HuggyU2

No kidding. My tablemate from UPT is a 2-star select. Doesn't seem possible.

No CAPES were harmed in the making of this post. And I did not list anything that was in the Beale/9 RW Critical Information List.

Yep. 187-4=183.

I'm guessing 183.

Send out the bat-signal to the Swift-Boaters! They have some work to do now.

Nope: “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Are you aware that the RQ-4 mission over Fukushima was about 20 hours long? At approx $48K/hr (not including link time), it was a $1M mission to get imagery. There were other platforms that could have obtained the kind a similar product for a lot less. So let's get back to the issue of "is the MC-12 the right aircraft for the mission being discussed". I would argue "no". Looking at flooded out areas using an MX-15 camera is not ideal. In fact, there are Civil Air Patrol aircraft that are more suited to certain portions of this mission.

I don't get your point here. Are you saying this is a good thing, or it was a bad thing? And why is it "non-ISR"?

I'm not the burning bush by any means on the MC-12, but Lt Gen Wyatt's comment on using the MC-12 as a platform to look at environmental/storm damage comes across as very uneducated. Or maybe it's just me. "...it would be wonderful to be able to employ some manned ISR to take a look at infrastructure, flooding levels, and take a look at some of the situational awareness that our governors and the president need to see." I have a feeling he doesn't know what the MC-12 mission and capes are. MC-12 guys: am I way off base here?

While they might not get you promoted to 1Lt, these at least give you valuable day-to-day working skills that you will need down the road. Certainly both are more valuable than most of the courses you will take in most Masters Degree programs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20209770

Well,.. for me, many of the reasons are the same. I'm also a pilot who separated at the 15 year point. After being out a little over a year, I realized I had made a mistake, and worked to come back on active duty. Fortunately for me, I made that decision about 6 weeks before 9/11. I have not regretted it. I like what I do.

FWIW,... around '95 when I was a PIT IP, we had a C-model pilot going through the course, and he was one of the guys that got his wrist slapped for strafing with the Eagle. Sorry, I cannot remember his name. But I remember talking about it with him, as it was the first time I had heard of it. At the time, I recall being pretty impressed, and thinking that was pretty cool, considering the fact they had very little dedicated training for that scenario. Come to think of it, I still think it's pretty cool.

Wait one year after you get your wings, before setting a wedding date. And don't set that date for at least 18 months after your winging.

This is an interesting discussion. I didn't have the benefit of a "baseops forum" when I decided to join the military, I was naive compared to the rest of you. In any case, I joined to fly for my country. I gave up a very lucrative job at IBM to do it. I didn't look at the retirement plan. I didn't know much about the work week schedule. I didn't really know jack. I DID know there was a multi-year commitment. I found out I'd make about $26000 my first year. Cool For me, it didn't matter. It could have been a 20-year commitment, and I would have signed up. Probably not a "wise" decision for many reasons... but it's the one I made.

Post had been deleted. A small bubble in the form of Rainman floated some SA my direction. Nevermind....

Explain, please? "OTS commander" is a cadet, right?

Just so I understand: leadership required you to do that flash mob thing?

Which one: 1. U-2s on a carrier? 2. Or keeping an eye on the French?

Incredible insight! Did you get your degree in Moral Theology? Mmmm... no,... it doesn't appear that you did. Hopefully, you fly aircraft better than you throw out moral opinions.

Not so much a function of the "heaviness", but more along the lines of needing a large throw. The yoke rotates 120 degrees. If the aircraft were designed today, it wouldn't look anything like a U-2 , since the current U-2 fails all the test pilot evaluations on the Cooper-Harper scale. But if everything remained the same, a standard stick would not work. That's why we have the yoke.

They also put a deflector-cage in front of the tail wheel and on the wingtips to keep them from snagging the the cable. Additionally, the flaps could be lowered to 50 degrees, vice the normal 35 degree max setting. That added a lot of extra drag, and gave the power response they needed.

That is not a U-2G. That is a U-2R, which is much larger... the same airframe being flown today. The U-2G was a modified U-2C model. You are correct that the U-2G flew a couple of operational sorties, watching the French set of nukes in the Pacific. The U-2R never flew operationally off of the carrier.

While you may not be overly impressed with Steve Fossett like I am, your lack of class and disrespect toward someone who gave a ton to aviation,... and was a great guy at the same time,... is disappointing.

THAT's a keeper!