posted 03-30-2001 03:13 PM            

Looking overhead I see this morning's pristine blue sky is now desecrated with line after line, with one huge spreading chemtrail laid E to W north of Kelowna now drifting South. In glancing towards the sun I saw and photographed the biggest ring surrounding the sun I have ever seen.

posted 03-30-2001 09:00 PM            

As far as maneuverability goes, they turn on a dime at slower speeds, and have a roll rate that is truly astounding.....It would be interesting to hear some more of TG's thoughts on this...(You're a lucky guy TG!)

Eh, where'd he go anyway?

posted 03-30-2001 09:48 PM            

At sea level, a 9g 360-degree level turn can be accomplished in about a 3000-foot diameter circle. The F-16 can roll about 720 degrees per second as well. Yes, I am a lucky guy! I wake up every day with a smile on my face. O.K., enough of me blowing my own horn.

Yes, any aircraft that uses afterburner to take off can be pretty noisy. Even in MIL power (maximum without Afterburner) the jet is pretty loud. In the town I live in, we can't use certain runways (except in an emergency) and are required to turn away from town just after takeoff to keep folks from calling in noise complaints. Some still do, anyway. I understand, though. I wear earplugs AND have foam ear cups inside of my helmet to keep the noise down.

Lulu, do you live near an Air Force base or is it a civilian airport?

Also, most older small business jets seem to be a heck of a lot louder than the newer ones. One of these could be your culprit.

Maverick

posted 03-30-2001 11:45 PM            

Is your top speed still classified? Would somewhere near mach 2 at sealevel be a good guess? (Kinda makes the Concorde look wimpy, doesn't it)

posted 03-31-2001 01:07 AM            

No, the top speed isn't classified. There are two airspeed limitations, actually. One is maximum speed in KCAS (knots calibrated airspeed) which is 800 knots. KCAS is like indicated airspeed in most civilian aircraft. Above 800 KCAS, Lockheed tells us that the canopy may depart the aircraft. Bad, very bad.

The other airspeed limit is mach 2.05. (good guess!) This is an engine/airframe limitation. I've only bumped up against this speed on a test mission, since there's no tactical reason to waste all of my gas in about 15 minutes (afterburner is required, and fuel flows sometimes climb upwards of 45,000 pounds per hour.) Also, we don't usually fly at the high altitudes that it takes to increase the mach that much. As a general rule, if calibrated (indicated) airspeed remains the same, mach number increases with altitude. At sea level, I would expect to reach the 800 knot limit well before mach 2.05. Conversely, mach 2.05 at 45,000 feet is only about 350-400 knots calibrated, depending on things like temperature and humidity.

These numbers are for a "clean" aircraft- no stores or external tanks. Depending on what stores we're carrying, we can be limited to lower numbers than these.

On another subject, Cy- check out the following link. It may help with a discussion that you're having on another board. From one agent to another-
http://pub31.ezboard.com/fcontrailsandchemtrails22884frm1.showMessage?topicID=14.topic

Maverick

posted 03-31-2001 01:55 AM            

Interesting comments on Kanuck's photo by the way. I see you explained those pod looking things toward the tail as being the winglet of the right wing...but what about the pod looking thing on the left side?

Interesting stuff!

posted 03-31-2001 02:03 AM            

If you mean the left side of the plane, then it is just a part of the fuselage or the left rear horizontal stabilizer being cut in half by the anomaly that cuts through the rear section of the plane. Look closely. I've outlined it on the botttom right copy of the close up. I believe that the "anomaly" is a piece of lint or hair that is on the lens, negative, or scanner.

Thanks for looking, anyway!

Sorry for taking the posts off topic.

posted 03-31-2001 02:30 AM            

I'll have to take a look at those "pods" a little closer, when I get to a computer with a better monitor (mine is reeeal crappy). I also kinda skimmed over your comments, so I'll read those again too. It just seems to me that there appears to be a symetrical pod-like structure on each side of that fuselage tail section. Could be an illusion...I don't know. Just seems too symetrical to be accidentally caused by lint or dirt though. I'll get back to you on this one!

By the way...I can see where a canopy coming off at 800 kts might give one a bad hair day. This would be a very, very bad thing indeed!

Agent Cy..


[Edited 1 times, lastly by cydoniaquest on 03-31-2001]

posted 03-31-2001 09:25 AM            

Topgun = Maverick = Goose = Tropopaws = ....

posted 04-02-2001 04:57 AM            

Yes, there's a base in Alberta. Cold Lake is pretty far north, though. In BC, military jets fly out of Comox and Abbotsford regularly. Also, there's Moose Jaw and one other that I can't remember the name to. These aren't all of the bases in your area, I'm sure, but these are the ones that I know about.

So, you're saying that these planes are not flying out of the local airport? If this is so, then they are probably military based on your descriptions.

If they are not flying out of the local airport, another option would be that you live near a low-level training route or (unlikely) a practice bombing range. If you see the aircraft climbing, then you could be living near the end of the published route and are witnessing the aircraft climbing up to normal altitude after completing the low-level route.

If the plane is not taking off, chances are that you are not hearing an aircraft using its afterburner. I say this because it is rare to use afterburner for anything other than takeoffs and when flying air-to-air. Air-to-air training is not done too often at low altitudes due to it's inherent risk. Instead, training is done at higher altitudes with a "floor" (hard deck for you Top Gun fans) to simulate the ground and provide a margin of safety.

So, in short, you may be hearing a fighter in military power instead of afterburner. If you don't hear it too often it can seem pretty loud.

As far as your questions go about routes/Flight Explorer goes, I'll let Thermit handle them. He's the man when it comes to that. I'm also not sure what you mean when you ask about the differences between a jet and a plane. Something on Flight Explorer?

posted 04-02-2001 02:30 PM            

All the bases you listed are quite a distance from Kelowna. This small dark swift jet was flying parallel to the ground at an altitude that a plane would fly at if it was approaching or taking off from a runway, in fact for about 2 seconds the trees in my back yard obscured my view of this meandering jet. It didn't ascend or descend, but stayed parralel to the earth at a very LOW altitude, banking left then right then left again and out of sight. So then after burner was not a factor in the loud rumbling it produced. A fighter in military power it probably was then. Thanks for clearing that up. As far as my question about jets/planes...is there a difference between the two? Or are these two words interchangeable? Thanks!

posted 04-02-2001 03:34 PM            

I'm guessing that your aircraft was flying a low level route based on what you write. I may have a Canadian chart at work that lists them. I'll try to look for you this week to see if there is a route near you. I also would not be surprised to see this route somewhere far away from the bases. Here in New Mexico we have several routes that span the entire state (and enter other states as well.) I'd expect that Canada has lew-level routes of the same size.

As far as the difference between "jet" and "plane" goes, there is no rule that says what an aicraft should be called. Of course, any aircraft that someone calls a "jet" should probably have jet engines instead of propellers. But, I'm not aware of any set policy regarding labelling one aircraft a jet and another a plane. Sometimes I call the plane I fly a jet, sometimes I call the jet I fly a plane......

Hope this helps!

Maverick