XWuffo 0 #1 February 13, 2004 This pic was posted somewhere else on DZ.com I showed it to a friend, an X fighter pilot who just hapens to be a photographic expert. These are his comments: This F16's at a high angle of attack with afterburner, in a positive, nose-up attitude. The condensation over the wings suggests a very high wing loading. All this gives the impression of a looping manouevre where the aircraft is approaching the bottom of the loop, supported by the smoke trail that appears to trail a curve behind the aircraft. It appears that the pilot made the decision to eject based on the aircraft 'mushing' into the ground, so that while it appears to be at a positive attitude, it in fact still has a high rate of decent that would soon approach impact. The problem I have with this scenario and the picture is as follows: Under this high-rate of decent condition (his call to eject), there would be significantly less heat haze behind the aircraft. Even with full afterburner, this haze would be limited to a thin line only. The haze in this picture is more typical of slow-speed steady-attitude flight. (It also looks suspiciously like the 'glass' filter effect available in PhotoShop was used to create this haze.) Ejecting close to ground with a rate of decent is one of the most demanding situations for survival. Modern ejection seats are designed for zero/zero ejections (no forward speed, at ground level). However, as you introduce a rate of decent, there is a reducing envelope to how late (low) you can eject and still expect the chute to deploy enough to retard your speed - if you escape the aircraft's own fireball you may well land into! For this reason, pilot's don't waste time jettisoning the canopy ahead of ejecting under these critical ejection situation (as shown in the picture). The seat punches straight through the canopy, sometimes assisted by pyro-charged threads embedded in the acrylic canopy itself. Even if part of the ejection sequence, the canopy should be further back (smaller) as it would retard to several aircraft lengths in the time it took to reach the height shown in the picture. The ejection process is incredibly violent - approaching 14g force as the pyrotechnics reach full power. It is very unlikely that the seat would have rotated 5-10 degrees off axis to the aircraft in the milii-second of flight time since leaving the top of the ejection rail. (The aircraft's at an angle to the camera, but the seat appears dead on). The starboard wing leading edge is behind the canopy, and even with the leading edge flaps deployed (also an unlikely configuration for a loop), there should be no shadow as the ejection seat would be lighting the area like a flare! Other suspicious aspects of this picture is that there is absolutely no blur on the aircraft, pilot or canopy. No as this aircraft is in a decent and the pilot is rocketing up at over one hundred kilometers an hour, I am surprised the photographer was able to avoid any blurring. Even a shutter speed of 1/500th of a second traces a blur of 6cm, enough to blur the details on the pilot. I would be surprised if the photographer was able to push a higher shutter speed as the poor depth of field indicates this was taken with a telephoto lens, and there is no visible graining to show a high sensitivity was used (either film or CCD). Also, to have a high vantage point as he did, this photographer would have been forced to use a longer lens as he would not have been close to the runway. The picture was probably taken from the control tower, through glass, as there are some blurred artifacts in the sky that should be clear (eg: at X:Y co-ords 225,30 and 788,82). In truth, what we have here is a low-speed fly-past - a standard, easy to photograph, routine at airshows. (Indicated by the leading edge flaps and height of the aircraft - and the fact that the photographer had time to center the aircraft in the frame, get the horizon level - indicative of a panning level right-to-left shot). The aircraft is real, but the pilot and canopy have been dropped into the image and the heat haze/smoke/flames are additions. Someone spent a lot of time altering this picture, and unfortunately as this is a jpeg it is impossible to prove that it's a fake... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #2 February 13, 2004 Actually, this one is real. Info, and picture can be found in FAA's Flight Safety Information. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #3 February 13, 2004 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_news_article842.html Very small video of the actual crash here also....Also reports, various links etc... Seems you just can't trust everything you read on the internet.........-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jussi 0 #4 February 13, 2004 The photo is very real, there is also videos on the web, here is an email taken from www.airliners.net. Subject: Thunderbirds info I have noticed all over the internet the shot I had taken of the Thunderbird crash at Mountain Home AFB, ID and though I am not at liberty to share the photo; it is out there. I would like to end some speculation and let you know the photo is real. I'm a Still Photographer for the USAF and I was stationed at MHAFB during the air show. I was on the catwalk of the tower at Mtn Home along with another photog (video) and about seven other (military) spectators. I have shot the T-birds from the tower before and I was pretty excited to do it again (the sky was perfect blue). I followed Thunderbird 6 from takeoff and watched as he pulled into his manoeuvre. I then noticed something seemed to be wrong, his direction was a little off; he was pulling out and heading right towards the tower. At this point I figured two things: 1. He's either going to fly past this tower and we'll feel the heat or 2. This is going to be ugly... I waited for the aircraft to level and clicked the shutter, what I saw through the lens will never go away... At the same time as I shot I seen a flash of light and horrific sound. I was shooting on high speed continuous and the next couple frames were a ball of fire and my feet, right before I ran. We all ran to the other side of the tower, I tried to get everyone in along with my partner and finally made it in myself. By the time we got inside the 16 had stopped sliding and rested about 100 ft in front of the tower. I then continued documenting the work of our base fire-fighters as they put out the flames. It was an experience and though I can't officially make any comments to the matter, I would like to say Capt Stricklin saved lives... enough said. For those who are wondering the image is not cleared for public release. Also for those fellow photogs I was shooting with a D1x with a 300mm, 2.8 @ 1000 and 2000 Thanks, SSgt Bennie J. Davis III Still Photographer, USAF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FunBobby 0 #5 February 13, 2004 Hey, Ivan... this one's for you. Yes, this has been posted here before. Look at the links to media articles and the one to the video of the cockpit camera (looking aft). Actually, this picture is not a fake. With regards to the problems you have about the picture: 1. Any decent camera can catch an ejection. There are dozens of pictures of actual ejections and test ejections from the sled in the desert - look at ejectionsite.com. 2. The air aft and above the aircraft appears disturbed because the aircraft was pulling out of a, ummm, "reverse half cuban eight" - okay Duckwater, I still have a hard time saying that one, but I'm not a civilian aerobatic pilot, though I've done thousands of aerobatic maneuvers in military aircraft. I digress. The back side of the maneuver that the pilot was trying to complete is the same as the back side of a loop, and the disturbance you see behind him is simply caused by the aircraft (and its jet exhaust) passing through that air in its flight path. 3. You refer to zero zero seats and their shrinking envelopes of performance as higher rates of descent are factored in. Yes, every seat has its envelope, but you'd be amazed at how large those envelopes are... with many modern seats, you can have a significant descent rate and adverse aircraft attitude as the seat leaves and still survive. 4. You made a comment about the leading edge flaps. F-16 guys, help me out here... in most modern combat aircraft, many control surfaces are automatic - they move automatically as the aircraft's flight control computers direct them to in certain regimes of flight. Hell, I flew A-4's in the training command, aircraft designed in the 1950's. The A-4 had leading edge flaps (actually referred to as SLATS) that deployed automatically under certain aerodynamic conditions. 5. There was another comment about the canopy. Every aircraft has a different ejection sequence that is initiated by the pilot pulling the ejection handle. Many things happen simultaneously, but there are a number of events in that sequence. In some aircraft like the F-14 and F-16, pyrotechnics jettison the canopy before the seats fire; in the Harrier, the seat goes through the canopy but detonating cord blows a sizeable hole in it as part of the sequence. In the EA-6 and S-3, the seats go through the canopy. So in this picture, the pilot initiated ejection by pulling the handle and the canopy left before he did - as it was supposed to. Modern aircraft are amazing things. So are ejection seats. I've ridden one. God Bless. Bobby Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jussi 0 #6 February 13, 2004 "For this reason, pilot's don't waste time jettisoning the canopy ahead of ejecting under these critical ejection situation (as shown in the picture). The seat punches straight through the canopy, sometimes assisted by pyro-charged threads embedded in the acrylic canopy itself" BTW: on the F-16, if the canopy is still there, you CANNOT eject through it, here is a thread about it: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-460.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pds 0 #7 February 13, 2004 it's a conspiracy.....namaste, motherfucker. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,113 #8 February 13, 2004 In the light of the responses to your post, I guess we have to hope that your friend the "expert" does not testify as an expert witness in criminal trials.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #9 February 13, 2004 QuoteModern aircraft are amazing things. So are ejection seats. I've ridden one. God Bless. Bobby Pulled the "Loud Handle", did you? My other favorite phrase for an ejection is -- "Time to watch the rest of the show from the cheap seats." That's an amazing photo. Was the pilot injured? mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #10 February 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteModern aircraft are amazing things. So are ejection seats. I've ridden one. God Bless. Bobby Pulled the "Loud Handle", did you? My other favorite phrase for an ejection is -- "Time to watch the rest of the show from the cheap seats." He hee...those terms are funny, Mark!You Ok Bobby? Glad you're still around after that... That was quite a while ago, wasn't it?~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #11 February 13, 2004 Glad to share... I was working at Norfolk NAS when an F-14 crew (from one of the squadrons at Oceana - I can't remember which) had to punch out on a launch abort (that must have been a thrilling ride ). Anyway, the crew came by the shop shortly thereafter to personally thank the technicians who overhauled their Martin-Baker seats. The seat shop had ball-busting QA, for obvious reasons. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #12 February 13, 2004 >It appears that the pilot made the decision to eject based on the > aircraft 'mushing' into the ground, so that while it appears to be at a > positive attitude, it in fact still has a high rate of decent that would > soon approach impact. From the report I saw, the opposite was happening. The aircraft was pulling a lot of G's (stick back, high lift - note flap and horizontal stabilizer positions) had a high airspeed (it was pulling out of an inside loop) and was at close to full power, but the descent rate was such that the pilot thought it would not be enough to arrest the descent before impact. >Even if part of the ejection sequence, the canopy should be further > back (smaller) as it would retard to several aircraft lengths in the > time it took to reach the height shown in the picture. The picture was clearly taken with a long (telephoto) lens; with a telephoto lens, something could be far behind the plane and still seem to be quite near it. >In truth, what we have here is a low-speed fly-past . . . Note the smoke trail behind him making a very acute angle with the horizontal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #13 February 13, 2004 In the video, it looked like he was going nose up with a lot of ground-effect coming on - talk about a bad attitude. His (the pilot's) decision to part with the plane was the right one - I don't think he would have been able to recover in time - guess he felt the same way , and decided his life was more important than the airplane. Good call. I'd like to know what the power setting was when he was trying to recover... mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #14 February 13, 2004 Quote 5. There was another comment about the canopy. Every aircraft has a different ejection sequence that is initiated by the pilot pulling the ejection handle. Many things happen simultaneously, but there are a number of events in that sequence. In some aircraft like the F-14 and F-16, pyrotechnics jettison the canopy before the seats fire; in the Harrier, the seat goes through the While in college in the late '80's I was an intern/co-op at General Dynamics/Fort Worth. I spent one semester working in F-16 "Escape System Design", i.e. the group responsible for the ejection system. I can confirm that the pilot initiates the ejection sequence by activating two small rocket motors in the front left and right corners of the frame of the "transparency", (what most would call a "canopy"). As the front of the transparency lifts, it rotates on it's hinges until it reached 90 degrees, at which point the hinge separates, leaving the a/c. Just before it reaches the separation point, a linkage near the hinge activates the ejection seat. (At the time I left, the linkage was about to be replaced with a stainless steel cable to improve reliablity of the system in case an ejection occurred during a yaw manuver.) The pilot also has the option of jettisoning the canopy w/o firing the seat. In short the pilot jettisons the canopy, and it is the canopy that fires the ejection seat."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #15 February 13, 2004 QuoteQuoteSomeone spent a lot of time altering this picture... QuoteActually, this one is real. Oswald did it, from the grassy knoll... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wingnut 0 #16 February 13, 2004 Quote4. You made a comment about the leading edge flaps. F-16 guys, help me out here... in most modern combat aircraft, many control surfaces are automatic - they move automatically as the aircraft's flight control computers direct them to in certain regimes of flight. Hell, I flew A-4's in the training command, aircraft designed in the 1950's. The A-4 had leading edge flaps (actually referred to as SLATS) that deployed automatically under certain aerodynamic conditions. okay, i'm an f-16 crew chief, the flight controls are linked and move acordingly to the flight control computer and it's resones to the side stick controler moving.... the leading edge flaps are automatic but an me semi manualy oerated to a degree.. but the pilot would of never had time to do that and didn't if you watch the video of his flight that is posted Quote 5. There was another comment about the canopy. Every aircraft has a different ejection sequence that is initiated by the pilot pulling the ejection handle. Many things happen simultaneously, but there are a number of events in that sequence. In some aircraft like the F-14 and F-16, pyrotechnics jettison the canopy before the seats fire; in the Harrier, the seat goes through the canopy but detonating cord blows a sizeable hole in it as part of the sequence. In the EA-6 and S-3, the seats go through the canopy. So in this picture, the pilot initiated ejection by pulling the handle and the canopy left before he did - as it was supposed to as someone else said, the canopy is jetisoned by two rocket motors one on each sde of the front anopy frame, they are initiated bythe seat once the pilot pulls the ejction handle... onlytakes a fraction of a second for them to be gone, they are conected to the seat by lanyards that when puld to extension disingae from the seat and also tell the seat that the canopy is clear and it can go about finishing the ejection sequence.... the main ejectionmotor fires, the canopy comes of the rails and the itot tubes pop out (or are already out epending on seat model of the acessII) tthe gyros have already spun up nd they rill right the pilot in the seat and propel him upward....... the seat is also sencing alot of diffrent parameters like arispeed and altitude and uses that to pick a firng senario and then it eithe wait to eploy he main chute or it deploys it automaticly........... and yes the pilot or anybody for that matter can "jetison" the canpy without lighting off the seat and you can also manualy deploy the canopy too....... ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites wingnut 0 #17 February 13, 2004 QuoteIn short the pilot jettisons the canopy, and it is the canopy that fires the ejection seat actually it is the seat sequencer... he pulls the activatin handle between his legs and it starts the seat working.. the lanyards on the canopy just tell it how far in the sequence it is and if it can proced... wouldn't want the pilot ejectin into the canopy yo uwould get a top gun situaton like goose had or if it was completly on you would probly not even go through it.... it is lke 2.-3 inches of polycarbonate.... some damn strong stuff.... ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #18 February 14, 2004 On some models of the ACES II, there are two handles, one on either side of the seat. In some models, there is a single center handle. The F-117 has this variant, IIRC. And as was mentioned, some models of the ACES II have pitot tubes out in a fixed position (F-15, AV-8). In the case of the ACES-II, one of the steps after the canopy lanyard has given the seat the go-ahead to do its stuff (the are several things happening very quickly all at once; I'll leave off details like the gas-grain generator, etc.) is that the initial charge launches the seat up the rails (the ACES II doesn't have leg-yankers like the Martin-Baker, BTW ) and out of the plane. Another lanyard attached between the seat and the plane gets pulled, igniting the main rocket motor. It's between these times that the decisions about airspeed, altitude and attitude are decided by the computer in the seat - it's sort of a Super-CYPRES...heh ) The Martin-Baker seats have some handle variants, and no exposed pitots IIRC. I've seen two loop-shaped handles above the head in the F-14, and one U-shaped handle on the EA-6B; I can't remember what the A-6E/F had. Ejection seats are just awesome, thought I wouldn't want to ride one......I saw a documentary made in Britain about a test pilot taking a zero-zero seat ride on a Martin-Baker. He was really, really nervous.......but the footage! mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuteless 1 #19 February 14, 2004 Did anyone mention that the doors are open over the wheel wells. He was either just taking off and hadnt closed the wheel covers, or he was landing and the wheels hadnt come down yet. It would be interesting to know which, and what was his problem on takeoff or landing. Bill Cole D-41 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #20 February 14, 2004 Dude, that's not the landing gear door, those are the "fins" on the underside of the aircraft. Go googles some pics of F-16s and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #21 February 14, 2004 Dorsal stabilizers. Can't remember if they're fixed or computer-controlled. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites chuteless 1 #22 February 14, 2004 perhaps you are right...at first glance they looked like wheel covers. I never thought about it when the picrure was first posted and I commented on it. Bill Cole Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,080 #23 February 14, 2004 >Did anyone mention that the doors are open over the wheel wells. Those aren't the gear doors. They are additional fixed stabilizers; when carrying external drop tanks they're sort of hidden. See attached picture from Air Wing 1 in Thailand. They're sort of hidden under the horizontal stabilizers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Guest #24 February 14, 2004 Quote>Did anyone mention that the doors are open over the wheel wells. Those aren't the gear doors. They are additional fixed stabilizers; when carrying external drop tanks they're sort of hidden. See attached picture from Air Wing 1 in Thailand. They're sort of hidden under the horizontal stabilizers. Bill, Is that a RTAF plane? mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,080 #25 February 14, 2004 >Is that a RTAF plane? Yep. About a dozen a day took off from the airfield we were jumping at; they parked next to the C130 area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
wingnut 0 #16 February 13, 2004 Quote4. You made a comment about the leading edge flaps. F-16 guys, help me out here... in most modern combat aircraft, many control surfaces are automatic - they move automatically as the aircraft's flight control computers direct them to in certain regimes of flight. Hell, I flew A-4's in the training command, aircraft designed in the 1950's. The A-4 had leading edge flaps (actually referred to as SLATS) that deployed automatically under certain aerodynamic conditions. okay, i'm an f-16 crew chief, the flight controls are linked and move acordingly to the flight control computer and it's resones to the side stick controler moving.... the leading edge flaps are automatic but an me semi manualy oerated to a degree.. but the pilot would of never had time to do that and didn't if you watch the video of his flight that is posted Quote 5. There was another comment about the canopy. Every aircraft has a different ejection sequence that is initiated by the pilot pulling the ejection handle. Many things happen simultaneously, but there are a number of events in that sequence. In some aircraft like the F-14 and F-16, pyrotechnics jettison the canopy before the seats fire; in the Harrier, the seat goes through the canopy but detonating cord blows a sizeable hole in it as part of the sequence. In the EA-6 and S-3, the seats go through the canopy. So in this picture, the pilot initiated ejection by pulling the handle and the canopy left before he did - as it was supposed to as someone else said, the canopy is jetisoned by two rocket motors one on each sde of the front anopy frame, they are initiated bythe seat once the pilot pulls the ejction handle... onlytakes a fraction of a second for them to be gone, they are conected to the seat by lanyards that when puld to extension disingae from the seat and also tell the seat that the canopy is clear and it can go about finishing the ejection sequence.... the main ejectionmotor fires, the canopy comes of the rails and the itot tubes pop out (or are already out epending on seat model of the acessII) tthe gyros have already spun up nd they rill right the pilot in the seat and propel him upward....... the seat is also sencing alot of diffrent parameters like arispeed and altitude and uses that to pick a firng senario and then it eithe wait to eploy he main chute or it deploys it automaticly........... and yes the pilot or anybody for that matter can "jetison" the canpy without lighting off the seat and you can also manualy deploy the canopy too....... ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wingnut 0 #17 February 13, 2004 QuoteIn short the pilot jettisons the canopy, and it is the canopy that fires the ejection seat actually it is the seat sequencer... he pulls the activatin handle between his legs and it starts the seat working.. the lanyards on the canopy just tell it how far in the sequence it is and if it can proced... wouldn't want the pilot ejectin into the canopy yo uwould get a top gun situaton like goose had or if it was completly on you would probly not even go through it.... it is lke 2.-3 inches of polycarbonate.... some damn strong stuff.... ______________________________________ "i have no reader's digest version" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #18 February 14, 2004 On some models of the ACES II, there are two handles, one on either side of the seat. In some models, there is a single center handle. The F-117 has this variant, IIRC. And as was mentioned, some models of the ACES II have pitot tubes out in a fixed position (F-15, AV-8). In the case of the ACES-II, one of the steps after the canopy lanyard has given the seat the go-ahead to do its stuff (the are several things happening very quickly all at once; I'll leave off details like the gas-grain generator, etc.) is that the initial charge launches the seat up the rails (the ACES II doesn't have leg-yankers like the Martin-Baker, BTW ) and out of the plane. Another lanyard attached between the seat and the plane gets pulled, igniting the main rocket motor. It's between these times that the decisions about airspeed, altitude and attitude are decided by the computer in the seat - it's sort of a Super-CYPRES...heh ) The Martin-Baker seats have some handle variants, and no exposed pitots IIRC. I've seen two loop-shaped handles above the head in the F-14, and one U-shaped handle on the EA-6B; I can't remember what the A-6E/F had. Ejection seats are just awesome, thought I wouldn't want to ride one......I saw a documentary made in Britain about a test pilot taking a zero-zero seat ride on a Martin-Baker. He was really, really nervous.......but the footage! mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #19 February 14, 2004 Did anyone mention that the doors are open over the wheel wells. He was either just taking off and hadnt closed the wheel covers, or he was landing and the wheels hadnt come down yet. It would be interesting to know which, and what was his problem on takeoff or landing. Bill Cole D-41 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #20 February 14, 2004 Dude, that's not the landing gear door, those are the "fins" on the underside of the aircraft. Go googles some pics of F-16s and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #21 February 14, 2004 Dorsal stabilizers. Can't remember if they're fixed or computer-controlled. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuteless 1 #22 February 14, 2004 perhaps you are right...at first glance they looked like wheel covers. I never thought about it when the picrure was first posted and I commented on it. Bill Cole Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #23 February 14, 2004 >Did anyone mention that the doors are open over the wheel wells. Those aren't the gear doors. They are additional fixed stabilizers; when carrying external drop tanks they're sort of hidden. See attached picture from Air Wing 1 in Thailand. They're sort of hidden under the horizontal stabilizers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #24 February 14, 2004 Quote>Did anyone mention that the doors are open over the wheel wells. Those aren't the gear doors. They are additional fixed stabilizers; when carrying external drop tanks they're sort of hidden. See attached picture from Air Wing 1 in Thailand. They're sort of hidden under the horizontal stabilizers. Bill, Is that a RTAF plane? mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,080 #25 February 14, 2004 >Is that a RTAF plane? Yep. About a dozen a day took off from the airfield we were jumping at; they parked next to the C130 area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
