F/A-22 flyover during Rose Bowl

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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?

Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.

NASA's little toy was a dud.

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.

And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
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?

Asking a proven and repetitive liar to prove his lie is not likely to get
you anywhere fast, Scott. We all know if the Tarvernaut's claim was correct
he should be able to post a link to a photo of one of these mythical
beasties--but he won't, because he can't. He'll just run his mouth, generate
a few more lies, then astonishingly claim victory with his trademark and
juvenile, "Thanks for playing", and be off to his next set of lies. The
F-22-with-strakes will join the rest of the Tarvernaut's growing pile of
noxious and odious past Tarverisms, such as his
recoilless-howitzer-on-the-AC-130, his "optical nuke", his F-106's carrying
AIM-7's and AIM-9's, his pitot tube nonsense, his unique analysis of Civil
War naval history that "proves" the Confederate Navy was blockading the
Union, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Of course, then again he might just get
really nasty and threaten to sick his personal US-Senator-cum-attack-dawg on
you, or even allude to personal threats...but in the end he is just a sad
little cretin craving attention in any form he can get it, not unlike the
child who throws a tantrum just to get noticed. Just killfile the pitiful
creature--as another poster mentioned to me, that single act can bring you
significant peace of mind...and the fact that you are at the same time
denying him what he really wants (an audience) is just icing on the cake.

Brooks

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.

And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
them.

That would be illegal.

Perhaps I'll post up the FY05 budget later this year.

What in the heck does an F-104 and HiMAT have to do with the Rose Bowl
and the flyover?? for cryin out loud, you need to change your name to
"Tangent Engineering" there Tarver guy!!

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:39:57 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

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. I think there was also a
range safety package that would destroy the HiMAT if necessary, but I
think it was only in the control room and not in the chase plane. I'd
have to check on that, though.

Mary

From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/3/2004 8:22 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.

And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
them.


And pigs will fly. He's tarver, his word is more reliable than any evidence.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:49:53 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...
In article ,
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:

Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.

And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
them.

That would be illegal.



Yeah that explains why so many people have taken pictures of them at
airshows. Loser. Why don't you tell me which one has strakes on it?
You don't even need to post a picture. I'll find one and post it and
show you that it doesn't. Hell, I'll bet I don't even go to jail.

NASA's little toy was a dud.




Evidence. Give us some evidence or do us all a favor and shut your
hole.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"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

Specifically:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Pho...C79-12055.html
which shows the "HiMAT on lakebed after landing."
Since HMAT isn't attached to the B-52 and the scoot marks across the lake
bed
behind it lead directly to the landing gear we can safely say it didn't
"lawn dart"
on at least one flight.

Asking a proven and repetitive liar to prove his lie is not likely to get
you anywhere fast, Scott.

Yeah, I know. I get a kick out of the stupid **** he says though.
I've come to the conclusion that he's just a troll (and not even a
good one at that) but I just can't help myself when he begs to be
kicked. Maybe he's a masochist.




We all know if the Tarvernaut's claim was correct
he should be able to post a link to a photo of one of these mythical
beasties--but he won't, because he can't. He'll just run his mouth, generate
a few more lies, then astonishingly claim victory with his trademark and
juvenile, "Thanks for playing", and be off to his next set of lies. The
F-22-with-strakes will join the rest of the Tarvernaut's growing pile of
noxious and odious past Tarverisms, such as his
recoilless-howitzer-on-the-AC-130, his "optical nuke", his F-106's carrying
AIM-7's and AIM-9's, his pitot tube nonsense, his unique analysis of Civil
War naval history that "proves" the Confederate Navy was blockading the
Union, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Of course, then again he might just get
really nasty and threaten to sick his personal US-Senator-cum-attack-dawg on
you, or even allude to personal threats...but in the end he is just a sad
little cretin craving attention in any form he can get it, not unlike the
child who throws a tantrum just to get noticed. Just killfile the pitiful
creature--as another poster mentioned to me, that single act can bring you
significant peace of mind...and the fact that you are at the same time
denying him what he really wants (an audience) is just icing on the cake.

Brooks