muff528

LOL Now, that would get my kid interested in politics!

Fake, but very entertaining. Clicky to the follow-up BTW- She is a Hottie! Since she has deeply disappointed so many people by admitting that it was a hoax the only fair thing for her to do now is to post some nekkid pictures. (of herself)

Yes, it's much easier to use money with holes already drilled in the center. The coins from Yap should work well.

You must mean this one

I remember an unlimited hydroplane driver named Tom D'eath. I believe he piloted "Miss Budweiser" in the 80's. You bet, he did! He won a championship with the Miss Budweiser. Chuck Yeah, I knew that ...just couldn't remember exactly when. I remember him from my old boat racing days in the late 70's - early 80's when he was driving another boat. Sadly, my memory has failed me and I had to google it but the boat he drove during that time was "Miss US".

I remember an unlimited hydroplane driver named Tom D'eath. I believe he piloted "Miss Budweiser" in the 80's.

To quote a famous American presidential candidate....."Picky, picky, picky".

The guy on the right looks like Johnny........ well, either Johnny or God. I dunno.

Haven't played about with that for a long time, but remember doing a 6 way launch with two interlinked three person tubes. Was actually extremely solid out the door, and flew well for about 2k ft. About two seconds after it finally started oscillating though, the explosion was spectacular What you talkin' 'bout? Magic Carpets are always successful. Oscillations are usually somewhat normal for the most part and the explosion is gonna happen ....just a matter of when! "Unsuccessful" would be if someone gets dumped out before the explosion.

Happy Birthday!!

The fishing scene at the end is kewl! Too bad he got cut off. A steel leader and maybe a good lever drag would have gotten him landed!

I've heard they are a bigger PITA than raising a baby. Don't know, just what I heard. My brother checked into getting into it.

"Ya know, Anabelle..... If the humans take a liking to alpaca fleece sweaters and longjohns we're as good as mutton."

Some things are universal. Yep! I learned my lesson (~100 jumps) after a dodgy landing in a ditch and ripped my pilot chute on a tree branch. I took my PC to the loft to get repaired and it was pointed out to me that all the experienced jumpers were inside watching TV.

It looks a lot like the one on my first jump. It was pretty too.

Uh, , , , the F-16 only has one engine to start with. ......... Exactly!! (Who's on first!?)

There's more than one? Correct Use of A and An Maybe you've heard of the definite article "the"? That's the point I was trying to make. "A" or "an" implies there are others. Maybe reading the CONTEXT???? I was responding to this. I meant to say "an" because it makes my point that losing an engine in either case will likely produce the same results for the maneuver. Otherwise, the F-18 should only be allowed to fly above "Vmc" for single engine condition......just in case he loses an engine. The F-16 doesn't have that luxury so he can fly as slow as he wants (while still maintaining control)... and if he loses an engine he gets out. By required I meant that unless he can fly real slow and point the nose up, then he isn't performing the same maneuver. Losing "the" engine in the F-16 would be equivalent to the F-18 losing "both" engines. More simply put... if the F-16 has only one engine, then it should not be allowed to perform that demonstration at an airshow at all if the pilot needed to consider that losing an engine meant he would not be able to maintain "Vmc".

So you advocate that no dual-engine aircraft air show maneuver ever be done unless the maneuver can be accomplished with just a single engine? Gosh, that's sure going to be boring... Just because you do a maneuver with two engines that can't be accomplished with only one, does not mean that you are "exceeding published limits", or acting as a "test pilot". That's what I was trying to say but you used less words.

Oh, clearly a challenge, but there's no reason he wouldn't have been operating within the specs of the aircraft. Airshows are a demonstration, not test piloting. But it looks like he was operating within the specs.... until he lost an engine. Nope. Not to me it doesn't. To me it looks as if he was below Vmc (the speed at which you should be able to still control the aircraft with one engine operating). Below Vmc and especially at low altitude . . . that's not a good place to be. Any time you exceed the published limits of an aircraft, you're in "test pilot" territory. The a/c was intended to operate with both engines running and that condition was required for this demonstration. Lose an engine in this situation......get out! Same with the F-16.

There have been a number of pilots killed after a successful ejection, by landing in the fireball of their crashed jet, or having the fireball vaporize their parachute nylon, plunging them to their death. Can't find Vmc in my copy of the FA18 NATOPS manual, but minimum takeoff speed is 100 knots, in ideal conditions. Variables include nose trim, weight of fuel and external stores, etc. That's for the F404-GE-400 engines. Likewise, minimum controllable speed also depends upon many variables, like angle of attack. The FA-18 can depart at quite high speeds, given the wrong configuration. Yeah, he landed quite close (optical illusion?). I wondered, as I watched the video, if the rising heat of the fireball could have produced a wind that could have drawn the canopy (and pilot) into the fire after he landed?

Oh, clearly a challenge, but there's no reason he wouldn't have been operating within the specs of the aircraft. Airshows are a demonstration, not test piloting. But it looks like he was operating within the specs.... until he lost an engine. Then he found himself outside the "new" performance envelope and in a bad situation and punched out. I don't know if you could call that "test piloting". For example, the T-birds also do a slow, low altitude high alpha pass, but with a single engine.....which, I'm sure, would also be unrecoverable if an engine quit. What I'm getting at is that the show demonstration depended on everything working as advertised. If something goes wrong the pilot is trained in EPs where the outcome depended on other things working properly .....and, obviously, they did.

It looks a lot like the one on my first jump. It was pretty too.

Pretty canopy!

Thanks for bringing that site to our attention.