F/A-22 flyover during Rose Bowl

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:01:18 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
Chad Irby wrote:

There's going to be a flyover of an F/A-22 during the Rose Bowl game
on
January 1, along with an F-117 and a B-2.

Does anyone know at what time they are to occur?

The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step
out
for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able
to
save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris

Not that it matters now, except for the recording, but the fly-over
was of the Rose Parade, right at the beginning. There was another
fly-over, by two Army or Marine helicopters, later in the parade, as
well. I didn't see any fly-over of the game itself and I was
watching.

So then, is USC #1?

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.

The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.

No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.

"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact, that
we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we chased
it with.

Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?

No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
enough for the regular system to take over.

Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight. NASA's data link was crap
and the HiMAT was designed to immediately pitch down, for data loss.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact, that
we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we chased
it with.

Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?

No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
enough for the regular system to take over.

Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html


Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
26.


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/Fa...-025-DFRC.html

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.

The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.

No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.



Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
rate.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.

The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.

No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.

Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
rate.

The first aircraft crashed 26 times. The second aircraft is in such good
condition because NASA was spending more on cotton than flying the HiMAT.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact,
that
we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
chased
it with.

Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?

No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
enough for the regular system to take over.

Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html


Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
26.

The last time you checked the F-22 was doing fine, Ferrin.

The HiMAT was so unrelable that they killed the program.

From: Scott Ferrin
Date: 1/3/2004 5:13 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news
On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.

The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.

No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.



Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
rate.

According to NASA the only 2 HiMATs made are on display in the Smithsonian.

According to tarver's 100% crash theory the 2 HiMATs would have averaged 13
"crashes" each.

If that were the case the things must have been rebuilt 13 times each. I know
of no major aircraft that rebuilt that many times.

It seems to me they would have gotten the hint after the second crash.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:31:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact,
that
we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
chased
it with.

Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?

No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
enough for the regular system to take over.

Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html


Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
26.

The last time you checked the F-22 was doing fine, Ferrin.

The last itme I checked the F-22 still doesn't have strakes. You
going to put up or shut your pie hole?

On 04 Jan 2004 01:06:54 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: Scott Ferrin
Date: 1/3/2004 5:13 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Mary Shafer" wrote in message
news On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.

The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.

No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.



Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
rate.

According to NASA the only 2 HiMATs made are on display in the Smithsonian.

According to tarver's 100% crash theory the 2 HiMATs would have averaged 13
"crashes" each.

If that were the case the things must have been rebuilt 13 times each. I know
of no major aircraft that rebuilt that many times.

It seems to me they would have gotten the hint after the second crash.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired



It's even better. Tarver claims the first one crashed 26 times and
the other one never flew.