Roost Air Lounge => Aviation related topics => Topic started by: Panzerrat on December 31, 2006, 05:22:44 AM
Title: Way low KC-135
Post by: Panzerrat on December 31, 2006, 05:22:44 AM
I've seen some low flying before, but DAMN...!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b8fe10151
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: spacer on December 31, 2006, 06:32:05 AM
That's a pretty good sized RC airplane. 8)
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 31, 2006, 07:13:45 AM
Those french people like flying low eh? First the video with the Super Puma helicopter and now this? Kind of funny they got mad at the dude flying thrue the Eiffel Tower then, unless it was due to it being performed by a non-french pilot (Note: That last part was just a joke of course for reasons that I'm sure are obvious to the veteran posters here).
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on December 31, 2006, 07:25:27 AM
WOW ::bow:: that guy has got cajones galore--maybe I'm not seeing it right but they looked like they were about 100 AGL at one point-----I've made passes at half a wingspan but never at those speeds, they looked to clocking 400 or better--made the hair stand up on my neck ::unbelieveable::
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on December 31, 2006, 12:20:27 PM
My friend showed this to me about a month or two ago. It got sent around the college a lot and we determined it had to be an RC plane. Based off the size. Look at the people in the video, take that size then compare it to the bushes, and then the plane. Its a huge plane, but definately not a real one.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on December 31, 2006, 07:18:31 PM
My friend showed this to me about a month or two ago. It got sent around the college a lot and we determined it had to be an RC plane. Based off the size. Look at the people in the video, take that size then compare it to the bushes, and then the plane. Its a huge plane, but definately not a real one.
NAWWWWWW!!!!! Looked over again---can't see how that could be anything other than real----or maybe my tired old eyes are decieving me ::thinking::
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Panzerrat on December 31, 2006, 07:30:17 PM
I agree with fireflyr. The Desert will do strange things to your eyes regarding perspective. 'Sides, aren't those engines a little, well, loud for a RC aircraft. Also, I've never seen anyone that enthused about a low RC plane. One other thing, if that's not in the middle of nowhere, I don't kow what is.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on December 31, 2006, 07:37:38 PM
I agree with fireflyr. The Desert will do strange things to your eyes regarding perspective. 'Sides, aren't those engines a little, well, loud for a RC aircraft. Also, I've never seen anyone that enthused about a low RC plane. One other thing, if that's not in the middle of nowhere, I don't kow what is.
Thanks, and by the way, was ist mit PANZER rat----you a fan of german tanks ???
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on December 31, 2006, 08:01:47 PM
Well you guys can believe what you want. However, ill take my Aerodynamics professors word, who has a PhD in Aerospace physics that, its a huge RC plane.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 31, 2006, 08:06:47 PM
http://www.worldairnews.ch/images/2004/FAF_KC35_FUCxx.jpg Check the size, then look at the still photo where it's right at the jeeps and people and remember the shadow isn't necessarily directly under the plane. Of course it can still be remote controlled, but it's not a scale model from what I can tell. It says somewhere it's in Chad.
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: chuckar101 on December 31, 2006, 08:08:55 PM
I agree thats way to big to be a RC. It might be remote controlled but either way it looks full size. Great link though.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Panzerrat on December 31, 2006, 08:15:51 PM
I agree with fireflyr. The Desert will do strange things to your eyes regarding perspective. 'Sides, aren't those engines a little, well, loud for a RC aircraft. Also, I've never seen anyone that enthused about a low RC plane. One other thing, if that's not in the middle of nowhere, I don't kow what is.
Thanks, and by the way, was ist mit PANZER rat----you a fan of german tanks ???
Despite being a former bubble head, yes I'm a fan of almost all armor. The Army wouldn't guarentee me tanks back in '88, but the Navy swore I'd get the boats. I'm a WWII history buff, and a guy on the boat started calling me Panzerrat. I like it as a screen name. I never have to add numbers behind it on forums. Only Yahoo.
I took three years of German in high school, but do I remember anything but a few words? No.
Undatc, no offense to your prof, but a PhD doen't make you automatically right, either.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on December 31, 2006, 08:45:49 PM
He seems to think he's always right. Here is what was origionally said to back his side up, one being no markings on the plane. No tail stripe (telling you where its based out of), no USAF tag near the cockpit, and no stars on the wings on body. Also the nose black paint is wrong. Though this could be a forgien plane, however i dont recognize the flag on the tail. http://web.tiscali.it/ivancorso/img_support/KC-135/foto_kc135d.jpg
Also, the tail is missing a big "node" on it, if you look it doesnt have that either. Those are 4 engine planes, probably in the neighborhood of 160-180db of sound. Listen to how loud the guys are, and that plane was what? 200 yards away max, it should have been a lot louder. I have flown next to these guys, a squadren of them are based at grand forks AFB and ive been 500ft above them crossing, and i could hear them at that, it was deafening even over my engine.
And also wake turbulence. He is probably what 50-100ft off the ground? Wake turbulence is most pronounced when low, slow, and heavy. The KC is a heavy(even classified as a heavy for ATC), and is pretty slow there, considering it tops out over 500mph. Look at the desert, no dust, none of the trees move. The vorticies produced by that plane would have kicked up a lot of dust and there was nothing.
**Edit** On closer look, it looks like that tail flag is of the Swiss Air Force. Looking on Wikipedia, there are currently a few countries that operate KC-135's, the US Air Force, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Israel ,Italy, Morocco, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Turkey, & Venezuela. Other models were sold to many other countries, but those are the only ones using it as a tanker. And the one in the shot is a tanker, as you can see the refueling boom.
Also, The KC-135 was modified to the KC-135Q/A to serve the blackbird, only 56 were made.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on December 31, 2006, 09:22:07 PM
WELL! T he PHd is entitled to his opinion, the still photo sure makes it clearer. As far as wake turbulence blowing dust from a 400 knot airplane @ 100 feet---only in hollywood ::rofl:: And the noise level---take a look at the nacelles, the original low bypass engines have been replaced and I'll wager a quart of Southern Comfort that high-bypass engines set to a low cruise setting (as in a diving pass) would be a mere whisper (comparatively) My degree in Bovine Scatology and 50 years of watching airplanes gives my opinion just as much weight as the professors ::cowboy::
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Panzerrat on December 31, 2006, 09:24:33 PM
People have been saying that this is a French Air Force KC-135. On excercises in Djibouti or Chad. 'Sides, most militarys are big on low visibility (or whatever they call 'em) markings.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on December 31, 2006, 09:38:27 PM
WELL! T he PHd is entitled to his opinion, the still photo sure makes it clearer. As far as wake turbulence blowing dust from a 400 knot airplane @ 100 feet---only in hollywood ::rofl:: And the noise level---take a look at the nacelles, the original low bypass engines have been replaced and I'll wager a quart of Southern Comfort that high-bypass engines set to a low cruise setting (as in a diving pass) would be a mere whisper (comparatively) My degree in Bovine Scatology and 50 years of watching airplanes gives my opinion just as much weight as the professors ::cowboy::
Actually you should see some dust etc, or even wind from the wake turbulence. Have you seen the dryden test center photos from nasa on their studies on wake turbulence? They arent even using a heavy and its really impressive video/pictures of how the air moves etc. You should see some dust/wind in the trees from this and there isnt any.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: happylanding on December 31, 2006, 09:44:21 PM
**Edit** On closer look, it looks like that tail flag is of the Swiss Air Force. Looking on Wikipedia, there are currently a few countries that operate KC-135's, the US Air Force, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Israel ,Italy, Morocco, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Turkey, & Venezuela. Other models were sold to many other countries, but those are the only ones using it as a tanker. And the one in the shot is a tanker, as you can see the refueling boom.
Also, The KC-135 was modified to the KC-135Q/A to serve the blackbird, only 56 were made.
the flag is Swiss, without any doubt. the point is, what the hell is swiss military doing in the desert somewhere? we have Alps here!!!!
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 31, 2006, 09:47:49 PM
This is supposedly a french KC-135, look at the tail symbol, it's clearly not the swiss flag. (http://www.worldairnews.ch/images/2004/FAF_KC35_FUCxx.jpg)
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on December 31, 2006, 09:49:10 PM
**Edit** On closer look, it looks like that tail flag is of the Swiss Air Force. Looking on Wikipedia, there are currently a few countries that operate KC-135's, the US Air Force, Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Israel ,Italy, Morocco, Singapore, Spain, South Africa, Turkey, & Venezuela. Other models were sold to many other countries, but those are the only ones using it as a tanker. And the one in the shot is a tanker, as you can see the refueling boom.
Also, The KC-135 was modified to the KC-135Q/A to serve the blackbird, only 56 were made.
the flag is Swiss, without any doubt. the point is, what the hell is swiss military doing in the desert somewhere? we have Alps here!!!!
Haha, true that. The bigger quesetion is where the hell did the swiss get a KC135? As far as i could find we never sold any to them.
And here is a link to the dryden video, sorry it is a havey, C5 Galexy
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: happylanding on December 31, 2006, 09:49:49 PM
I was just correcting it. I made the movie larger and could not see the flag anymore. at least.......well.....I will not add anything else! :)
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: happylanding on December 31, 2006, 09:52:15 PM
But the ones in the back of the still picture......they are definitely swiss! those ones at least! ::rofl:: ::rofl:: Okay. my aircraft recognition is quite toooooo poor! :-\ thanks Frank!
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on December 31, 2006, 09:56:42 PM
There you go http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0501733/L/
About the dust storm then maybe it's a hard surface? Not all kinds of dirt/sand flies equally easy.
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on December 31, 2006, 10:02:42 PM
There you go http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0501733/L/
About the dust storm then maybe it's a hard surface? Not all kinds of dirt/sand flies equally easy.
Frank
Thats an interesting pic of the KC on the runway. The refuling tube is hanging not in the usual rolled up position.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Panzerrat on December 31, 2006, 10:06:49 PM
I'm actually kind of amazed that the French aren't using a modified Airbus of some sort. Of course, why spend development money when there is a fully functioning, reliable tanker already on the market.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Baradium on December 31, 2006, 10:25:30 PM
I had trouble getting the video to play... would go partway through then stop.
Anyone else have problems?
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on January 01, 2007, 05:18:58 AM
WELL! T he PHd is entitled to his opinion, the still photo sure makes it clearer. As far as wake turbulence blowing dust from a 400 knot airplane @ 100 feet---only in hollywood ::rofl:: And the noise level---take a look at the nacelles, the original low bypass engines have been replaced and I'll wager a quart of Southern Comfort that high-bypass engines set to a low cruise setting (as in a diving pass) would be a mere whisper (comparatively) My degree in Bovine Scatology and 50 years of watching airplanes gives my opinion just as much weight as the professors ::cowboy::
Actually you should see some dust etc, or even wind from the wake turbulence. Have you seen the dryden test center photos from nasa on their studies on wake turbulence? They arent even using a heavy and its really impressive video/pictures of how the air moves etc. You should see some dust/wind in the trees from this and there isnt any.
Ok folks, lets take a deep breath and think---This KC 135 is traveling every bit of 400 knots, without dragging out my E6B that's in the neighborhood of 625 feet per second (estimated)---that's 2 Yankee football fields in UNDER 1 second. ::unbelieveable:: The maximum vortice produced by an aircraft is at lift off because the wing's angle of attack at rotation is very high thus producing a large quantity of slow air moving lengthwise and spilling off the wingtip to produce the a large vortice typically seen in dust tracks (pretty much the same thing on approach and landing but the airplane is much heavier at takeoff and we all know that heavy, slow airplanes produce the largest strongest vortice) ---think about that--- As the aircraft increases speed, the flaps and slats are retracted and the AOA decreases and less vortice is produced so that at high cruise speeds the vortice is much smaller and weaker. ::thinking:: Now look at the NASA footage posted by undatc, a dirty C-5 in landing configuration passes over a 100 foot tall smoke tower at about 200 knots OR SLOWER (300 feet per second) at between 4 and 500 feet, The smoke coming from the top of the tower (roughly 300 feet below the A/C) is not affected in a major way until about 3 to 5 seconds (9- 1500 feet) AFTER A/C passage and don't forget that a slow C-5 has an extremely strong vortice! ::)
NOW, take another look at the KC135 low pass--the camera is aimed at the airplane and cannot capture any dust blowing hundreds of feet behind it--remember the vortice disturbance is small because of the speed and low AOA and is also farther behind the airplane because of the speed----You ARE NOT going to see any wake distubance from those angles. ::sleep:: In hollywood, when Clint Eastwood flies a Soviet fighter over the snow at Mach 2 you will see snow flying directly under the airplane as it goes by BUT, that's hollywood kids--it doesn't work that way in real life. ::silly::
After more views and Franks stop action picture AND the aforementioned facts I am now inclined more than ever that this is a balls out low pass by some folks having fun in a dangerous way at taxpayers expense ::rambo::
If anyone can PROVE me wrong, I'll send you that bottle of Southern Comfort, till then, I'm listening. ::whistle::
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Panzerrat on January 01, 2007, 05:56:53 AM
Even though I agree with you, I'm tempted to find verifiable information to disprove everything you've just said for that bottle of SoCo.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on January 01, 2007, 06:15:38 AM
Even though I agree with you, I'm tempted to find verifiable information to disprove everything you've just said for that bottle of SoCo.
SHHPOKEN LAK A TRU SAALER! ::drinking::
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on January 01, 2007, 09:37:45 AM
I dunno, i still think its not real. I just have a hard time thinking a pilot, and his crew members too, as they carry 3 people, would be this stupid to fly a multimillion dollar airplane, not to mention how much avgas to potentially that close to the ground.
Though, we are talking about a pilot here...
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 01, 2007, 09:49:20 AM
Ok I'll try to get my observations tested. Jim, where do you get 400 knots from? The plane seems to have it's engines at low power/revs, there's almost more windnoise than jetnoise which could further explain the lack of dust (low thrust), especially if it didn't use flaps. From watching then it seems to me that the plane only moves a few times it's own length per second, although this was hard to check with that videoplayer. According to US mil factsheet it's just over 41 meters long so let's just say it does 100 meters per second, that's only 360 kph or around 195 knots which would also explain the lack of dust and how they could be so close right? Also note the faint but visible black smoketrail from the jet engines at the very end of the video.
Btw, can I get some flight training instead of that wine? :D
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Baradium on January 01, 2007, 10:21:06 AM
I dunno, i still think its not real. I just have a hard time thinking a pilot, and his crew members too, as they carry 3 people, would be this stupid to fly a multimillion dollar airplane, not to mention how much avgas to potentially that close to the ground.
Though, we are talking about a pilot here...
I've never heard of a KC-135 carrying avgas.
Frank: the speed you came up with is about what I'd expect for a nice low level cruise for that aircraft.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on January 01, 2007, 10:23:49 AM
I dunno, i still think its not real. I just have a hard time thinking a pilot, and his crew members too, as they carry 3 people, would be this stupid to fly a multimillion dollar airplane, not to mention how much avgas to potentially that close to the ground.
Though, we are talking about a pilot here...
I've never heard of a KC-135 carrying avgas.
Frank: the speed you came up with is about what I'd expect for a nice low level cruise for that aircraft.
Umm correct me if im wrong, but dont the jet engines that military jets run on, use the same gas commercial jets use, oh sorry not avgas, jat a. Same thing just a different name, its samantics.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Baradium on January 01, 2007, 10:28:00 AM
Umm correct me if im wrong, but dont the jet engines that military jets run on, use the same gas commercial jets use, oh sorry not avgas, jat a. Same thing just a different name, its samantics.
Hahahah!
No it's not! Avgas is 100 octane leaded gasoline! Jet A is Jet fuel!
Commercial jets don't run on avgas! We are *allowed* to use it in our 1900s in a pinch but we are time and power output limited for how much total time the engine can have been run on avgas. If I was just going to argue semantics I'd tell you that military Jet fuel is called JP-4 (and is actually still different from Jet A actually).
Regardless, Avgas is further from Jet A than pump gas is to diesel fuel. If you think they are "the same thing" then I dare you to put a tank of diesel in your gasoline powered car!
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: undatc on January 01, 2007, 10:36:53 AM
Umm correct me if im wrong, but dont the jet engines that military jets run on, use the same gas commercial jets use, oh sorry not avgas, jat a. Same thing just a different name, its samantics.
Hahahah!
No it's not! Avgas is 100 octane leaded gasoline! Jet A is Jet fuel!
Commercial jets don't run on avgas! We are *allowed* to use it in our 1900s in a pinch but we are time and power output limited for how much total time the engine can have been run on avgas. If I was just going to argue semantics I'd tell you that military Jet fuel is called JP-4 (and is actually still different from Jet A actually).
Regardless, Avgas is further from Jet A than pump gas is to diesel fuel. If you think they are "the same thing" then I dare you to put a tank of diesel in your gasoline powered car!
Actually, avgas can pertain to 100, 100LL, and 110.
And if you really have your panties in a bunch or the semantics of it, ill call it aviation fuel :o
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Baradium on January 01, 2007, 11:02:44 AM
Actually, avgas can pertain to 100, 100LL, and 110.
And if you really have your panties in a bunch or the semantics of it, ill call it aviation fuel :o
it's 80/87 100LL 100/130
If you want to get technical on semantics, you gotta have the numbers. ;)
Anyway, the point is is avgas is *gasoline*. The appropriate name for Jet Fuel other than "jet fuel" or "Jet A" is "aviation kerosense." Gasoline is much more flammable so it's actually relevent when speaking of tankers etc. Diesel fuel (close relative) has actually been known to put out fires before. Jet A has more flame retardant properties IIRC.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on January 01, 2007, 02:56:46 PM
Ok I'll try to get my observations tested. Jim, where do you get 400 knots from? The plane seems to have it's engines at low power/revs, there's almost more windnoise than jetnoise which could further explain the lack of dust (low thrust), especially if it didn't use flaps. From watching then it seems to me that the plane only moves a few times it's own length per second, although this was hard to check with that videoplayer. According to US mil factsheet it's just over 41 meters long so let's just say it does 100 meters per second, that's only 360 kph or around 195 knots which would also explain the lack of dust and how they could be so close right? Also note the faint but visible black smoketrail from the jet engines at the very end of the video.
Btw, can I get some flight training instead of that wine? :D
Frank
Frank, 400 knots is an estimate based on observation and although it is only an estimate born of experience, not a calculation I will buy a seeing eye dog if they were going 200 knots, And of course, in a diving high speed pass, even without being throttled back those high bypass turbofans would be very quiet, also as they added power in low level flight and then began pulling up the engines would be leaving slight black trails as they spooled up. I'm certainly not infallible and if someone proves me wrong, so be it, but until then I'm sticking to what I see in the video. Also, at 400 knots, an aiplane would travel about 6.6 nm per minute, or .66 nm in 10 seconds---take a look at how much ground that tanker covers in the exactly ten second video---I think I'll increase my speed estimate to 450. Makes sense too, who the hell would make a low pass at cruise AS---no fun in that--- last pass I made was 30 to 50 feet over SBD tanker base ramp at about 230 knots in a Twin Commander and since it was a diving pass, I didn't start throttling up till I was passing right in front of the office (waving HI to everyone in the second story dispatch center ::wave:: Ok, that's the deal, if I'm wrong I'll certainly admit it, till then, I'll say no more on the subject---how about one of you young computer geniuses looking up the source for the video and making me eat humble pie. And if I'm proven right, I'll send out forks for you to consume the same food. 8) Don't start on the SoCo (it's whiskey) till then ::drinking::
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 01, 2007, 03:51:26 PM
Well as I said then it was hard to evaluate the speed since I couldn't isolate 1.0 seconds to get a better speed scale reading, but it doesn't seem to move 4x it's own length per second so let's compromise, 250-300 kts. 250kts also fits both minimum speeds I could attain with two KC-135 FS models, one US, one french like this one. It's idle power was high, and dude could it accelerate fast off the line when empty and was really unwilling to slow down unless I used spoilers even fully throttled back!
Here's a thread on airliners.net where another person claims that low-level refueling was trained, and speeds of just over 300 kts were listed http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/58027/
Btw sorry about calling whisky wine and honestly while my investigations seemed sort of ok then I knew I'm really lacking in knowledge about flying in the real world, but believe me it's not for lack of interest!
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on January 01, 2007, 04:13:12 PM
Well as I said then it was hard to evaluate the speed since I couldn't isolate 1.0 seconds to get a better speed scale reading, but it doesn't seem to move 4x it's own length per second so let's compromise, 250-300 kts. 250kts also fits both minimum speeds I could attain with two KC-135 FS models, one US, one french like this one. It's idle power was high, and dude could it accelerate fast off the line when empty and was really unwilling to slow down unless I used spoilers even fully throttled back!
Here's a thread on airliners.net where another person claims that low-level refueling was trained, and speeds of just over 300 kts were listed http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/58027/
Btw sorry about calling whisky wine and honestly while my investigations seemed sort of ok then I knew I'm really lacking in knowledge about flying in the real world, but believe me it's not for lack of interest!
Frank
Frank, not only won't I compromise, you'll note I changed my previous post to reflect a speed INCREASE---Will somebody please PROVE me wrong---GEE, I'll bet my buddy, SkyKing, could really have cleared this up for us---he was an expert at everything---but alas, he quit! ::sulk::
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 01, 2007, 04:23:27 PM
Well judging the whole flight distance is extremely hard due to the camera angle, that's why I looked at what I thought was just one second but I can't download the video from anywhere so I can't cut out a precisely 1.0 second long clip in a editing program so I could see it better. Slow flybys can be fun though, I remember the one at the end of the Cardinal flight, first waving at our friend in the tower, then looking into my stomach (he pulled up fast), but I just can't believe I'm even close to being right with someone like Jim giving such a different result so I withdraw before I make a bigger dork of myself, especially considering I still hope to be a pilot.
Frank
P.S. What was the response of the flyby?
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on January 01, 2007, 05:16:55 PM
OVERWHELMING APPROVAL---most of the pilots on base got wood----we were coming back from the last fire on the last day of fire season on the last day for that emplyer so I said "what the hell--it's today or never!!
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 01, 2007, 05:33:28 PM
::rofl:: ::bow:: |:)\ ::wave::
I was wondering, is that only a male pilot thing to like flybys or is that general? How about it ladies, Soccermom, Happy, Leia if you're still around, have you ladies every done such a thing? Maybe scared an ex-boyfriend (or scarred depending on where he was at the time ::rofl:: ) :D
It is fantastic to see a real plane closeby, especially pistonplanes with their distinct sound and getting so close you can smell the oil and see the rivets ::bow:: My mom waiting in the car while me and my brother were up in the Cardinal was less thrilled though since she said it looked like we flew right over the car, which wasn't quite true since the parkinglot we parked at was in the other side of the tower and we flew over the main paved landingstrip. I've always wondering how many (read: few) g we pulled but probably not much, probably not even two, although it did turn my head further down than I can make it on my own. Btw note: It was a gentle maneuver and the pilot was friendly and relaxed and not what I believe is called a "tiger", I seem to remember he was the club chairman or something similar.
Back on topic though, do you think there were consequences after the military saw this video, which I'm sure they have by now?
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: happylanding on January 01, 2007, 06:50:21 PM
I was wondering, is that only a male pilot thing to like flybys or is that general? How about it ladies, Soccermom, Happy, Leia if you're still around, have you ladies every done such a thing? Maybe scared an ex-boyfriend (or scarred depending on where he was at the time ::rofl:: ) :D
I'm not used about doing flyby. In the first days in aviation, to tell the truth, I was quite scared about going near anything and when flying inside a valley I tended to be in the middle of it, without any slight approach to the granite sides! But I had a really good instructor, old school, who showed me that you can actually go near anything. |:)\ |:)\ The fact I learnt and understood it's feasible, by the way, has not translated in me doing it. I sometimes pass near where I live, so that my parents can see me, but I would not consider it as being a low flight. and probably the only time I inadvertently entered into a flyby was when I completely misunderstood what a tower was saying to me to maintain as altitude, and I was not corrected when I repeated it. so, it happened that I descended to 2500 ft from 5000 and realized I could not have crossed the hills at that altitude, I would not have. The 2500 did not seem strange, when I understood it, since the same instructor had told me it was the real minimum altitude with which you can still pass. But I would not have had the courage to do so. No way. And the tower was not happy about my misunderstanding either, when I made a 180 a started climbing again. ::sweat:: But I still ignore why they did not tell me I was doing wrong. Other then that, I still remember a lot of flybys in the days previous to my exam, when, checking the syllabus, it was quite clear that precautionary landing had been completely forgotten! but it's still something else. And about boyfriend, no way actually.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: TheSoccerMom on January 01, 2007, 09:27:34 PM
YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!! ;D
Low is FUN! ;D
I used to go see a buddy who lived in the mountains, I'd let him know I was inbound to the grass strip above the station by doing an, umm, um, LOW PASS over the ranger station.... And it could (possibly) be claimed maybe I love my job so much because of the joys of doing a final run over the "bros" once they are all "down and okay". :D (And, may I add, this is where I can vouch for more than ONE full MOON per month............. >:D )
And of course there were all the crew parties back when I worked fire, when I would have the brilliant idea of dropping balloons, etc., over the crew during a beginning of the year get-together.... I quickly learned it is a LOT OF WORK to drop such unwieldy things from an airplane WHILE you're flying... HA HA... ahh, what an aspiring private pilot! They did always tell me I was "good entertainment" -- jeez, some things haven't changed?!?!?!?!? HA!
So, in summation Frank, I think fly-bys are a PILOT thing... don't know hardly anyone who doesn't enjoy flying low. ;) ;) ;)
Cheers to EVERYONE for 2007!!!!!!!!!!
Hugs, The Mom-ski*****
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 01, 2007, 09:45:33 PM
Okie dokie then :) And in the spirit of low flying, here's a blast from the past (I couldn't find a useable download link and I doubt this forum can handle a near 2mb attachment but I found it online albiet in a slightly worse quality than the one on my hdd) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3652423044692761405&sourceid=searchfeed
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: tundra_flier on January 01, 2007, 10:11:44 PM
Just found this thread, afraid I haven't been checking this forum much lately. But I can easily believe it's a real aircraft. 1. The camera is on higher ground than what's under the plane, which makes it appear lower than it is. I'm guessing he was never below 200ft. Camera's are notorious for distorting perspective, a fact Hollywood uses to their advantage. 2. I've seen military planes that low many times in my life. Lots of C-130's. A B-52, and even a C-141 that had to pull up to make a turn so as not to hit a low wing tip. ::silly:: Some friends of mine have a cabin on a river adjacent to one of the airforce's ranges here and they have some really impresive stories. Including fighters coming up the river dodging treetops then doing a cobra roll over the ridge to enter the range.
Once in Wyoming I was fishing in my little boat in a small resivoir when I heard a C-130 approching, but could not spot him. Suddenly it popped up from behind the dam (which is only 50' high) and proceeded across the lake at under 100' and continued up the valley at that low altitude.
Also, at Gernsey State Park in Wyoming, the National Guard Hercs regularly practice radar avoicance down the canyon (at least they did 20 years ago). It's pretty impressive to stand on the top of a canyon and watch a flight of 4 hercs in trail flying below you!
The C-141 was coming staight at my house, nap of the earth, pulled up slightly to turn and dropped down out of sight into the nearby river valley.
My point being that in sparsely populated areas the military frequently practices low level stuff.
Phil
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: TheSoccerMom on January 01, 2007, 10:21:17 PM
Yeah, there is plenty of low-level stuff out there, especially military games. :o
In our fire job we have a waiver allowing us to operate below 500'AGL. It's not uncommon to have to descend into a canyon bottom and fly the terrain real tight in order to be able to make the proper drop height over the jump spot to deliver cargo. Otherwise you're trying hard to get down, yet not gain airspeed, and sometimes that's a pretty dumb combination. The steepest country I ever dropped in required a 2000-foot change in elevation from the downwind (due to terrain) to the drop site. :D
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Frank N. O. on January 01, 2007, 10:23:36 PM
Hey Phil, when you mentioned perspective then I took a look at the sharp screengrab I was lucky to get and I looked at the shadows, the sun appears to be almost directly behind the plane and the shadow of the plane is fairly clear to see and then guessing that the vehicles were Hummers then that plane was not far sideways from the vechiles at all, or the ground. But the million dollar question is: How fast was it going?
Frank
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on January 02, 2007, 12:14:17 AM
Okie dokie then :) And in the spirit of low flying, here's a blast from the past (I couldn't find a useable download link and I doubt this forum can handle a near 2mb attachment but I found it online albiet in a slightly worse quality than the one on my hdd) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3652423044692761405&sourceid=searchfeed
NOW THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT |:)\ |:)\ See guys, would that pass be exciting if he was flying at a low cruise power setting? You no---I say HELL NO!!!--it's only fun if you're WFO, and if the air is smooth you might even run across at Vne or a hair less! Out of a shallow dive works best in little airplane. -----DO NOT do this unless you're in a safe airport environment and you are aware of all other traffic. Bear in mind that the majority of single engine fatalities come from low level maneuvering flight so use good sense and be comfortable with what you're doing or don't do it.
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: Baradium on January 02, 2007, 12:19:14 AM
I think low passes are still fun at lower speeds too. ;)
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: fireflyr on January 02, 2007, 12:23:58 AM
I think low passes are still fun at lower speeds too. ;)
That's what I call slow flight above the runway ::sleep::--something I have my taildragger students do to learn good crosswind techniques 8)
Title: Re: Way low KC-135
Post by: chuckar101 on January 05, 2007, 06:33:10 PM
The spit was awesome. My opinion on the 135 is that we all just say that it is going at some speed low level and it's a great vid. Also we should all drink some of that SoCo that FireFlyr keeps talking about, and bs about low level work.
