How low can you go?

Of course, if you like low-level flying, A-10 drivers are competely
insane. I've seen them come back from training flights with dirt on the
wingtips, and occasionally one lands with parts of a tree trunk embedded
in the leading edge.

yes, and...? Sounds like a ton of fun to me!! My wife gets testy when I
'fly' down the interstate, about 4" from the retaining wall, pretending to have
spit sucked out of my mouth. Ok, maybe that IS a little strange, but without a
helicopter door to hang out of, life gets a tad boring....

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR Aircrew

"Got anything on your radar, SENSO?"
"Nothing but my forehead, sir."

Subject: How low can you go?
From: Chad Irby
Date: 7/29/03 6:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: How low can you go?
From: Chad Irby
Date: 7/29/03 4:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id: YKDVa.1073$On2.19883@twist

Back in the early 1980s, I was stationed at George AFB, in Victorville,
CA.

Wasn't that a WW II Bombardier school?

Yup.

It's now the Southern California Logistics Airport.

--



We had a lot of guys from Victorville with the 344th in the ETO.. Good guys.
Good bombardiers.


Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

We had a lot of guys from Victorville with the 344th in the ETO.. Good guys.
Good bombardiers.

Part of the reason they put a base there to begin with was the 300+ good
flying days per year. You get a lot more practice flying when the
forecast is hot and sunny or cold and sunny...

--


Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Re that KC135 'low approach' - it was the usual schemozzle - they'd
been broken off a prior approach, cleared directly to downwind,
retracted the gear on the go and forgot it was up as they turned a
visual base and final. I guess that's been doen by hundreds of
pilots/crews; usually there's a wheels watch/RSU down there but none
of the fighters were flying that particular afternoon.
Lucky ucky lucky. SAC was notorious for lacking a sense of humor.
Walt BJ

"James Hart" wrote in message
...
Now that's a pretty low flypast, no wonder the presenter's crapping
himself.
http://www.airshows.tv/vids/ohmygod.wmv

I expect flames for this but.............

It seemed a totally irresponsible bit of flying, regardless of how
experience the pilot may have been. Very impressive without a doubt, but it
was risky to both the film crew and the pilot. What if something had gone
wrong? We'd all be lamenting the loss of the pilot and another irreplaceable
historic aircraft and blubbering about how tragic it all was.

Isn't this the very type of flying that is leading to a number of historic
aircraft (and crews) being lost all for the sake of impressing the
crowds/cameras?

I'm all for a good handling demonstration but don't risk the aircraft, the
pilots, or the spectators. You can't replace the aircraft nor the people who
get killed when things go wrong. With regards to historic relics, which is
what these aircraft are, it's one thing to operate them with care another to
recklessly abuse them to destruction.


Ok, I'll put my flame suit on now.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: How low can you go?
From: "The Raven"
Date: 7/30/03 3:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"James Hart" wrote in message
...
Now that's a pretty low flypast, no wonder the presenter's crapping
himself.
http://www.airshows.tv/vids/ohmygod.wmv

I expect flames for this but.............

It seemed a totally irresponsible bit of flying, regardless of how
experience the pilot may have been. Very impressive without a doubt, but
it
was risky to both the film crew and the pilot. What if something had gone
wrong? We'd all be lamenting the loss of the pilot and another
irreplaceable
historic aircraft and blubbering about how tragic it all was.

Isn't this the very type of flying that is leading to a number of
historic
aircraft (and crews) being lost all for the sake of impressing the
crowds/cameras?

I'm all for a good handling demonstration but don't risk the aircraft,
the
pilots, or the spectators. You can't replace the aircraft nor the people
who
get killed when things go wrong. With regards to historic relics, which
is
what these aircraft are, it's one thing to operate them with care another
to
recklessly abuse them to destruction.


Ok, I'll put my flame suit on now.

--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.



No flames from me. You are dead (pun intended ) right. It's all
impressive
until someone dies.

Exactly, except I'm not impressed watching someone risk a piece of history
or trying to "bend" it.

Then we see it for what it is,. childish showing off.

I hear that the UK airshow circuit is one where the more exciting the
demonstration the better chance of being hired or sponsored to display. If
someone else wants to right off an historic aircraft, I'd rather it be them
than me.

And
pretty soon these hot shots find that their crews doesn't want to fly with
them
anymore. Save us all from show-off pilots.

Hopefully peer pressure will influence these guys to better behaviour.

As I said, it's all impressive until something goes wrong. Let's face it,
would the average spectator really know the difference between a spirited
but safe maneouver and one that pushes the envelope? NO, so why do it.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

Henry Bibb wrote:
Sigh. I went to the site to snag a copy of this, and it appears to
be gone. Anybody got a copy you can email me?
Remove the NOSPAM to reply.

I grabbed it:
http://jameshart.mine.nu/spitfire.wmv

"James Hart" wrote in message
...
Henry Bibb wrote:
Sigh. I went to the site to snag a copy of this, and it appears to
be gone. Anybody got a copy you can email me?
Remove the NOSPAM to reply.

I grabbed it:
http://jameshart.mine.nu/spitfire.wmv


Thanks James. That looks like one fun pass at first sight but re-runs show
how close the pilot was to disaster. I guess the camera was on a stand, if
I'd been holding you'd have seen a lot of grass!

Nick

Here's where we'll see the difference between the multi drivers and
the single engine types. And how the instructors decided who went
which path in training.
I suppose now that a lot of fighters do have two engines my
terminology is not PC - but hell that's what it used to be. Okay -
fighters and targets - is that any better? After all, that definition
has a long history and was originated by a real expert. Anyway, "safe"
to a fighter-type mind is anything you can do without killing
yourself. To the other guys 'safe' doesn't include doing things just
for the hell of it. And fly the airplane to its max? Not a chance. If
I've offended anyone, gee, too bad, but then I am a fighter pilot
(retired), my mind-set hasn't changed, and won't, and I don't really
give a damn what other people think of that.
Walt Bj

(Walt BJ) wrote:

Here's where we'll see the difference between the multi drivers and
the single engine types. And how the instructors decided who went
which path in training.
I suppose now that a lot of fighters do have two engines my
terminology is not PC - but hell that's what it used to be. Okay -
fighters and targets - is that any better? After all, that definition
has a long history and was originated by a real expert. Anyway, "safe"
to a fighter-type mind is anything you can do without killing
yourself. To the other guys 'safe' doesn't include doing things just
for the hell of it. And fly the airplane to its max? Not a chance. If
I've offended anyone, gee, too bad, but then I am a fighter pilot
(retired), my mind-set hasn't changed, and won't, and I don't really
give a damn what other people think of that.
Walt Bj

Well said. As you are a former F-104 jock, I have a question for you.
There are two privately-owned -104's based locally out of
Clearwater-St. Petersburg Int'l airport just three miles or so from my
house (see: http://www.starfighters.net/). Sitting here at my desk,
whenever I hear that eerie J-79 "howl" I literally run outside to
catch a glimpse of the Zipper(s). I've noticed that the sleek jets
rarely fly with any external wing tanks, and am just curious as to how
long an F-104 can remain aloft (e.g: range?) on internal fuel alone?
Assuming the pilot doesn't use the AB except for takeoff.

-Mike Marron