Sign in to follow this  
Mark K

UFOs: Jeff, IB, need mil pilot-speak translation

Recommended Posts

I think the F 4 was the most beautiful ugly airplane ever built.  Those things had character.  I used to love to see them making low passes over the Bavarian countryside when I was in the Army in the 1970s.

"What was that awful noise?"  

"That was the sound of freedom son."  (In the best John Wayne voice)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 1:33 AM, Trovão said:

never forget absence of proof is not proof of absence!

There are some "Russia"-themed threads in Political Anarchy which need you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2017 at 10:32 PM, IStream said:

The growth of technology and civilization is highly nonlinear. Even assuming planets that could bear life for exactly the same period as ours there could be wildly different rates of progress. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has been able to sustain our flavor of carbon-based life for 4 billion of those years. If the first amino acids came from extraterrestrial sources, there could be billions of years of difference between when they started vs us, depending on when their meteors hit.

Even if you confine yourself to the last 500 million years or so that there've been complex organisms, Earth has had five mass extinctions (that we know of). What if some or all of those hadn't happened? That's a lot of re-boots that you don't have to work through. 

Let's say even the extinction dynamics are the same. What if they're just smarter? Over the course of the 7500 generations or so of human existence, even a modest 0.1% increase in intelligence would have a huge cumulative effect on our civilization's advancement. In compound interest terms, 1.001^7500 = 1800.

Let's say they're no smarter at all but they have a more equitable civilization and instead of disenfranchising more than half their population due to gender, class, caste, or whatever they allow the best and the brightest to thrive regardless of their origin. How many additional Einsteins is that over the course of their existence?

Okay, forget that. Let's say they just got a ~1000 year head start (a 1 part in 4 million rounding error in the age of our planet) and everything else was the same. We got our understanding of modern physics in the 1920's. We got the transistor in the 1960's. We got the internet in the 1990's. We're getting functional AI in the next 10 years. Think of how fast things have progressed in just the last 100 years. What if all that started in 920AD instead of 1920AD. Where would we be now?

 

On 12/31/2017 at 11:06 PM, Ishmael said:

Cleveland.

Gwar predicted that on the Joan Rivers show in the 1990’s. Watched the video on YouTube just last week

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Battlecheese said:

There are some "Russia"-themed threads in Political Anarchy which need you.

what the heck are you talking about? i'd never risk entering p.a.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2017 at 2:58 AM, Mark K said:

Read em. I encountered a pilot's handbook for an F4 one day and man o man was there some cool shit in it. First off, I didn't think there was that much fuel in the world,  one thirsty effin bird! Near as I can tell mach one at sea level would have a fuel flow to each engine approximating that of a flushing toilet. Next was the humor. There were a plethora of emergency checklists, most ending in "EJECT", and nearly half the inch and a half think volume was devoted to the ejection system. The dead-stick landing procedure even started with "EJECT". It was to be used only if the seats didn't work. 

   A glide ratio only a brick would envy. 

Its not totally unique to the F-4.  Even the F-15 had many Boldface (mandatory emergency procedures) that either started with or ended with EJECT.  For instance in the rare event you had a dual engine failure and it would not restart quickly - the only thing you can do is eject.  There is no such thing as a dead stick landing because the flight controls are hydraulic powered and with no engine running, there is nothing running the pumps to produce hydraulic pressure - therefore flight controls no worky.  If you have enough altitude to point the nose at the ground and keep your airspeed up, you might have some pump pressure from the engines windmilling.  I don't recall the airspeed it takes to keep the motors windmilling enough to produce hydraulic pressure, but it was WELL above landing airspeed.  So if you had altitude, you could try to work to restart the motors.  But a dual engine failure down low..... you were reaching for the handles before you even thought about anything else.  The F-16 OTOH can and has landed deadstick before.  But they have a special thing called an EPU (Emergency power unit) that kicks on if the engine dies.  Its powered by a very toxic fuel called hydrazine and provides something like 15 min or so (don't quote me on the number) of electrical power so the flight controls are still workable.  

This is one of the best examples of an asspuckering event that went exactly as planned due to good training and team work (CRM).

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well WTF has that go to do with UFOs?

Does JB wank over this shit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its not totally unique to the F-4.  Even the F-15 had many Boldface (mandatory emergency procedures) that either started with or ended with EJECT.  For instance in the rare event you had a dual engine failure and it would not restart quickly - the only thing you can do is eject.  There is no such thing as a dead stick landing because the flight controls are hydraulic powered and with no engine running, there is nothing running the pumps to produce hydraulic pressure - therefore flight controls no worky.  If you have enough altitude to point the nose at the ground and keep your airspeed up, you might have some pump pressure from the engines windmilling.  I don't recall the airspeed it takes to keep the motors windmilling enough to produce hydraulic pressure, but it was WELL above landing airspeed.  So if you had altitude, you could try to work to restart the motors.  But a dual engine failure down low..... you were reaching for the handles before you even thought about anything else.  The F-16 OTOH can and has landed deadstick before.  But they have a special thing called an EPU (Emergency power unit) that kicks on if the engine dies.  Its powered by a very toxic fuel called hydrazine and provides something like 15 min or so (don't quote me on the number) of electrical power so the flight controls are still workable.  

This is one of the best examples of an asspuckering event that went exactly as planned due to good training and team work (CRM).

 

That was cool, thanks Jeff. I did not know abut the hydrazine-powered APU on the F16; they are troublesome things on all planes (and boats). Hydrazine may be a good choice of fuel because it makes lotsa power under almost any condition...... it's heinous stuff to deal with in every other way, though.

I would like to know who tested the engine windmill speed on the F15. That had to take some real balls.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That was cool, thanks Jeff. I did not know abut the hydrazine-powered APU on the F16; they are troublesome things on all planes (and boats). Hydrazine may be a good choice of fuel because it makes lotsa power under almost any condition...... it's heinous stuff to deal with in every other way, though.

I would like to know who tested the engine windmill speed on the F15. That had to take some real balls.

-DSK

Two easy ways to do it. First is one engine off and windmilling and the other operating. The second is to take an engine to the high altitude test cells at Tullahoma and test it there. 

Back around 2000, we did a joint experimentation program with the Germans on very high angle of attack flying with vectored nozzle, etc. due to the possibility of engine stall at high alpha, we put in a modified F-16 APU to try to avoid losing a one off test asset. The test team then proposed a full high AOA to touchdown landing test with the hydrazine APU running during the approach. High risk flight test at its best. Let’s just say the safety checklist to conduct that rest was massive. 

Similarly, when spin testing the F/A-18E, we put a hydrazine driven hydraulic and power system in place of the radar and a recovery drag parachute to make sure a dual engine stall during a spin would not cause loss of the aircraft since we only built 1 dynamic test airplane. (Out of 1/2 dozen total test aircraft). The spin flight was probably the highest risk flight in the test program but it ended up being uneventful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

verrey coolle,  thackes Jeff.

Jeff knows a lot about 'dead stick' situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

Jeff knows a lot about 'dead stick' situations.

Low blow!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

Speaking from experience Billy?   

Not really!  I'm here, I'm NOT Queer!  Get used to it....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, billy backstay said:

Not really!  I'm here, I'm NOT Queer!  Get used to it....

Dead stick Billy, dead stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, soak_ed said:

Dead stick Billy, dead stick.

Yeh, I got it, Ed!  Sing this to the tube of "Truckin'" by the Grateful Dead:

"Living on Credit, Viagra, Cialis and Rogaine!  All a friend can say is: "Ain't it a shame!""

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Snaggletooth said:

That workes!!!              :)

 

That's "original" copyrighted material, make sure you cite Billy Backstay, whenever you use it! LOL :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I hafte to yelle you naime beforre or aftere I singe the songue?                                             :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its not totally unique to the F-4.  Even the F-15 had many Boldface (mandatory emergency procedures) that either started with or ended with EJECT.  For instance in the rare event you had a dual engine failure and it would not restart quickly - the only thing you can do is eject.  There is no such thing as a dead stick landing because the flight controls are hydraulic powered and with no engine running, there is nothing running the pumps to produce hydraulic pressure - therefore flight controls no worky.  If you have enough altitude to point the nose at the ground and keep your airspeed up, you might have some pump pressure from the engines windmilling.  I don't recall the airspeed it takes to keep the motors windmilling enough to produce hydraulic pressure, but it was WELL above landing airspeed.  So if you had altitude, you could try to work to restart the motors.  But a dual engine failure down low..... you were reaching for the handles before you even thought about anything else.  The F-16 OTOH can and has landed deadstick before.  But they have a special thing called an EPU (Emergency power unit) that kicks on if the engine dies.  Its powered by a very toxic fuel called hydrazine and provides something like 15 min or so (don't quote me on the number) of electrical power so the flight controls are still workable.  

This is one of the best examples of an asspuckering event that went exactly as planned due to good training and team work (CRM).

 

Single pilot CRM seems an odd concept. People on the ground seemed to do a heck of a job helping him though. I suppose it fits. 

 I didn't just skip over the ejection seat stuff in that manual. Impressive piece of kit, that. Might be the most sophisticated thing in an F4, and that one takes a back seat to the ones they used in the F104 for awhile there. Fired down instead of up because they were afraid the t-tail would take the pilot out going up. The number of moving parts in that operation is impressive, spurs on the boots to attach chains to suck the feet back, the stick had to move itself out of the way, the bottom of the cockpit had to blow it self off, and all that was worse than useless right after takeoff. Lose the engine then and it was just too damn bad, I guess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its not totally unique to the F-4.  Even the F-15 had many Boldface (mandatory emergency procedures) that either started with or ended with EJECT.  For instance in the rare event you had a dual engine failure and it would not restart quickly - the only thing you can do is eject.  There is no such thing as a dead stick landing because the flight controls are hydraulic powered and with no engine running, there is nothing running the pumps to produce hydraulic pressure - therefore flight controls no worky.  If you have enough altitude to point the nose at the ground and keep your airspeed up, you might have some pump pressure from the engines windmilling.  I don't recall the airspeed it takes to keep the motors windmilling enough to produce hydraulic pressure, but it was WELL above landing airspeed.  So if you had altitude, you could try to work to restart the motors.  But a dual engine failure down low..... you were reaching for the handles before you even thought about anything else.  The F-16 OTOH can and has landed deadstick before.  But they have a special thing called an EPU (Emergency power unit) that kicks on if the engine dies.  Its powered by a very toxic fuel called hydrazine and provides something like 15 min or so (don't quote me on the number) of electrical power so the flight controls are still workable.  

This is one of the best examples of an asspuckering event that went exactly as planned due to good training and team work (CRM).

 

Impressive, especially when you google Hyrozine. 

I’m guessing there’s not much worth saving once that’s run through the sytstems?

edit,

JB, there’s shitty landing post in one of your favourites flying threads. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mark K said:

Single pilot CRM seems an odd concept. People on the ground seemed to do a heck of a job helping him though. I suppose it fits. 

 

Wasn't people on the ground.  It was his flight mates.  He was in a flight of 4 (he was #4) - usually the most inexperienced of the bunch.  Go back and listen again.  His flight lead (#3) was doing most of the talking and talking him through it.  That was textbook CRM.  CRM is both "Cockpit Resource Management" as well as "Crew Resource Management".  It was the latter that made the difference here. Its why single seat fighters relay on their flight mates so much for mutual support.  Even though their crew is not in the jet with them, they are still there working as a crew.  The outcome of that incident would likely have been VERY different had he not had that calm voice on the radio talking him through several things and making all the radio calls.  By taking the burden off the guy flying and doing all the other admin stuff, the pilot could just fly the jet.  

Huge SA building calls #3 made while flying formation with the IFE jet.  He is the real hero here IMHO.  "Runway is 20 deg to your left".  "Get your tanks off now".  "#1, mark those tanks."  "Four, you're looking good.  Nice job now, get her stopped."  Total veins of ice..... #3 earned his flight pay that day and I hope #4 bought him beer for the rest of his life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2018 at 1:36 PM, random said:

Well WTF has that go to do with UFOs?

Does JB wank over this shit?

Fuck off, randummy.  The adults are talking here.  Go do your homework and be quiet for a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Fuck off, randummy.  The adults are talking here.  Go do your homework and be quiet for a change.

With all due respect.....ignore could be your friend here. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Wasn't people on the ground.  It was his flight mates.  He was in a flight of 4 (he was #4) - usually the most inexperienced of the bunch.  Go back and listen again.  His flight lead (#3) was doing most of the talking and talking him through it.  That was textbook CRM.  CRM is both "Cockpit Resource Management" as well as "Crew Resource Management".  It was the latter that made the difference here. Its why single seat fighters relay on their flight mates so much for mutual support.  Even though their crew is not in the jet with them, they are still there working as a crew.  The outcome of that incident would likely have been VERY different had he not had that calm voice on the radio talking him through several things and making all the radio calls.  By taking the burden off the guy flying and doing all the other admin stuff, the pilot could just fly the jet.  

Huge SA building calls #3 made while flying formation with the IFE jet.  He is the real hero here IMHO.  "Runway is 20 deg to your left".  "Get your tanks off now".  "#1, mark those tanks."  "Four, you're looking good.  Nice job now, get her stopped."  Total veins of ice..... #3 earned his flight pay that day and I hope #4 bought him beer for the rest of his life.

 Thanks for the translation. I wasn't even able to discern he was in formation with other planes, who effectively walked him through the checklist so he could just fly the thing. "RM", I guess.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

 Thanks for the translation. I wasn't even able to discern he was in formation with other planes, who effectively walked him through the checklist so he could just fly the thing. "RM", I guess.  

 

Nothing against our brave boys in blue, but that 's how they always are.  Minimum is pairs.  Even when they go in to town, they have to have a wingman. There is some value in that.  When one of them gets the 'Payday Special' down in the ville after a night of heavy drinking, the wingman is there to pull his buddy out before he suffocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, soak_ed said:

Nothing against our brave boys in blue, but that 's how they always are.  Minimum is pairs.  Even when they go in to town, they have to have a wingman. There is some value in that.  When one of them gets the 'Payday Special' down in the ville after a night of heavy drinking, the wingman is there to pull his buddy out before he suffocates.

Always good to have someone you trust watching your 6...always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   They don't watch their 6 on the Walking Dead much, do they? Hell, doesn't look like they check 3 and 9 much either. Years in and they still pay for it damn near every episode. The Walking Brain Dead, I guess. 

 

I always thought that was about having a friendly IN your 6. He's gotta watch the guy in front of him so he's not "watching" 6 well, right?  I've wondered why the two-man fighters don't have the guy in back facing the other way, like they did in WW1. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

   They don't watch their 6 on the Walking Dead much, do they? Hell, doesn't look like they check 3 and 9 much either. Years in and they still pay for it damn near every episode. The Walking Brain Dead, I guess. 

 

I always thought that was about having a friendly IN your 6. He's gotta watch the guy in front of him so he's not "watching" 6 well, right?  I've wondered why the two-man fighters don't have the guy in back facing the other way, like they did in WW1. 

  

There are only 3 things a young wingman should EVER say without being asked first are:

  1. "Two"
  2. "Lead, you're on fire"
  3. "Save the fat one for me"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

There are only 3 things a young wingman should EVER say without being asked first are:

No one here gives a fuck about that shit JB.

Do drones have wingmen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

There are only 3 things a young wingman should EVER say without being asked first are:

  1. "Two"
  2. "Lead, you're on fire"
  3. "Save the fat one for me"

"Two" calling you his wingman, right? 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 4:32 PM, chum said:

technology

Yeah, but I've heard the key defense against SAMs remains Mark One Eyeballs. Seems having someone looking backwards could cover low three-six and six-nine sectors, the things can catch ya from behind, right? The radar? In the nose.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mark K said:

"Two" calling you his wingman, right? 

  

 

No. “Two” is the proper response to direction made by the lead to the wingman. No discussion requested or required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Innocent Bystander said:

No. “Two” is the proper response to direction made by the lead to the wingman. No discussion requested or required. 

I get it now:  

 Lead: "Talk to the fat one."

 Wingman: "Two."

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • When we first see the aliens waking up on the beach, we should see that they are clearly wearing life jackets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2018 at 5:47 AM, Mark K said:
On 1/10/2018 at 5:39 AM, Innocent Bystander said:

No. “Two” is the proper response to direction made by the lead to the wingman. No discussion requested or required. 

I get it now:  

 Lead: "Talk to the fat one."

 Wingman: "Two."

 

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that keeps Neil deGrasse Tyson up at night is “We don’t know what we don’t know”

Tyson, while refusing to speculate on potential UFOs spotted in the program, said he hopes the government is investigating any objects it may not be able to identify.

 

“It’s a flying object, and we don’t know what it is. I would hope somebody’s checking it out!” he said. “I hope there’s a program from our Defense Department to make sure they do not pose a threat.”

Commander David Fravor, a former Navy pilot, spoke to The Washington Post Monday about his experience with unidentified objects, saying that he was directed to inspect something while flying a routine machine. He said he saw “A white Tic Tac, about the same size as a Hornet, 40 feet long with no wings,” Fravor described. “Just hanging close to the water.” The object was never officially identified. 

Fravor says he is certain about one thing: “It was a real object, it exists and I saw it,” he said in a phone interview on Monday, as he described the sighting, on Nov. 14, 2004.

Asked what he believes it was, 13 years later, he was unequivocal.

“Something not from the Earth,” he said.

th?id=OIP.bw3WqFOzvn9Fqq-repp1PAHaFj&w=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“I have no idea what I saw,” Commander Fravor replied to the pilot. “It had no plumes, wings or rotors and outran our F-18s.”

But, he added, “I want to fly one.”

Some interpretation of the video.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/shocking-video-shows-u-s-navy-f-18f-super-hornet-intercepting-ufo/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DRIFTW00D said:

The thing that keeps Neil deGrasse Tyson up at night is “We don’t know what we don’t know”

 

 


 

 

 

I isolated that quote because I saw him make it. He went on to pose a fascinating question: In an ever expanding universe it is possible to project in the far future a time when all the galaxies will be beyond the horizon of observable universe of each other. At that time it will be impossible not only to detect the existence of other galaxies, it will be impossible to detect that your galaxy is moving at all. The scientists of that time will be limited to forming theories about the origin of the universe being, in it's entirety, their own galaxy. This means that what we are currently groping to grok is a universe which has had God knows what pages ripped from it's history like that. 

    We don't know what we CAN'T know, I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mark K said:

I isolated that quote because I saw him make it. He went on to pose a fascinating question: In an ever expanding universe it is possible to project in the far future a time when all the galaxies will be beyond the horizon of observable universe of each other. At that time it will be impossible not only to detect the existence of other galaxies, it will be impossible to detect that your galaxy is moving at all. The scientists of that time will be limited to forming theories about the origin of the universe being, in it's entirety, their own galaxy. This means that what we are currently groping to grok is a universe which has had God knows what pages ripped from it's history like that. 

    We don't know what we CAN'T know, I guess. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chum said:

 WTF? :)

 

 

Juste adde Jim Nantse an Toney Rommo sondetracke frome 4th qartere yestedays game, and thet coude be me.                                            :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2018 at 5:42 AM, chum said:

 WTF? :)

 

 

6Gs???  Pussy.  And he's doing it all wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this