Code One Cockpit Issue

[Checkswrecks]

I'd like to know how they got those pictures, and how 'doctored' they may be - esp for the new fighters.....
Josh

Nothing shown that you couldn't see at a good USAF base open house, so I doubt they are doctored at all. The newer photos probably came from the PR departments of Lockheed, Boeing, etc. The magic is invisible because it's what you can do with those displays and controls.

 

[Bandit12]

Does 369.9 mean anything to you guys?

Bob

Only if you're taling about radio frequencies.

Seems to me I remember having to keep one of the radios on the flight deck set to that particular number for doing engine runs.

Ray

 

[Bandit12]

I got to start up an engine on the C-141 once. That was pretty cool. Thought it was a C-5 though, not sure if that is the same bird? PM. <><

The C-141 is also known as the Starlifter while the C-5 in known as the Galaxy.

C-5 is much larger and more of a pain the rump to maintain. C-141 can only be loaded from the rear but the C-5 can be loaded from both ends.

I worked as a jet engine mechanic on both airplanes for a few years while on active duty. For about 2 years I was run qualified on both birds. Similar monitoring and instrumentation on both birds, but very different operating parameters. Had to memorize both airplanes limits and emergency procedures to maintain qualification.

Ray

 

[BobG]

369.9 was decommissioned shortly after the SR71 was. At the time I was told it was it's dedicated frequency. Never saw one fly though.

Last I read was that NASA was using them to test the external combustion theory.

We did have a U-2 stationed where I lived in the late 80's and that was fun to watch take off and land. Especially the chase cars that had to put the wheels on the wing tips at landing.

Bob

 

[VMax_03]

Gads, that almost brought tears to my eyes. I am not talking about the new a/c but the old ones . The cockpit looks like I was coming home. What great fun it would be to be in one again. Oh well , it is not to be, just an old man reminiscing again.
Mac

Hey Mac,

Check out Light Sport Aircraft rules and flying.

No medical needed if you were never denied, and the airplanes are safe and affordable.

In fact, I have one for sale if you're interested .

PM me.

Regards,

JW

 

[hardluk1]

Neil, the a-12(yf-12 ) was designed to deviler nuclear wepons . The recon role was an after thought when icbm's became dependable. My grand pa work'd at red stone arsenal and white sands before that and gave me a yf-12 desk model around 1962 or 63 and told stories that far excede what the goverment admits to.

 

[hardluk1]

They had a u-2 at patrick afb. in 1980 atleast. I got to see take off. They had a camaro chase it down the runway.

 

[wheatonFJR]

369.9 was decommissioned shortly after the SR71 was. At the time I was told it was it's dedicated frequency. Never saw one fly though. Last I read was that NASA was using them to test the external combustion theory.

We did have a U-2 stationed where I lived in the late 80's and that was fun to watch take off and land. Especially the chase cars that had to put the wheels on the wing tips at landing.

Bob

I'm sorry...this is a good story...but I just can't believe it. I know that these wings required the wheeled gravity support at the ends for takeoff because of the span and resulting deflection when fully loaded with fuel. They were designed to slip off as sufficient lift brought the plane up. Otherwise the wingtips might accidentally drag and hit the runway.

However, it doesn't seem these would be required on landing as the wings are now empty of their fuel and deflection would be much less. Also the logistics of cars on each end of the airplane matching speeds with an airplane coming in for landing AND successfully inserting and locking these wheeled struts would seem somewhat suspect in the short time allowed for landing. Would make a good Buster Keaton movie...but I doubt realistic in real life.

Just can't see it happening...I have REALLY enjoyed the links and this thread though. :clapping: