The Jet Thread

[Jackstar]

But you have to remember that with every rolled out change they *should* be running it through their entire test procedure.   

"Alex, I'll take Onna Monna Pee Ya for a thousand, please."

"Corners, Cocks, Locks, & Jocks!"

"What are... things that get cut?"

"That's correct! It's your board."

[Yorkshire pud]

It could be.  It could also be a compiler option, a change in the machine specs (ie different motherboard, memory configuration) etc.   But you have to remember that with every rolled out change they *should* be running it through their entire test procedure.   

Puddy's comments only make the problem seem more strange.

Although the U2 is still pretty much classified I would imagine it's mainly passive in it's missions. A bit like a nuclear sub. Keeps it's own signature small (hence the black (Radar absorbing) paint) but has huge ears in the form of scanners and other bits of kit. Unless it really has a piece of equipment that can emit huge amounts of energy as a defence counter measure and it was deployed inadvertently I think it unlikely that he U2 caused the problem per se. There's a funny transcript somewhere about an SR71 crew (back seat specifically) winding up an F16 jockey who was trying to be clever with a private pilot in his Cessna: All to do with asking for IAS from the ATC. 

[Uncle Duke]

Oh C'mon Duke, stop bringing expertise into it, it only muddies things.

Journalist knows jack about most things shock! They just want a story, you only need to have the misfortune to read anything on AOL/Huffingestapo when there's been an aircraft related incident. Numerous 'near misses' (airprox) many 'terrified' (one or two a bit upset), 'hair raising cross wing landing' (Common place and trained for) or simply completely wrong. If the public took any notice of the press and how they tout stories about air travel, no-one would fly. Wankers.

*laughs*  Back in the day, I knew guys who would tell media types, including some respected in the industry, stuff that was total bullshit just to see how gullible they were and/or if they bothered to confirm off-the-record information they were given.  One of my contractor counterpart's prized possessions was a book containing something he'd told an aviation writer that was sheer lunacy, a point the writer made with reference to a "highly placed" source within the program.  I always think about those guys whenever I hear some UFO researcher/writer talk about information obtained from "insiders" when discussing underground battles with aliens and other similar stories.

[Yorkshire pud]

*laughs*  Back in the day, I knew guys who would tell media types, including some respected in the industry, stuff that was total bullshit just to see how gullible they were and/or if they bothered to confirm off-the-record information they were given.  One of my contractor counterpart's prized possessions was a book containing something he'd told an aviation writer that was sheer lunacy, a point the writer made with reference to a "highly placed" source within the program.

You're not going to get away with that young man! Details sir, details... We need data.

I always think about those guys whenever I hear some UFO researcher/writer talk about information obtained from "insiders" when discussing underground battles with aliens and other similar stories.

I've known of common objects being placed on a pallet next to the unsuspecting (but soon to be approached by the brass/ dignitary) soldier/airman and naturally asked; "Tell me airman, what would you use a tennis ball/wooden spoon for in your line of work with this £500000 piece of high tech weaponry?"   Think on your feet time. 

[Yorkshire pud]

What's at question here is a reliable, authoratative source for this story.  Still don't buy NBC has the story right, won't buy it until the FAA and/or USAF validates what was reported.  I continue to wonder about the use of the term "fries". 

Well well...FAA are twitched up.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27292440

Oops

"On April 30 2014, an FAA air-traffic system that processes flight-plan information experienced problems while processing a flight plan filed for a U-2 aircraft that operates at very high altitudes under visual flight rules," FAA spokesman Lynn Lunsford said.

No mystery death rays or EMP then; Just VFR not usually in place at FL600.  ...Hey ho, lesson learned.

[Uncle Duke]

You're not going to get away with that young man! Details sir, details... We need data.

I've known of common objects being placed on a pallet next to the unsuspecting (but soon to be approached by the brass/ dignitary) soldier/airman and naturally asked; "Tell me airman, what would you use a tennis ball/wooden spoon for in your line of work with this £500000 piece of high tech weaponry?"   Think on your feet time. 

Remember the F-19 stories of the early 80s?  When it was finally revealed the "Stealth Fighter" was really the F-117 and the F-19 had never existed, my colleague told a writer the F-19 was for real and flying operationally as a super secret aircraft.  The guy bought it. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Remember the F-19 stories of the early 80s?  When it was finally revealed the "Stealth Fighter" was really the F-117 and the F-19 had never existed, my colleague told a writer the F-19 was for real and flying operationally as a super secret aircraft.  The guy bought it.

In fairness though the F117 was denied for years until Flight International stuck it on their front cover; "Oh that F117? Why didn't you say?"

[Yorkshire pud]

I missed this bit.

The Pentagon confirmed on Monday that an Air Force U-2 spy plane had been conducting training operations in the area, adding that "all the proper flight plan paperwork" had been submitted.

Or "Hey sunshine, we didn't fuck up, your shit civvie radar crap did, get a proper guy on it"

[Uncle Duke]

In fairness though the F117 was denied for years until Flight International stuck it on their front cover; "Oh that F117? Why didn't you say?"

The key is, the USAF never denied the existence of an a/c designated F-117, or even a stealth fighter for that matter.  What they denied was the existence of the F-19.  There was no need to deny an "F-117" existed because that designation was never mentioned until the a/c was revealed to the public.  In fact, the USAF had violated the DoD standard aircraft designation process established by McNamara in giving the a/c a century series designation.

Consider the much rumored "Aurora". The USAF says there is no aircraft by that name.  They've never confirmed or denied such an advanced a/c exists/did exist.

[Yorkshire pud]

The key is, the USAF never denied the existence of an a/c designated F-117, or even a stealth fighter for that matter.  What they denied was the existence of the F-19.  There was no need to deny an "F-117" existed because that designation was never mentioned until the a/c was revealed to the public.  In fact, the USAF had violated the DoD standard aircraft designation process established by McNamara in giving the a/c a century series designation.

Consider the much rumored "Aurora". The USAF says there is no aircraft by that name.  They've never confirmed or denied such an advanced a/c exists/did exist.

I wonder what they do call it then? Several years ago (about 2007) I was in a Manchester park laying on my back having just had a light lunch picnic and was staring up at the (Unusual for Manchester) clear blue almost cloudless sky. It was warm and dry.

I could see the vapour trails of airliners at their usual cruising altitude, one or two that were on approach to Manchester airport to my right, and way way up in the sky was a single dark arrowhead (nearest shape that was similar) at a phenomenal height travelling east-west with a medium/light grey trail that had hoops strung along at regular intervals. As a speed comparison the airliners were doing the same distance (at approx FL300-350) in 45 seconds or so..this thing travelled the same distance at least twice that altitude in less than 20 seconds until out of sight. This is Manchester England.  Judging it's speed I'd estimate it could get across the Uk east west in about 30-40 seconds. Maybe less.

[Jackstar]

Consider the much rumored "Aurora". The USAF says there is no aircraft by that name.  They've never confirmed or denied such an advanced a/c exists/did exist.

Given the meaning of the word Aurora, i.e. "dawn," it is likely that Aurora is simply the designated code umbrella for whatever the latest cutting edge aircraft were at whatever time and in whatever context it was used.

Obviously, advanced aircraft exist, and obviously, they are referred to by something. Similiarly, there is surely an extended history of ground vehicles that have been called Beast at one time or another.

Surely they're calling the autonomous man-killing robots that now, but that hardly belongs in the Jet Thread.

[cweb]

Heh, I remember the "Aurora spy jet" Micro Machine.


Still wasn't as "fast" as my SR-71, mind you...

[Uncle Duke]

Heh, I remember the "Aurora spy jet" Micro Machine.


Still wasn't as "fast" as my SR-71, mind you...

Back in the mid 80s, my then pre-teen nephew bought the F-19 plastic model kit.  He was so excited, I didn't have the heart to tell him it didn't exist.

[Yorkshire pud]

Back in the mid 80s, my then pre-teen nephew bought the F-19 plastic model kit.  He was so excited, I didn't have the heart to tell him it didn't exist.

Ahh yes, 'they' want you to think it doesn't exist... I know a bloke who knows a bloke who worked with a bloke (a senior supervisor in Walmart) whose brother knew a pilot (Crop sprayer in a Pawnee) who knew a guy (a truck driver) who saw one, once..In fog.

Need anyone need to ask more? You need an 'expert' to read the data?

[Uncle Duke]

Ahh yes, 'they' want you to think it doesn't exist... I know a bloke who knows a bloke who worked with a bloke (a senior supervisor in Walmart) whose brother knew a pilot (Crop sprayer in a Pawnee) who knew a guy (a truck driver) who saw one, once..In fog.

Need anyone need to ask more? You need an 'expert' to read the data?

*laughs*  Yeah, that was my point earlier about one of my colleagues convincing the aviation writer the F-19 really did exist despite the identity of the "Stealth Fighter" being officially recognized as the F-117. 

[Yorkshire pud]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750

Came across this display...Impressive yes?

[Uncle Duke]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750

Came across this display...Impressive yes?

This is why God gave us AMRAM.

[Jackstar]

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/russian-strategic-bombers-on-west-coast-did-they-take-down-los-angeles-air-traffic-control-systems_05062014

Amateurs! This what teen spirit smells like: http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1758.htm

[Yorkshire pud]

I was almost (no I wasn't really) taken in until I got to:

but only after it had ascended to nearly 44,000 feet where “undoubtedly” all of the other passengers and crew were killed by asphyxiation.

Flying at FL440 would not cause asphyxiation. That's assuming the aircraft could aerodynamically fly at that altitude. But don't let fact get in the way of a good conspiracy.

[area51drone]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1389637750

Came across this display...Impressive yes?

The first pair of these were models, if you didn't know.   Look at :48 and 1:28, it's quite clear.  Plus some of this shit they're doing is with their landing gear out.    You can pretty much do most of this stuff with prop models as well, although you don't have the rear exhaust, obviously.   The second part is real, but nothing that impressive.

[Yorkshire pud]

The first pair of these were models, if you didn't know.   Look at :48 and 1:28, it's quite clear.  Plus somei of this shit they're doing is with their landing gear out.    You can pretty much do most of this stuff with prop models as well, although you don't have the rear exhaust, obviously.   The second part is real, but nothing that impressive.

Yeah I know first lot are R/C. But if you don't think throwing a vectored thrust fighter around the sky isn't impressive you'll have to post your own piloting skills vids.

[area51drone]

Yeah I know first lot are R/C. But if you don't think throwing a vectored thrust fighter around the sky isn't impressive you'll have to post your own piloting skills vids.

I didn't say I'm out there doing that or anything, but I've certainly seen it before myself at airshows.    When a real jet can float like those rc planes, then let's talk.   Of course, their engines will probably be too powerful for the airframe at that point.. lol

[Yorkshire pud]

I didn't say I'm out there doing that or anything, but I've certainly seen it before myself at airshows.    When a real jet can float like those rc planes, then let's talk.   Of course, their engines will probably be too powerful for the airframe at that point.. lol

I think I'm right in saying that the Pegasus used in the Harrier is the most powerful normally aspirated turbine made fitted in a military aircraft. What is the key in this is vectored thrust. Getting it to work and move the aircraft in all directions whilst the airframe retains it's integrity is the engineering challenge.

[Jackstar]

Hey, since this is the thread for jets... how did the plane that allegedly flew into the Pentagon, counteract the ground effect?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aircraft)

http://youtu.be/ZaPoD_7TmNc

Show your work.

[Yorkshire pud]

Hey, since this is the thread for jets... how did the plane that allegedly flew into the Pentagon, counteract the ground effect?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_(aircraft)



Show your work.

You mean like these? 

Top 10 Jets Flyby Low Pass

[Jackstar]

Every single one of those would have either flown over the building, or spread debris over the top and sides of the building from Hell to breakfast.

Do you really expect us to believe that you are that grotesquely insipid? That seems a stretch, even for you.

[Yorkshire pud]

Every single one of those would have either flown over the building, or spread debris over the top and sides of the building from Hell to breakfast.

Do you really expect us to believe that you are that grotesquely insipid? That seems a stretch, even for you.

Oh bless, you really haven't a clue about aeroplanes do you other than handing in your boarding pass and the complimentary nuts and drink. 

[Jackstar]

http://youtu.be/ZaPoD_7TmNc

I know that doesn't look like an airplane.

9/11 CNN No Plane at Pentagon Original Footage: http://youtu.be/eHWHHid0Pmo

[Yorkshire pud]

I know that doesn't look like an airplane.

9/11 CNN No Plane at Pentagon Original Footage

Hmmm, you've looked into what airliners are made of haven't you? And how aluminium alters it's state under very high compression and stress? How it liquifies effectively?

No? You should.

[onan]

I think it was a weather balloon.