Hmmm... kinda slow in here - so here is one from another group. - 1 attachment

[Lee[_8_]]

Not THAT handle, Yuri!!!

[®i©ardo]

Lee wrote:
> Not THAT handle, Yuri!!!
>
>
>
Hmm, won't that blister the paint work?

--
Moving things in still pictures

[Dave D]

"Lee" > wrote in message
4...
>
>
> Not THAT handle, Yuri!!!

My question - Is the GIB (Guy-in-Back) going out or coming in????

DaveD
>
>
>

[Jacques[_2_]]

Nah . . .

Just standing there, trying to look good, eh.

Jacques

"Dave D" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lee" > wrote in message
> 4...
>>
>>
>> Not THAT handle, Yuri!!!
>
> My question - Is the GIB (Guy-in-Back) going out or coming in????
>
> DaveD
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Netko]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 21:56:44 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote
(in article >):

> Hmm, won't that blister the paint work?

Not too much scorching, really, as you can see from these 'after' shots.

The ejection was reportedly a stunt for a movie and the aircraft was flown
throughout minus the canopy.

[Netko]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 21:56:44 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote
(in article >):

> Hmm, won't that blister the paint work?

Not too much scorching, really, as you can see from these 'after' shots.

The ejection was reportedly a stunt for a movie and the aircraft was flown
throughout minus the canopy.

[Netko]

On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 21:56:44 +0100, ®i©ardo wrote
(in article >):

> Hmm, won't that blister the paint work?

Not too much scorching, really, as you can see from these 'after' shots.

The ejection was reportedly a stunt for a movie and the aircraft was flown
throughout minus the canopy.

[Waldo.Pepper[_2_]]

I have a picture of that having been done to a Mariner by an Ozzie
with no better plan. Such a shame.

Waldo.