Humor Random Comments Thread

:hailprobe:!



Also, this:

qEMarpi.jpg


Yes, that is a V-22 refueling an F-35, and yes the F-35 does have it's afterburner on.

Should be fake:

  • Afterburner on while flying in STOVL mode? Never seen that happen.
  • The MV-22 has just begun air-refueling trials, using a Hornet: Link
  • Why would an AAR be flown in such a configuration? What's the gain?
  • Wouldn't the hose just dangle down at low speeds?
 
Should be fake:

  • Why would an AAR be flown in such a configuration? What's the gain?
  • Wouldn't the hose just dangle down at low speeds?

1. Because IIRC the Navy uses F/A 18s with extra tanks for AAR, and the Osprey would provide a larger area for more fuel.

2. No. I've seen Pave Hawks refuel from AAR C-130s. It's possible.

Helicopter_aerial_refueling.jpg
 
Last edited:
If you a manly pilot you fly the Sopwith Camel accept no substitutes.

RAF_Sopwith_Camel.jpg
 
1. Because IIRC the Navy uses F/A 18s with extra tanks for AAR, and the Osprey would provide a larger area for more fuel.

2. No. I've seen Pave Hawks refuel from AAR C-130s. It's possible.

Helicopter_aerial_refueling.jpg

By "configuration" I mean flying the Osprey with its props in what looks like a 60° or more from the horizontal position, indicating flight at much lower speeds than those that would be achievable in the "normal flight" configuration.

I'm sure using the Osprey, especially in conjunction with the F-35, is a good idea, since it enables to have a small fighter force with AAR planes on a helicopter carrier.

Regarding your second point: yes, also helicopters are able to perform AAR, but the AAR aircraft in the picture you posted is a bog-standard C-130.

What made me question the authenticity of the picture with the F-35 was the fact that the MV-22 was flying with the rotors tilted very much upwards:
the first contact test with it and an F/A-18 was performed last week, and I doubt that it would make sense to risk TWO experimental planes by flying them close together in a way that absolutely doesn't make sense (both aircraft in stovl mode). Why perform an AAR at 40-60 knots and not the normal 150-200 which could be flown by both the receving fighter aircraft and the "delivering" prop aircraft?
 
Should be fake:

  • Afterburner on while flying in STOVL mode? Never seen that happen.
  • The MV-22 has just begun air-refueling trials, using a Hornet: Link
  • Why would an AAR be flown in such a configuration? What's the gain?
  • Wouldn't the hose just dangle down at low speeds?

I have to agree on all but the last point. It would be getting blown around a lot but it would be trailing out the back. Presuming of course that they are doing 100+ knots other wise the F-35 would be burning more fuel hovering there than could be suppled from the AAR.
 
You know what, I think it is faked up.

Close inspection of the F-35 shows the landing gear doors are still slightly ajar.
The V-22's rear ramp is closed. Refuelling trials have been done with the ramp open.
The aircraft seem to be slightly out of alignment in terms of heading.
 
You know yourself has a nostalgia problem when you saw this post:

Every time I try to launch Orbiter on my desktop, it forces a reboot. I check the settings and stuff, but I can't launch. If necessary, I'll admit that my 'puter is simply too old. But I don't want to use my laptop as it has its OWN issues.

So, here's all the info that I thought might help:

Windows 2000, service-pack 4

Intel Pentium III

In the error log, it says, "Restart from bugcheck".

and the relevant drive is (I think) N.Vidia Riva TNT2

and thought "Hmm that's a computer from my middle school!"

.....................................

..................................... and wish that Microsoft can bring back those sound effects from Windows 95/98/NT (4.0).


(disclaimer: Win95 user 1997-2001, WinME user 2001-2007, used WinNT in elementary school, too young for Apple II et al.)
 
Up till 7th grade (14 yo - second to last primary school back in a day in Poland) we had no computers at school. Then we had 386SX with 4MB RAM, Trident 512k GPU, 320MB HDDs, dos 6.22 and Windows 3.11.
 
Up till 7th grade (14 yo - second to last primary school back in a day in Poland) we had no computers at school. Then we had 386SX with 4MB RAM, Trident 512k GPU, 320MB HDDs, dos 6.22 and Windows 3.11.

Here, we started with 8088 computers in 7th grade (that was 1992!), in between the next years, I had the joy to program on a Atari ST, like I had at home. We received a pair of better computers (486SX) around 9th grade. Today, the equipment is much better at the schools.
 
We had a TI-99 in our elementary school from Kindergarten thru 4th grade. Just one. It was on a cart, and they wheeled it from classroom-to-classroom, each class getting it for a week at a time. Then, the Apple IIe arrived. Each class got their own computer. :)

I loved that machine (The Apple IIe). Never got tired of playing Oregon Trail.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top