HossHarris

Gents -- I'm stuck at Dyess for the weekend with a broken jet ... I couldn't quite make it to NOLA. The plan right now is to drive to Austin. Any recommendations? Places to stay? Places to drink? HOSS

Just down the street, doing the exact same thing.

Regardless of where you decide to register your vehicles, I've found it best to put the Title in the name of the Active Duty Military person ONLY. It makes life a lot easier since the spouse may or may not enjoy the same benefits (depending on the state). As long as you don't get divorced it will work out fine.

Didn't your momma tell you not to put plastic bags on your head? (AERPs sucks)

Yeah but at least I don't have some knucklehead wasting oxygen in the back seat and sucking the SA out of the cockpit (no STS required) ....

3-1 is a good place to start for decoding lyrics you may not understand. Otherwise, just pick a good whiskey and enjoy the tunes.

I'm not your GUY, Friend!

Start your drinking at ELLIS ISLAND. It's in a shithole little casino behind Bally's, but they have their own brewery and serve good beer CHEAP. Don't gamble there.

There's a bit of a dichotomy. Short stocky smoking bacon eating fat kids can usually handle the instantaneous G's better. But for sustained G's the athletic types are able to maintain better. The genetic oddity of a short stocky bacon eating smoking marathon runner does really well ... but there aren't too many of those around. A lot of the G-Cap studs at Luke are skinny kids. For us anerobic types, there's always 100% O2 and pressure breathing. Hoss /fat kid /G monster

Dollars have porn, period. It's tradition. It doesn't have to be covered in snatch or un-inspiring ... but there has to be some porn somewhere.

Good dollars have PORN. YOu don't have to make it obvious ... sammich it dollar, porn, dollar. Obviously temper that with some knowledge of the IP. (leans back in old man rocking chair) There will be many occasions through your LPA career where the "management" will tell you absolutely no porn/booze/dancing girls/shenanigans/fun/etc. It's up to you to decide when it's only mildly inappropriate (do it) versus a bad idea (do it) versus taboo (do it) versus the beginnings of an international incident (do it). You'll only be an LT once ... enjoy it.

I disagree ... There are people better than you. There are people better than me. There is stratification. Some people can't, in fact, cut it. We are not all warriors. This is not a child's tee-ball game where they don't keep score and everyone gets a trophy at the end.

Well, there's good and there's bad ... but overall I like it. To be clear, we're talking about the correspondence, get a masters and ACSC program. There are 11 or 12 classes to take. Each one is 8 weeks long. You can double up (or more) and take several classes at the same time after you've shown your ability to succeed in the first 3 or 4 classes. Each class usually has a forum style discussion question every week and an 1800 word (6-8 page) essay at the end. The Bad: It's long. You can't bear down and knock it out in 3-4 weeks like ACSC correspondence. It will take at least 14 months or so. There's no Gouge ... and there won't be any (see the good) It's a constant, slow level of involvement. You can't push for a week and then coast for a month like ACSC correspondence. The Good: There are no tests! It's a constant, slow level of involvement. You don't have to lock yourself away for a weekend to prep for a test. 2 birds with one stone. Sure it's a useless, square filling master's degree. But so is Embry-Ridiculous. And it's not that much more work than regular ACSC correspondence it's just spread out. And it takes less time overall than doing both seperately. There is a lot of "opinion" and "sociological" and "soft-science" type questions and essays ... so there's no right or wrong answer. Operational experience is highly desired and rewarded in the discussions and essays .. you can be a flying retard and still score big points by relating things to your experience in the sand box. Grading is generally fairly generous. There is a lot of writing, but it can be accomplished fairly formulaicly (is that a word?) and you can write to an undergrad type level and do fine. That's for essays ... forum style discussion questions are much more informal. 90+% of the course material is downloadable PDF files. So if you don't really want to read everything, you can search the contents of the course material and easily find references for nearly any point or stance you want to take in your essays, discussions, etc. You actually learn something. You're not cramming for a singular exam. If you have more questions ... ask!

Well that's how I roll ... but you really have to get the bandana (blue ONLY) and hairnet showing under the hemmet for full effect. YMMV

F-16: The NWS button is an on/off toggle on the stick (and used for many other things) NWS off: No NWS (duh), front wheel castors and you have differential braking. Not usually used. NWS On: Rudders coupled to nose wheel, good steering as you can pretty much pivot on a main. NWS+Differential braking: Bad idea, can roll the rubber (tire) off the nose gear and tends to chew things up ... so slow down, then turn.

Or you could go large, pony up an extra couple of hundred each, buy a class bus and party like rock stars. You would, of course, have to paint it flat black with flames. Just like this only shorter:

Talk to your safety shop guys to get the report from safety school. IIRC, a few of the astronauts actually drowned.

https://www.azcentral.com/community/westval...ash0314-ON.html https://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?Content...cb-fc43482e14b4

F-16 Crashed this afternoon at Luke. I don't have a link handy, nor should I really throw any details up here ... so check the internets for details.

I'd avoid a .380. They're ok for putting holes in paper but don't have much stopping power. Save up and get a 1911 in .45 ... at the very least get a gun in any caliber that starts with 4.

If you're out of gas and doing 250 you would not make it as far before you hit the ground, you're glide ratio would be worse and combined with the higher airspeed you'd have a higher VVI and hit the ground sooner as well. T-38s also have some interesting efficiencies at high airspeeds, around 400-450 for gas mileage. There isn't much difference in gas mileage between the -1 most efficient cruise speed and just parking it in MIL. Check it out sometime when gas isn't critical ... The same range in half the time.

Ok, to answer the question a little more completely. The glide ratio (descent angle) will be set by the L/D max which is entirely SHAPE dependant and has nothing to do with weight. That L/D max will occur at a certain airspeed and the descent angle combined with airspeed will yield the VVI. So for this question, if you have two identical airframes, one heavier than the other, the L/D max stays the same. The heavier airframe will acheive this L/D max condition at a higher airspeed. L/D max is the same, so the descent angle is the same, so the higher airspeed will have the higher down VVI if both aircraft are operating at an optimal speed. If both aircraft cut power at the same point, they will hit the ground at the same point. The heavier aircraft will get there first. If they are flying at the same airspeed there is no way to tell which will descend faster, VVI wise. Again, assuming the same airframe, whichever aircraft is closer to it's L/Dmax airspeed will have the better glide ratio. Since the airspeed is the same between the two, the shallower glide of the aircraft closer to L/Dmax will have less VVI. A "slow" airspeed will favor the lighter aircraft. A "fast" airspeed will favor the heavier aircraft. You'd have to know which a/c is closer to L/Dmax at that given airspeed to make the call. In this scenario, the A/C farther from it's L/D max will hit the ground in the shortest range. You can't tell which one will hit the ground first (that's VVI dependant) and that get's into MAX Endurance, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax. For a less theoretical and more practical perspective, look to competition gliders. They will add balast to hit L/D max at a higher airspeed to cover more ground and dump balast to hit L/D max at a lower airspeed. Across a wide range of weight, the L/D max value and glide ratio is the same. Even though I don't fly heavies, fighters do see a significant change in weight, especially when you look at the change as a percentage. You can't just use the "in the C-130 this is true" analogy since the T.O.s don't always follow the most efficient path from an aero perspective since there are other considerations outside of pure aerodynamics. None of these aircraft mentioned require any distance to descend. I can certainly point 90 degrees down and overspeed everything (on a heavy). Now, if I'm descending in accordance with the -1 it's different ... but this question has nothing to do with -1 airspeeds does it? So your real-world, I've done this a thousand times examples don't apply do they? And in the end, Aero is Aero whether its a paper airplane or a C-5.

Not to be a dick, but you are wrong. It's a static situation, lift will exactly equal weight or the A/C will be ACCELERATING up or down. Aero Engineer.

Here's the answer ... weight is irrelevant. period. The only thing that will matter is the L/D for the airframe and that's based on wing geometry mostly. In a static, unaccelerated glide, weight is exactly countered by lift. A 100k pound "glider" made out of lead with the appropriate wing span and area will descend slower than a paper airplane. It's all L/D these days. edit: I re-read the question. If operating at L/Dmax airspeed weight is irrelevant. If operating at some random airspeed, see my post below.

The back of 11-217 is full of them ...