Micro

I'll cut to the chase... Why is it that some (mostly early model) HUDs have 2 pieces of glass?

Absolutely gorgeous. I've been looking over the pics for a good 15 minutes.

Does anyone have any info on this? As is standard with YouTube, there are lots of conflicting reports in the comments.

Hi, all. When do the pilots of E-2s and C-2s first get carrier qualified? Do they do it in the T-45, or is their first time on the boat in the actual aircraft? Just curious. Thx

Gents, I came across this video and am in love with it. It's a video from early on in the 1997 season at El Centro. It is a great video for many reasons, but most of all because it shows these guys are human and make a LOT of mistakes prior to being "show ready". Enjoy.

Sorry. :unsure: That's what happens when I have one too many and start surfing the forums.

Here is what you have been waiting for.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s7syNaKgeo&feature=youtu.be

No worries. I also wondered the very same thing. Most fighters don't have dedicated "inverted" flight fuel systems because the jet is not intended to be flown inverted for extended periods of time. Jets like the F-18 can handle inverted flight with the standard systems for around 20-30 seconds (NATOPS dictates the actual times for each jet), but the Blues push that NATOPS limit. So, they incorporate a dedicated system to stay safe. That said, even the modified inverted fuel system only adds 10 seconds to their NATOPS limit. In this video you can see the annumciators for the system just to the

They also install an inverted flight fuel system. From what I understand this is the biggest modification in terms of time. Then there are the cockpit mods which include the spring for the stick, annunciators and controls for the inverted fuel system, stopwatch, and ejection seat mods.

Modify, test, deliver, then painted . That's how it was explained to me.

I flew with a guy last week who is a test pilot for Hornets at Boeing KVQQ. They have begun converting Echo models to BA standards and will be test flying them soon. He also mentioned the Sept 2017 date is the "delivery" date - not the transition date. So my guess is come 2 JAN 2018, it's Super Bugs at El Centro.

Gents (and ladies), After 2.5 years of looking and researching, I have come to believe that there is no video footage of the very last F-14 catshot. I'm very serious. I've contacted countless people in the F-14 community, as well as those on the TR when the last shot happened. Nothing. I realize many people consider the launch of AJ 201 seen here: to be considered the "last launch". However, that was the last launch returning from a combat cruise. The actual LAST catshot was done during a "work-up" by AJ 112 from VF-31 seen here with all 7 Shooters taking part : http://www.anft.net/f-14

The T-Birds honoring KOOCH:

Do you mind if I ask what year that occurred? It was precisely those types of accidents that I thought lead to a NATOPS change in 1983-1984 to require all Alphas to launch in Zone 5.

Rightwinger is correct about the loadout determining if burner is needed for a Hornet launch. Supers and legacy Hornets each have their own NATOPS requirements. You might be thinking of Tomcats. F-14As required burner for every catshot after a few accidents in the early 80's. Bravos and Deltas would both launch in dry thrust regardless of loadout. All Tomcats trapped using only military thrust, but there are plenty of Alpha pilots who wish they could have gone straight into burner on landing. The difference was the type of detent on Tomcat throttles to go from military to max power. This lea

All jets go into military power (full power without afterburner) when they hit the deck. But, in Hornets, the detent between military power and burner is not very tough to push through - it's only a couple more pounds of pressure if that. So, between adrenaline and the force of being thrown forward, most Hornet drivers end up going into burner in the last few seconds.

Great video. I do know that some people will "flip" the video when uploading to Youtube when they are trying to bypass the auto-copyright detection. For example, you can find many full-length feature films on Youtube, but they are flipped horizontally in an attempt to avoid being automatically removed due to copyright laws. That said, I don't think the original video of this was copyrighted, but who knows.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4913691711001/crew-members-injured-after-navy-fighter-jets-collide/?#sp=show-clips

Ugh. I'm not a smart man. I forgot to add the dang pictures. Here ya go.

Gents, If you're like me, you have been waiting for Trumpeter to grace us with a 1/350 scale version of the "Kitty" and the "Connie". Well, it seems the Kitty Hawk is already available and Connie will be available in Fall 2016. What I wanted to show you is an absolutely phenomenal photo-etch detail set for these two ships that I came across on Ebay. They are pricey ($200-$250 US) but I was blown away at what you get for that price. This is, without question, the most comprehensive detail set I have come across for any model - bar none. I have my Connie model on pre-order and will give a full

Hi, all. I'm trying to find out the name of a documentary that was done in the the early 80s covering the Mercury astronauts. It had a few shots of my grandfather in it (he worked at NASA on the late 50s). Anyway, my family had a copy of it years ago, but it has since been lost. All I can tell you is that it's main theme was George Winston's "Moon" - heard here: I know it's not much to go on but I figured I'd throw it out there and see if any of you know the documentary. Thanks.

Here's a video from 1994 about TOPGUN. Lots of shots of student and adversary aircraft starting around the 27min mark.

I sincerely doubt anyone will. The overall build trumps any minor discrepancies like that. Again, I didn't mean to be "that guy", I just wanted to share the info with you. Absolutely stunning work. :)

This build is beyond awesome. And I don't mean to be a stick in the mud or a pain in the rear, but that carrier is actually CV-67 repackaged with CV-63 numbers. There are a few give-aways, but the main one is that CV-63 had the forward end of the landing area perpendicular to the alignment lines with a "notch" cut out on the port side. CV-67 had an angled forward end to the landing area - like the Nimitz class. In any case, like I said, this is an amazing build.