all over Afghanistan because they had apparently never even read the ACP. I actually talked to that guy on the phone and gave him a list of poo poo to read so they wouldn't kill anybody. Godholio fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Air Force question: when an airframe goes away for a heavy check (and I realize that the scope and downtime can vary wildly between airframe types,) does the owning unit get another airframe subbed in until theirs comes back, or do they just have enough airframes assigned to them to (theoretically) maintain the notional squadron/wing strength, despite birds being in the depot having their insides taken out?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
This MD-11F is taxiing for takeoff at ORD right now. Looks great in Lufthansa livery.  thought it was a DC-10 Jealous Cow fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Jun 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:This DC-10 is taxiing for takeoff at ORD right now. Looks great in Lufthansa livery. Are you sure that's not a MD-11 ? it has winglets...
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:Are you sure that's not a MD-11 ? it has winglets... You're right, MD-11F.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
This job looks like it would be fun: https://www.facebook.com/RealAirPower/videos/549616928509512/ WARNING: Not safe for Holly Bloopers 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Those comments are extra retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:This job looks like it would be fun: Jesus man why don't you just step out back and shoot my dog while you're at it. That's loving brutal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Jesus man why don't you just step out back and shoot my dog while you're at it. But we can't risk Iran getting hold of them, they might break in a US military base in the night and steal one 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Lord help me if they made this same video pulling the wings off of a poor, helpless A-10.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:This job looks like it would be fun: I'll bet there's a thousand former Tomcat wrenchbenders who would pay a fortune to do that for an hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Lord help me if they made this same video pulling the wings off of a poor, helpless A-10. Should be plenty of pictures/video of A-10s getting their wings ripped off - they replaced several hundred wing sets after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Air Force question: when an airframe goes away for a heavy check (and I realize that the scope and downtime can vary wildly between airframe types,) does the owning unit get another airframe subbed in until theirs comes back, or do they just have enough airframes assigned to them to (theoretically) maintain the notional squadron/wing strength, despite birds being in the depot having their insides taken out? Nope, unless for some retarded reason we are really low on aircraft (I'M LOOKING AT YOU PS&D), and we can beg one off of another unit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:This job looks like it would be fun: Tomcat best cat
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:This job looks like it would be fun: I think I just set a record for closing a window. Nope nope nope nope NOPE. You're a bad man for linking that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
holy poo poo those comments are real stupid
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Most AF mx units have more than ~15 birds on the ramp. Valid point, but my retort would be "lol AWACS" MrYenko posted:Air Force question: when an airframe goes away for a heavy check (and I realize that the scope and downtime can vary wildly between airframe types,) does the owning unit get another airframe subbed in until theirs comes back, or do they just have enough airframes assigned to them to (theoretically) maintain the notional squadron/wing strength, despite birds being in the depot having their insides taken out? So I could sperg out here about PAI/PAA vs BAI/BAA but Dannywilson basically covered it. In theory you should have enough between your PAA and BAA to cover the difference while the one bird is gone to depot but the reality is usually different for reasons. Either way you aren't getting backfilled because everyone else is just as bad as you are airframe wise if not worse. MrChips posted:I'll bet there's a thousand former Tomcat wrenchbenders who would pay a fortune to do that for an hour. lol yup. I'd pay money to get a chance to rip a Reaper apart...not because the plane itself is a POS, just for the cathartic release I'd get from being able to envision everyone from the SPO and GA (mostly the SPO) inside the plane as I did the deed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Tomcat best cat Counterpoint: Moo
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Lord help me if they made this same video pulling the wings off of a poor, helpless A-10. A-10 outrage? Look what I just found by coincidence: http://m.imgur.com/gallery/2l6Xm LOUD NOISES OMG A-10 BEST PLANE EVAAAAR
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
SybilVimes posted:But we can't risk Iran getting hold of them, they might break in a US military base in the night and steal one Yet Iran is somehow supposedly still finding 'ways' to find parts every so often.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
vessbot posted:It can be spun around only on the ground, there's no room for a person's legs while it's in transition. And when it's backwards, the rear stick has to be removed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXOpLReNgg - about 7 minutes in seems to indicate that it can be moved around in the air.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 11:03
|
|
|
Colonel K posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXOpLReNgg - about 7 minutes in seems to indicate that it can be moved around in the air. Notice he stood up while turning it. I shouldn't say that it absolutely can't be done with a good dose of ambition, time, and contortionism... But it definitely wasn't part of a normal routine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Valid point, but my retort would be "lol AWACS" One thing I've heard a few times is that resorting to cannibalization requires like gp-level approval? True/false? Location/organization dependent?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Godholio posted:One thing I've heard a few times is that resorting to cannibalization requires like gp-level approval? True/false? Location/organization dependent? Depends on the org and the level of cann. Broadly speaking 21-101 (mx AFI/bible) only states that the MXG/CC will approve who will have the authority to be a cann official. It has to be at least a SNCO so it's usually your Pro Super types...but that's ultimately up to the MXG/CC, so if he wants to be tighter with it that is his prerogative (although that would be dumb). Additionally, while a Pro Super would normally be fine to cann a part here or there as required depending on the responsiveness of the supply system, a major/high risk cann and/or multiple cann's that are going to generate a cann bird would typically be elevated to at least the SQ supervision level and would probably get briefed to the MXG/CC at the morning production meeting because if you're creating a cann bird you're basically acknowledging that you will almost certainly go into Cat I and maybe Cat II hangar queen status on that tail, which is something the Group is going to care about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Depends on the org and the level of cann. Broadly speaking 21-101 (mx AFI/bible) only states that the MXG/CC will approve who will have the authority to be a cann official. It has to be at least a SNCO so it's usually your Pro Super types...but that's ultimately up to the MXG/CC, so if he wants to be tighter with it that is his prerogative (although that would be dumb). Additionally, while a Pro Super would normally be fine to cann a part here or there as required depending on the responsiveness of the supply system, a major/high risk cann and/or multiple cann's that are going to generate a cann bird would typically be elevated to at least the SQ supervision level and would probably get briefed to the MXG/CC at the morning production meeting because if you're creating a cann bird you're basically acknowledging that you will almost certainly go into Cat I and maybe Cat II hangar queen status on that tail, which is something the Group is going to care about. They stripped so much crap off my baby when she was Hanger Queen  The forms were a nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Good explanation, thanks. I guess it always seemed like a huge deal at Tinker just because there were so few airframes. 27 or whatever to begin with, then take away the ones taking care of the multiple simultaneous deployments, plus the depot/upgrade rotation, plus the alert aircraft, plus any TDYs, plus whatever else. They all get allocated FAST, and taking one off the list just to pull parts becomes a Problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Good explanation, thanks. I guess it always seemed like a huge deal at Tinker just because there were so few airframes. 27 or whatever to begin with, then take away the ones taking care of the multiple simultaneous deployments, plus the depot/upgrade rotation, plus the alert aircraft, plus any TDYs, plus whatever else. They all get allocated FAST, and taking one off the list just to pull parts becomes a Problem. Yeah at Tinker I could see the MXG wanting to have a tight control over that because you really are tight on tails pretty much all the time. And N4I that's what happens when you're crewing the -D model (you were on a -D for a while, right? I vaguely remember you saying that for some reason.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
On the apron: These magnificent fat bastards are probably the most common visitor here aside from small domestic traffic. They are cool things to see on approach or takeoff.   Feast your eyes on the glory that is GANDER AIRPORT (servicing one tiny airliner the size of a bus.)  The F-15s are still here. My theory now is that they are interceptors for Bears if they try to goose the defenses on the eastern seaboard. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:On the apron: I've been seeing those pretty often down here at Soto Cano AB (Honduras) and, being an Army puke and not knowing any better, they always just look to me like congenitally defective offspring of the C-5. Tail's too big, body's too short and fat, but MAN they're pretty loud like C-5s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
thetechnoloser posted:they always just look to me like congenitally defective offspring of the C-5. Tail's too big, body's too short and fat So Boeing's an rear end man 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
Makes sense. Those are Lakenheath, UK jets. If it were up to me, I'd make that a standard rotation, so the jets out of England can hand off the Bears to the Gander detachment, who can hand off to something from New England.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Makes sense. Those are Lakenheath, UK jets. If it were up to me, I'd make that a standard rotation, so the jets out of England can hand off the Bears to the Gander detachment, who can hand off to something from New England. Does raise the question of why AF jets are sitting alert in Gander as opposed to, I dunno, some RCAF Hornets? Iceland I can understand since they don't have an AF (NATO rotates fighters through there for the same reason NATO has an air policing det in the Baltics), but Canada?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Outside of lol canada, if its something like a norad mission wouldn't it be sensible to do some burden sharing seeing as how its the country situated between most of the US and Russia?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Does raise the question of why AF jets are sitting alert in Gander as opposed to, I dunno, some RCAF Hornets? Iceland I can understand since they don't have an AF (NATO rotates fighters through there for the same reason NATO has an air policing det in the Baltics), but Canada? Pretty sure Canada's Hornets are in Iraq?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Jonny Nox posted:Pretty sure Canada's Hornets are in Iraq? Six of them are bombing poo poo there, but that still leaves something like 73 in operational use according to wikipedia. Maybe six at a operational tempo uses up all the CF-18 flying' money? e: for clarity Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Jun 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2015 23:30
|
|