Dude at # 3 has balls-o-steel!
Is it strange I was sport'n wood for that video? That was sweet.
Not bad, The blues did a pass like on our local tower. Shoulda heard them screaming at the Air Boss.
As an Air Force officer, #2 reminds me of Bud Holland. Go look him up. This shit is stupid unsafe. Huge balls and free drinks goes hand in hand with writing letters home to the family of why their son or daughter is dead for being a showboat.
The number one wasn't even there. Watch closely in the first seconds how the tip of the prop doesn't miss the ground by more than 2'
[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HX629ZjWD68[/video]
[video]http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HX629ZjWD68[/video]
When I was a kid our scout troop hiked up a pretty small mtn and about the time we crested out 3 F-111's flew by. We could see down into the cockpits, fecking nuts!
Dammit Mike, I was going to post that one up. Beat me to it. I will say the #1 was pretty cool.
Been there , done that. My close encounter was a converted AT-6 Japanese ZERO.
Why not just say AT-6? You can't convert a HUGE trainer to a light and nimble fighter by painting a meatball on it.
I was in my Teens and my Dad and I were checking Beaver Traps in a Mountain Pass and the F4 Phantoms would fly through there and you could see the markings on the Pilots Helmets.
Since they didn't " Just paint a meatball " on it, some people might not know.
Last edited:
Well why don't you share your vast knowledge of WWII era fighters and explain to us how you take a big, slow, American trainer and "converted" it to a Japanese ZERO? So what does "converted" mean in your expert eyes and what model of ZERO did they try and convert it too?
OK you win, The only photo I could dig up is the one I posted. I know absolutely nothing, about these Aircraft.
Exactly. My Pontiac Fiero isn't a Ferrari just because I but a fiberglass body kit on it.
I didn't say they were turned into Zeros, they were just made to look like one. what about this Experimental Aircraft.?
Actually that's what "converted" means. It means changed from one to another. It doesn't mean created to look like as in a façade. The experimental aircraft in your pic is just that, an experimental aircraft. It is not a P-51D. You may call it a replica. I would have said a ZERO replica made from a Texan.
Do you by chance know why the thing that looks like a mustang, is classed Experimental?
Besides the fact you called it experimental?
It doesn't matter what it looks like, it matters what it is.
Well, The pilot says" because the prop was converted to a constant pitch type, it was designated as being Experimental" Here's the tail number photo, I'd like to see your source of information on it 
just to find out if all pilots lie, like the first photos pilot, telling me that is a real ZERO. I'd love to look this stuff up, just so I wouldn't spread misinformation.
just to find out if all pilots lie, like the first photos pilot, telling me that is a real ZERO. I'd love to look this stuff up, just so I wouldn't spread misinformation.
Much lower and he would've been landing...
Lowest flyby ever, Argentinian FMA IA 63 (Original) - YouTube
Lowest flyby ever, Argentinian FMA IA 63 (Original) - YouTube
You are spreading misinformation and I am here to correct you.
YOU said you were buzzed (my word) by an AT-6 "converted" to a ZERO. It appears we're going to need an English language lesson here. Your first statement indicated a AT-6 was converted to a Mitsubishi ZERO (although in your defense you omitted which specific ZERO). The word "converted" as per Dictionary.com - Free Online English Dictionary says "to change (something) into a different form or properties; transmute; transform.". We can define the word transform as well (using the same source) to:
1. to change in form, appearance, or structure; metamorphose. So within the context of your statement you said a AT-6 was changed into a Mitsubishi ZERO. That was incorrect. Your statement would have been accurate to say "an AT-6 made into a ZERO replica".
Now to address your "experimental" irrelevance. You posted a picture here of an aircraft which looks like a North American P-51D mustang and called it experimental. You then asked me what made it experimental (after TELLING us it was) as if I was supposed to be able to give you exact and in depth description based off of a very small picture. Next, in your coy attempt to try and get a dig in me you want to say it IS an actual P-51D aircraft and is only labeled "experimental" due to the fact it has a new, different type of propeller. This is ridiculous bordering on asinine. The fact that changing one part of the entire aircraft does not change the fact it was manufactured by North American and is a P-51D. The FAA has classified it as experimental due to the propeller change, it doesn't change it from being a P-51D.
If I take the 327 c.i. engine out of my Camaro and put a 350 c.i. engine in it it's still a Camaro.
Now to address your quote again you said:
Well, The pilot says" because the prop was converted to a constant pitch type, it was designated as being Experimental" Again, meaning by the FAA. If you look at the RARA classifications (Now UWRC) you'll see that many of the former WW2 fighters are now racers and are considered "experimental". That doesn't take away from the fact they are still their respective airframe designations. And before you try and say they were fighters "converted" to racers, racing is a purpose, not a model.
Here's the tail number photo, I'd like to see your source of information on it View attachment 14407
Is it or is it not a P-51D?
just to find out if all pilots lie,
Yes they do.
like the first photos pilot, telling me that is a real ZERO. I'd love to look this stuff up, just so I wouldn't spread misinformation.
Yes, you need to do a lot of research as you are spreading misinformation. See, here is where you think you're being smart. What does that either picture have to do with the discussion? Is that a Flying ZERO? (I'd bet NO, there are only two in the world last time I checked and that model is neither from what I can see in that tiny picture.). Is that the plane that buzzed you? (Not if it's a real ZERO). Who was the pilot? It could very well be a real ZERO but it if is I'm 99.99% sure it's a grounded museum piece. But that still doesn't address the original topic.
So back to the point. You cannot take an AT-6 and turn it into a ZERO. You can make it LOOK like a ZERO (which Hollywood had done for years) but it IS NOT a ZERO.
Last edited:
Those are just bad ass..... Man, I wish I would of become a pilot
The "mustang" you guys are looking at is actually a 3/4 scale model made by a guy in polson montana powered by an american V-8 a 351 i believe, it is called "experimantal" because it does not have a "type certificate" issued by the FAA, also the mitsubishi A6M Zero was based in no small part on a howard hughes design....
post script: I just tried to look him up as i havnt seen anything about them in 5-8 years and it looks like he's not in bussiness anymore but he did build quite a few of them and he called them "THUNDER MUSTANGS" they cost about 250,000 to build and actually outperformed the original mustand in speed and time to climb, if i remember correctly
post script: I just tried to look him up as i havnt seen anything about them in 5-8 years and it looks like he's not in bussiness anymore but he did build quite a few of them and he called them "THUNDER MUSTANGS" they cost about 250,000 to build and actually outperformed the original mustand in speed and time to climb, if i remember correctly
Last edited:
Easy answer is air pressure drops around the aircraft causing a halo of condensed water droplets. Depends on dew point and speed.
"Trace" is just a disturbance of the air around a bullet which is used to observe it's trajectory. Vapor trail is caused by a pressure drop behind the bullet, I've personally never seen it but I suppose a bullet can create a vapor trail under the right conditions.
Top ten Fly bys
I remember being at an air show, in a hangar, when the American pilots and German pilots got into a friendly discussion about flying skill. Both groups were griping about the 400 knot speed limit imposed for the fly-by box.
That afternoon the F18 pilot did a standard low pass, pointed the nose skyward and hit the afterburners, setting off a few car alarms in the parking lot. The Tornado pilot followed. I saw him drop the aircraft into ground effect at the approach end of the runway, and, as the nose pitched up he countered with forward stick and held it there. He didn't climb. Not one inch. The aircraft departed straight and disappeared over the horizon.
After the show I asked the German pilot why he didn't follow in the path of the F18 and make a more spectacular exit. No need, he replied, I was flying the runway 'holding' forward stick at 398 knots indicated.
I remember being at an air show, in a hangar, when the American pilots and German pilots got into a friendly discussion about flying skill. Both groups were griping about the 400 knot speed limit imposed for the fly-by box.
That afternoon the F18 pilot did a standard low pass, pointed the nose skyward and hit the afterburners, setting off a few car alarms in the parking lot. The Tornado pilot followed. I saw him drop the aircraft into ground effect at the approach end of the runway, and, as the nose pitched up he countered with forward stick and held it there. He didn't climb. Not one inch. The aircraft departed straight and disappeared over the horizon.
After the show I asked the German pilot why he didn't follow in the path of the F18 and make a more spectacular exit. No need, he replied, I was flying the runway 'holding' forward stick at 398 knots indicated.
Last edited:
Similar threads
