Jughead

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.... 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. 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....

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?).

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!"

Something like this...?

Am I the only one here who's a big enough geek to remember

Most definitely--LOTS of rated positions, particularly in the J3. My last assignment was NORAD--I left just over a year ago. The job itself was a bit "eh" (staff work is staff work), but there's no beating the location IMHO. You imply you're a pilot, but don't mention your MWS or rank--preponderence of rated slots there are filled by 11Fs, O-4 & O-5s, but there are a handful of captains and heavy drivers/EWOs/ABMs/etc. In fact, during my time there, a fair number of non-pilots got picked up for 11x jobs there when they volunteered for them since the billets were going unfilled. Let me know if you have any specific questions, I'll do what I can to answer.

Hacker's answer is correct, and I'll add that it seems like most flight docs these days do NOT have the FAA cert. I used to get it done every year, but it's been at least 10 years & 4 PCS's since the last time--I still always ask. I've even seen at least one case where the doc had the right credentials but was not allowed to provide the service (someone in the Med Gp decided that it was too costly--since the only difference between your annual flight physical & an FAA Class 2 physical is a diabetes test [lab/urine] & some paperwork, that sounds fishy to me...). HOWEVER--that, hopefully, is changing soon. The same rule change that will, if/when implemented, give you an easier path to an FAA CFI ticket includes a provision to make your military medical "count" for an FAA medical (more specifically, it waives the requirement to have an FAA medical if you have a current military flight medical). FAR 61.23(b)(9) (NPRM); here's the link, I've been watching carefully for it to become final: http://www.sheppardair.com/milcompcfi.htm. I'm pretty sure the CFI part of that NPRM has been discussed here before; hell, I think I found that link on here.

No, I wouldn't say "just" for horny guys [redundant phrase, btw--simply "guys" covers it]; I'm pretty sure there are other ladies on here.... You left off a third option, which is to turn off the avatars. I have no objection to boobs, but if I want to sign on at work, you bet I turn them off before opening the forums. You can clear the "show avatars" square on the settings page. BL, if you're offended--don't look. PS: If you're that easily offended, though, you may want to carefully consider which of the forums you visit here--much of the conversation can make the avatars look like Sunday School.... And, what Toro said: feel free to try your suggestive guy-version of an avatar idea--I think that'd be pretty funny, and it would certainly make your posts "stand out".... and I *seriously* doubt it would be "taken off" [DISCLAIMER: I'm not a mod, I don't speak for them--but they seem like a reasonable bunch. So long as you don't duplicate a topic, you may even get along with Toro....]

First one that I've created myself (not my pic, found that online). Not boobies, but I think it'll pass.... PS: This thread is still jacked up for me, can't fully load the last page.... EDIT: It's page 33 that's jacked up--now that we're on page 34, the last page loads (but 33 is still jacked)

That was always the generally accepted version when I was flying R-model -135s. The (widely understood) interpretation of flap limit speed was that if the flaps were rolling up by the time you hit the limit, you hadn't exceeded the limit. Not anymore?

Not mine--found online. But, worthy, I'd say....

Hmmm.... Looks like they changed their system. The wrecks I had were in 2002--at the time, USAA underwrote both the auto and the bike policies (as a single policy); nowadays, it looks like they are indeed two separate policies. Sorry for the outdated info.

Word of caution on that, M2. USAA--unlike every other company I've seen--essentially treats your bike & your car insurance as the same thing. The pro is the very competitive rate; the con is that a claim on one affects coverage on both. I hope you never have occasion to find that out "the hard way" as I did, but.... In my situation, I had an at-fault wreck on the bike and a no-fault (i.e., paid under comprehensive) car wreck. Both paid, w/ USAA's typical prompt & hassle-free service. Shortly thereafter, I got a notice of non-renewal. I managed to get around that w/ a letter to mgmt ("'no-fault' doesn't equal 'bad driver' / I'm a 15+ year customer / WTFO?"), but have since insured my bikes w/ GEICO (at rather competitive rates). YMMV.

No nav/EWO on the MC-12

Civilain coworker has this as his wallpaper on his NIPR machine.... I found myself in complete agreement and asked if I could share it here....

Huggy, I thought I'd heard it was tradition in the Deuce world to get your solo number tatted? Urban legend? [not that tradition would force you to do so if you were opposed, but I assume you would at least "consider" it]

What Toro said. Also, for future reference, I've found the DVB Guide (glossary) under the Data Verification Brief in vMPF to be very helpful in figuring out what the hell all those various fields are. [i assume this is the acronym list to which Toro refers.] Can't post a link (that will work) into vMPF here, so here's the goods:

Pictures would help make that determination....

Did I see this sign on M2's front lawn...?

I'm not really qualified to have an opinion--I'm only relaying what I heard in casual conversation several years ago. I speculate that it has to do with being optimized to carry the orbiter (and *not* having the orbiter results in a sub-obtimal condition). So, beyond the huge horizontal stab adding drag as you point out (I think you meant horizontal, not vertical, yes?), it also changes the center of lift, which could change the handling dramatically. I suppose it would be a similar effect as having a really out-of-whack CG. That's not how I read it; I think he was saying that it flies similarly to a stock 747 **with the orbiter on**. That, in turn, jibes perfectly with what I'd heard. Another snippet I recall from the same conversation echoed that quote--that it flies "normally" with the orbiter on, just with higher thrust requirements & smaller performance envelope for everything.

Not true. While the shuttle is obviously not a long-range glider, its winged design is all about lift generation. I'm not saying it provides positive lift excess to its weight atop the 747, but it's not just dead weight/drag, either. I had the chance to talk to a couple of the NASA pilots when I was stationed at Edwards, they said they hate flying the SCA w/o the orbiter attached: "It flies like crap." All the issues others have cited (weight, drag, clear wx requirements) notwithstanding, there's also the PR aspect to the multiple-hop model. NASA normally always announces where/when the SCA will be landing, and there are frequently fly-bys, etc., w/ any given leg of the trip.

You answered your own question w/ the site you posted--YES. If you were under 40 on the date of the examination, your medical is good through the end of the 60th month following (Class III--to which the others revert, if you had a higher class), regardless of any printed (earlier) expiration date on the certificate. 61.23(d) if you want to read it in the regs; http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance...ectLookup/61.23