Jughead
-
Posts
643 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Jughead
-
-
Guaranteed to meet Baseops' nudity rules....
-
something the size of a Denny's
Say, I'm unfamiliar with that unit of measurement--what's the metric equivalent...?
'Nother
for Jeep--*that* was funny...!EDIT to remove triple-posting buffoonery
-
You guys arguing about what's "vag" or not in a tactical approach has got to have all the fighter guys on here alternately laughing or rolling their eyes....
A case of internet
around the house to stop the pain.... -
I will count against their 10% of people allowed to be on leave at any one time even though I am not mission ready.
Schokie's advice ref getting your gaining CC's approval is spot on. Also, you won't "count against" anything until you sign in--so, if that's the only reason you think leave would be denied, then it should be a non-issue for you to take the leave enroute to your PCS. Unless there's more to the story, I can't imagine you'd get denied--no one's going to be around to in-process you until after the New Year, anyway....
-
They're weapons/ammo troops you've seen them around... now think of their female siblings... That'll keep you awake at night.
Precisely why I need to see pics before beer!!
-
Yes... Weapons/Ammo troops (no, their not the same thing) will horsetrade for almost anything up to and including their little sisters for beer.
Hmmm... I'm gonna need to see pictures of the sisters first....
-
...and, in case you want some current reference material:
Still smokin'!!
-
your Base Pay and your Flight Pay are your taxable income.
BAS not taxed.
BAH not taxed.
All true--but, to muddy the water a bit, and for reasons not clear to me, your flight pay does not count toward your FICA or Medicare taxes....
Oh, and ACP (Bonus) is taxed for FITW, but not FICA either....
-
Good thing the crash response guy isn't actually using that firehose--I'm sure the pressure would tear that airplane to shreds.
Interesting story--too bad about the outcome. I "flew" a simulator of the Wright Flyer at Oshkosh--it was *not* easy to do. Pitch was pretty standard and easy to control as long as you avoided the stall, but the turn-via-wing-warping was not at all intuitive, made worse by the control for that being an up/down lever (up = left, if I recall correctly).
-
Oh, c'mon, we've all been there, haven't we...? Um, guys?? Anyone?!?
-
a talking paper regarding transferability that covers the ADSC issue as well as a little more detail on transferring to dependents.
Toro, I still don't see anything that applies to the eligibility of the member himself--every place I see discussion of an ADSC, both on the website and on the doc you posted, uses it in the context of trasnferring the benefit to an eligible family member. That's been my understanding of how it works (though I have NOT researched it).
So, sorry if I'm still misunderstanding you--but I simply can't find anywhere that talks about an ADSC for a member's own use of the benefit. Indeed, the only place I see discussion of the program as a recruiting or retention tool is for (a) payment of "kickers" or (b) transferability. Is the question of an ADSC for a member's own use something you have specific info on? I think you're spot-on about anyone being in the right range of years to sign up for this--but the question is whether it even applies to guys w/o dependents (which it does not, by my reading).
-
Good info--thanks, Toro.
- You will receive 36 months of tuition and the ADSC to the Air Force will be four years.
I didn't know there was an ADSC for this. Is that only to transfer to dependents? For someone who retired recently (after Aug), would they be eligible? (Not me, I'm still active duty--got a buddy who just retired and was planning to use this....)
-
now it's a thing.
Be sure to replace your standard search engine page with this one, if you want to get full credit:
-
But we're definitely open to suggestions on the right price point.
Charge $.99 instead, sell 10x the copies. Same concept as movies on VHS (now DVD). Don't think about what it's "worth" in terms of your investment; think about what will get the most money back to you--units sold x price per unit. The movies studios thought that the home video market would be a niche market--and it was, when they were charging $80 per title. Then some bright boy discovered that $20--rather, $19.99--was the magic price point at which the videos flew off the shelves. The iPhone app pricing model reflects that--most titles that I've seen are in the $1 - $3 range--but, it also creates a situation where the $3 titles are "expensive." On the other hand, many more may try a $.99 title, "Eh, it's only a buck."
My opinion only. I do NOT have an iPhone, no immediate plans to get one, so I'm not in your target market. Good luck.
-
(unfortunately, it is SFW!)
Here's one with a couple of quick glimpses. Probably not terribly NSFW, but....
-
Is the AIS an USAF only school or do other services attend as well? As an Army fixed-wing guy, I was curious to know if we could possibly attend.
Had a NASA guy there in the class right before mine, so I'd say "yes," other agencies (not just services) can attend. Sorry, though, I can't give you any details on how, or if there are quotas, etc. This was almost 10 years ago now, too, so much may (is likely to) have changed....
-
Here's the reference. You're paid for mileage on a PCS, so therefore, no oil changes.
Thunderchief, 4Fans is correct ref PCS reimbursement.
What you may be confusing it with is DITY (or whatever the hell they're calling it now). While you can't "claim" the oil as a reimbursible expense, you can claim it as an expense (of performing the DITY), which reduces the taxable amount*. I don't know what the time window is; I also don't know if you can claim an oil *change* vs oil *added* during the trip (and I suspect it's just the latter). I usually just stick to the fuel and any repairs, since the tax benefit of a $30 oil change isn't worth the headache (to me). If you're confident enough of your debate skills w/ the IRS if they call you and have to make a "facts & circumstances" decision on whether the oil change was incident to the DITY move, you could always itemize it as an unreimbursed business expense (again, to me, not worth it).
*This is actually a better deduction than most realize, since DFAS (?) makes the deduction prior to calculating your taxable pay--essentially making it a "front page" deduction for those who itemize, and a "built-in" itemized deduction for those who do not. Still, the amounts in question usually won't be large enough to really matter (at least that's been my experience).
-
I was against the idea of steel wool because it's on chrome. Does the really fine stuff have less of a chance to rough it up?
My wife bought oven cleaner to actually clean the oven. Been thinking about using it since we already have it now. Should I warm the pipes up first or will it do fine without it? I have a pretty good sized chunk of that nylon from my pants sitting on there. What about the discoloration? A buddy said it's because I'm running rich that it's turning yellow. Can I get that back to normal with cleaner??
The super-fine steel wool won't rough it up. More accurately, it will "scratch" the chrome at such a fine level that it won't be visible--indeed, it will even have a bit of a polishing effect. Think super-fine finishing sandpaper on wood--same idea. It's also analogous to sandpaper in that the bigger the "chunk," the more elbow grease you'll need.
If your gunk is that large, then I'd say yes, warm up the pipes first. That's more about softening the stuff to not tear your paper towel than the effectiveness of the chemicals. If your gunk is more of a "stain" (little or no depth), the Easy Off will literally just wipe it off w/ a swipe or two; thicker stuff may require a little scrubbing (far less than the steel wool, though). My lawyer has advised me to repeat the warning: do NOT get any on your paint, hoses, tires, etc!
I'm no engine expert, but isn't that ("too rich") backwards? I thought it was too-lean running that created extra heat, leading to discolored pipes...? Either way, that's not a "stain" that you can rub off, it's a chemical change in the chrome. I suppose it's theoretically possible to fix it, but in practical terms, if the discoloration bothers you, re-chroming is your solution. Adding heat shields is another. There are a couple of products out there that claim to restore the chrome, but I've yet to hear anyone have success with them. Maybe if your discoloration is slight, I suppose it might be worth a try (certainly cheaper than re-chroming). Of course, any fix you apply needs to include adjusting your mixture, or the problem will just recur....
-
Holy Huge Picture, Batman! I'm on a slow connection, that almost shut me down. May I suggest you resize it & repost, or just use a link? That said, it's a cool pic I hadn't seen before, I'm glad you posted it....
McConnell has all 8-ish RT (reciever/tanker) models. From what I know they do the "spec-ops", if you will, missions. The old-heads say that there is a good chance that if you are at McConnell you will be qualed to be a reciever pilot at some point. Anyone with current knowledge please elaborate/correct.
Yes, all eight (not "ish") of the RT models are at McConnell--sort of. There's now a ninth KC-135R with a receiver mod--the new Speckled Trout. It's got the E-Systems (later LTV, now L3, as I understand the corporate lineage) mod, vice the (much better) Boeing mod. Of the original eight "Christine" tankers, three have the Boeing system, five have the E-Systems version. L3 modded the new Trout, so of course they used their own system (with some updates, from what I understand).
My knowledge is not current, but from when the RTs were my bread & butter at McConnell (7+ years now), your chances of being qual'd to fly the RTs was about 100%--that's just a difference check that doesn't even require a flight portion, and the RTs are frequently used like any other tail on the day-to-day flying schedule, so everyone needed that. Your chances of being ARR qual'd varied depending on which squadron you were in. That pissed a lot of people off, but it boiled down to available training hours (not everyone could maintain qual in the available time). If you were in an "RT squadron," your chances of getting qual'd were pretty high, all things being equal; otherwise, chances were pretty low. Similar breakdown on the special ops mission qual, though there were special ops pilots who were not ARR qual'd (few) and some ARR pilots who were not special ops qual'd (plenty). The difference was that the SOCOM apportionment (the reason the RTs exist) dictated a certain number of special ops crews, and it's much easier to take an ARR-qual'd guy and spin him up on his special ops qual than to start from scratch. The special ops qual w/o ARR qual was more a case of incomplete training than a by-design qual level.
According to my FE buddy who just left the -10, it's not so much that they need the gas, but that they take on the extra fuel from a previous orbiter. Been a while since he tried to explain all that to me though, someone else here I'm sure could explain it better.
It is still sort of ironic though.
Your buddy is mostly right. It's a lot more efficient for one airplane to stay aloft with 100K pounds of off-loadable fuel than for two w/ 50K each, and a LOT more efficient than five w/ 20K each. Assuming that you don't need multiple booms in one spot, or fuel available in multiple spots, it makes far more sense to consolidate fuel and get the "extra" airplanes back on the ground to be turned, the crews into crew rest, etc.--saving gas is just a side benefit.
Two counter-examples, though. One, the reason the -10s have the ARR capability is the design purpose as a dual-role platform. When the KC-10 is flying as a pure airlifter, making use of a tanker in an airbridge role is the same as for any C-xx airplane. Two, the reason the RTs have the capability is to ensure that the specially qualified crews can stay on station as long as needed with as much offload as needed--as with any other platform that needs a tanker to extend its station time.
"Ironic"? Matter of perspective....
-
For boot scuffs and such, warm the pipes up a bit, and use some very very fine steel wool. It should take it right off without scratching.
Agreed. Another method--less elbow grease but slightly risky to clumsiness--is Easy Off (oven cleaner). Spray a bit onto a paper towel, be ***VERY*** careful not to get any on a painted or rubber surface, and use the paper towel to wipe just about anything off of a chromed or unpainted surface. Follow up w/ LOTS of water to ensure you've rinsed it all away. Works like a charm (I did say "very" careful, right?).
-
Well, here's the pic...
That's the one--thanks!!
-
Lots of pics on here evidently posted as links (that have since expired). I'm looking for one in particular, and it appears to be one of those.
Anyone have the one of the car running through a pack of bicyclists? Caption was something like "MY WAY; Stay the ###### out of it!"
-
Pardon my cynical beltway mentality, but by the time they get done drafting this "requirement", it'll probably wind up the size and complexity of the B-2, when all they need is an upgraded OV-1 or OV-10-like aircraft.
Something like this...?
-
Gun Talk
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Do you think Baseops has enough bandwidth for that...? Do you think the internet has enough bandwidth...?