Rocker

Cuz that's where el piloto sits. Gunner's up front.

U-2S. You can tell the Longbow from the A-model Apache because the As don't have all the fancy shit (MFDs) in them. Here's an A:

AH-64D Longbow Apache

And that hottest girl is actually a 12 year old boy with nice makeup.

People will usually wear their squadron patch on their right shoulder and an American flag on their left. But if they work at the group, they'll wear a group patch, or if at the wing, a wing patch. It depends on where they work (ie. safety, stan-eval, etc) and what everybody else wears.

Courtesy of FourFans130: What's that, about 8-10 oz? AWESOME. That'll teach you to eat the chicken tetrazini right after takeoff!

This reminds me of my first rejoin ever in a T-6. https://www.m90.org/index.php?id=10525 **PROBABLY NOT WORK SAFE** (has links and ads for "adult" material)

I second getting gas at Ellington. It's a great place to break or get weathered - the FBO there is sweet and you get hooked up with all kinds of stuff. On my T-6 cross country, we broke in College Station Friday night (Gig'em Aggies), and then weathered at Ellington for a day and a half on Sunday. Not bad.

I flew a sim with that guy one time. If I'm not mistaken, he flew E-3's as well.

Must be a Navy thing. A buddy of mine at Corpus was asked if he had them in his T-44 contact checkride brief, and he said sure without a doubt of course I have them right here in my pocket who doesn't have dogtags, gosh. Then the IP asked to see them and suddenly my buddy couldn't find them and got in some fairly serious shit for 1. Lying and 2. Not having dogtags when he was apparently told to have them.

They were issued to us at OTS. I always keep them zipped up in my pencil pocket, but I also wear them at the beach whenever possible.

I thought it was the ground that repels them. Otherwise they'd implode or something.

Nobody really liked ours. It looked pretty sharp, but there was nothing hidden and nothing too clever. Also the FOURTH attempt at getting something approved, so we all pretty much didn't care at that point. Our first submission came back with the comments (from one of the SQ/CCs) "Not in MY Air Force!!"

Standard.

Yep. Been there? Great little short hike, especially if you go up the backside (STS).

Yeah, but take a look at the original question: As soon as the plane starts moving (actual movement, not relative movement), the conveyor belt moves in the opposite direction. No amount of thrust will make the aircraft actually move, if the conveyor belt matches exactly the aircraft's actual speed in the opposite direction. Shit, you know what? The more I sit here thinking about this, the less sure I am about it. Good points above, slacker. I'm going to stop thinking about it for awhile so I can continue to believe I'm right...

So true about the Fox News "Alert." It's neat when they're telling you about something worthless and then interrupt themselves with an "alert" to tell you about something they just finished talking about, or maybe the least significant development possible for something like the Natalie Holloway case. They tell you it's fair and balanced, but it's sensationalized and negative like all the rest, what with all the fancy effects and graphics and such. Why not do a positive story about the war for once? Won't happen - not because there are no positive stories, but because the other networks aren't doing positive stories about the war. Maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I say all mainstream media in the world sucks monkey balls. it's too bad there's so much money in it.

What happens when you push the throttles up on the ground? The aircraft moves forward. If the aircraft is resting on a big hypothetical conveyor belt that is programmed to match the aircraft's groundspeed in the opposite direction, at the instant the aircraft would start to move forward, the conveyor belt would start moving in the opposite direction under the wheels, and accelerate at exactly the same rate. There is no torque to the wheels here, which is why I think people are getting their brains twisted. It's all thrust, so assuming there is no friction, and by the control of the thrust provided by the engine(s), the aircraft won't move an inch because the conveyor is moving exactly in the opposite direction at the SAME speed. It's like in Tom and Jerry, when Tom the cat runs really fast on a long rug to chase Jerry or something but doesn't go anywhere - the rug just moves under his feet and piles up behind him. Imagine the rug was a big conveyor belt and instead of Tom, it was an aircraft. The only real difference is Tom is applying torque directly to the rug. If he had a rocket pack and rollerskates, it'd be the same effect (though the rug would have to be set up to move on its own, like this hypothetical conveyor belt is). Because in this hypothetical situation the belt matches the speed of the aircraft exactly, it would be impossible for the aircraft to move at all. The relative speed would be huge, twice whatever it would be on a normal runway. But the only way you can get any movement is if the conveyor belt couldn't match the movement of the aircraft (either too much or too little). How about a conveyor belt going with the aircraft? Let's say it matches exactly whatever forward movement the aircraft makes in the SAME direction? Then the aircraft would accelerate at twice the rate, and take off roll would be half (no wind).

Huh? The runway is moving opposite of the airplane and no matter how much thrust is applied, the runway just moves by quicker while the relative speed of the aircraft stays zero. In fact, the airspeed indicator would read zero. And what happens at zero airspeed? Certainly not takeoff. Toro's right. UNLESS they have thrust vectoring. It doesn't say that though.

This is not me, but it's pretty high for a Herk.

I've never been afraid of heights or flying. Moreso of falling.

Here's another good site for quotes. Several repeats from ENJJPTIP's site, but some other interesting quotes. One of my favorites: You’ve never been lost until you’ve been lost at Mach 3. -- Paul F. Crickmore

One of my favorite books, and mentioned in the last good books thread we had here awhile back is "Stranger to the Ground" by Richard Bach. Definitely a "must read" if you're into Air Force flying, given to me by a great friend and mentor (and former BONE pilot). Worth checking out.

Whoa! It's probably the Matrix.

Our TIT (Turbine Inlet Temp) = your ITT (basically). Assuming you have ITT in that plane... Same concept. And all this talk is about setting a certain cruise power based on TIT. Max continuous TIT is 932/1010*C depending on which engines you have and it does say that cruising at max cont. will reduce engine turbine life. 900 is recommended to extend turbine life.