It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fighter just air braked over oklahoma city headed east fast

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Worlds
Originally posted by Memysabu


By the way he was chasing an invisible UFO


Really ?

How do you know this ?

TW



Because he is trolling?

Just a guess though.




posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Hmmm, I'm curious.

You say your friend is ex-navy and knows the plane well, fair enough.

You have now posted two pictures of 'the' brake. Do you mean this exact one? The pictures do show the same aircraft, and it is a naval type.

[edit on 12-5-2008 by waynos]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 07:47 PM
link   
So if he was heading east and hit break he would also have to pull that direction but what type of fighter was it?I didnt hear any noise in the f14 in topgun.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
It sounds like he went to the afterburner.

Not all that unusual except:

Military planes tend not to do so over urban areas because fo the noise complaints etc.


I don't think there are rules about it though, just about sonic booms.

I live in San Diego, and the F-18's over at North Island NAS are not shy about using their afterburners during takeoff and climb. Even three miles away where I am the noise is pretty impressive


I have even seen them doing max-performance near-vertical climbs out of there, where they stay on the burners until the aircraft is at 40,000+ feet and well out of sight.

It's kind of like a poor man's Space Shuttle launch



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Well I was waiting for a reply but the OP's isn't around just now. He was very specific about the air brake he saw, he has posted two pictures of said airbrake and both pictures are of the same plane. Surely not a coincidence because his mate is ex navy and knows the plane well.

My problem with this is that the plane shown is a Buccaneer;

The airbrake is silent

it does not have afterburners

it was never operated by the US, only the UK and South Africa.

it has been out of service for 14 years and the only one flying today is kept in South Africa, the only country that allows a civilian registered nuclear bomber to fly.

You see my problem?



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I think he was showing that pic to just show where he was talking bout....if it wasnt thats a landing plane and defin not in the us inventory.Most likely its a f16 or f22 being used by ang or the f 15 af for regional.Whats the closet afb near you?

[edit on 12-5-2008 by alienstar]



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I was mean. I am sorry. Please continue to contribute to the discussions and feel free to ignore me as I am just a cranky sourpuss. I have even called the local airport on account of wierd plane activities.


There are 1,000s of worse threads on this board if that is any consolation.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I think he was just trying to show the Buccaneer because it has such a big & obvious airbrake, I did not get the impression he was claiming that it was a Buccaneer specifically.

Airbrakes IIRC do make some noises because of violent aerodynamic turbulence behind the braking surface, but I'd guess how much would depend on the specific aircraft.

Most US fighters have dorsally mounted airbrakes that would be hard to see deploying from the ground, the exception is the F-16 where the ends of the fuselage chines are split to form small airbrakes on each side of the engine.



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



I must protest. I'm the cranky one. I have a black belt in crankychuan. Don't mess with me, I might growl at you in a very nasty way!!!!

Zindo



posted on May, 12 2008 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by stikkinikki
 


Woops, my aim was bad, damn there goes all my credibility,LOL

Zindo



[edit on 5/12/2008 by ZindoDoone]

[edit on 5/12/2008 by ZindoDoone]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
On nearly all supersonic fighters, the airbrake, spoiler, speedbrake, or what the hell you want to call it is mounted on the TOP of the plane, it's unlikely you'd be abled to see it... The aircraft you linked us to is firstly, not a fighter and cannot go supersonic, and secondly, I don't beleive any US fighter has speed brakes on the tail like that.

No aircraft can go much more than Mach 1.2 down low, and to get under that you just need to chop the power, I dare say you'd be bellow the speed of sound before it even was fully extended. If it had been going supersonic, you would of known about it.


They don't call it a sonic BOOM for no reason.


This wasn't even supersonic....

There's actually an extended version of this clip where the building has cracks running through it.

What city are you in?

Did the 'speed brake' look like this?


or


???

One last thing, you're NOT going to be abled to hear a speed brake on a fighter, on some planes there's a low rumbling sound from the air disturbance, but on a fighter - no.



it has been out of service for 14 years and the only one flying today is kept in South Africa, the only country that allows a civilian registered nuclear bomber to fly.

Thank god for thunder city.





[edit on 13/5/2008 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:29 AM
link   
The FAR's regulate all air traffic below 10,000 AGL to 250 knots. Deploying the speed brake above 250 knots will most likely cause structural damage or loss of the brake in flight. The FAA does have the ability to enforce the FAR's on military aircraft except during times of war and national emergency, war in Iraq does not count in regards to Continental US.

What caused the sound, who knows but most likely nothing out of the ordinary.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   
Speed brakes on a fighter jet will not be damaged if they are deployed over 250 knots, nor would it cause damage in any airliner.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
I think he was showing that pic to just show where he was talking bout....


and


Originally posted by xmotex
I think he was just trying to show the Buccaneer because it has such a big & obvious airbrake, I did not get the impression he was claiming that it was a Buccaneer specifically.




With the first picture that is what I thought too, but the second time makes it very specific, there are thousands (if not millions) of pictures on the web of aircraft flying with airbrakes deployed, proportionally the vast majority of these are US fighters in the current inventory so to randomly post a Bucc image to make a point might happen once, but not twice.

Besides;


Here is a link to the brake Im talking about.


and

Edited main post and added the image of the brake.


Heres another image of one, it makes a very freaky noise when they use them. I think he said he hadnt heard one since the navy.


reads as being very specific, 'the' brake, not 'a similar' brake, plus the Buccaneer was a naval aircraft which further points to this being the very plane (three coincidences in the same post? I don't think so somehow).

Maybe the OP will come back and clear this up, I'm just saying what I see.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
it has been out of service for 14 years and the only one flying today is kept in South Africa, the only country that allows a civilian registered nuclear bomber to fly.


Didn't the Confederate Airforce have a B-29? Or was that my imagination?

And what about XH588?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Ha, good catch. I meant 'jet' bomber. Also XH558 is a military registration, not a civil one (I think it is also G-VLCN but I don't know if this is carried). Maybe I could say that is the exception which proves the rule


Actually I think the Thunder City Bucc (and their other jets) still have all military equipment intact whereas the Vulcan and other ex military planes don't.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Actually I think the Thunder City Bucc (and their other jets) still have all military equipment intact whereas the Vulcan and other ex military planes don't.


You know, I've never actually seen a Buccaneer flying. Saw one on the ground at Elvington, but thats all. My imagination tells me they must be incredibly noisy close up because the engines were so powerful.

I did manage to catch the Red Bull Sea Vixen a few years back, and that lived up to similar expectations


Would love to have seen a Javelin fly as well. Allegedley a dog of a plane, but the damn thing just looked so....solid



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:01 AM
link   
You guys are extremely rude, of course the images are not of the exact plane jeez already. I believe my friend the sound was going in a downward pitch not upwards. Its the weirdest thing Ive heard and he also stated right off the bat how dangerous it was to use the brake at high speeds. I stepped outside and I saw the fighter. Fighters do not fly over OKC that often and as a matter of fact its the first Ive seen over OKC.

It was obviously scrambled from a base near here but not tinker in OKC.
It slowed down when it went over OKC, it was not afterburners.

The part about the UFO was simply a joke I was expanding on what someone else made earlier in the thread.

Im sorry I do not have all day to be politically correct for you guys, I simply am being watchful as a lot of people are expecting the false flag attack. Thats all this is about. Next time maybe I shouldnt post.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by Memysabu]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Yes, the Bucc was very loud, after it had passed you. Seeing such a relatively large aircraft approach you very rapidly in silence is a bit unnerving, even if you have just seen a Jag or an F-16 do the same thing. Quite strange.

The Javelin was a bit before my time too. I have read Maurice Allwards history of the Javelin where he includes a report on Javelins operating on excercise in the USA taking USAF Scorpions with ease in a dogfight and I remember thinking how the F-89 must have been really bad!
Apparently the Javelin was a lot better to fly than it looked with those massive thick wings ( I suppose it had to be).



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 07:09 AM
link   
How was I being rude? I was only commenting on what I read and was not insulting. I even added that you might well return and clear up my misconception. In a discussion things have to be questioned, don't let it put you off posting.

Now. Any idea about what sort of plane it was? Did you get a clear enough view to make out if it had two engines and fines or only one of each? Was the brake on top or at the back?

What made you post an image of a Buccaneer, was it just an image that showed a brake open?




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join