"The doomsday plane

[Gatt]

CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"

Cool.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN

-c

[Yeff]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:44:34 -0700, Gatt wrote:

> CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>
> Cool.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN

Someone should knee-cap the producer of the segment...

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[Yeff]

On 14 Sep 2007 00:28:26 GMT, Clark wrote:

>>> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>>
>> Someone should knee-cap the producer of the segment...
>>
>
> Knee-cap the producer or neacp the producer?

Yes.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 4:44 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>
> Cool.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>
> -c

Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
is so surprising about that?

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 6:14?pm, wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:44 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>
> > CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>
> > Cool.
>
> >http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>
> > -c
>
> Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
> is so surprising about that?

I've always wondered how EMP-hardened these aircraft are in case of
outright nuclear exchanges and deliberate EMP air bursts. If not, they
will be falling out of the sky just like their F-15 escorts.

ZXY

[Steve Hix]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> On Sep 13, 4:44 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> > CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
> >
> > Cool.
> >
> > http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
> >
> > -c
>
> Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
> is so surprising about that?

Only surprising if you're a newsie. *Everything* surprises them.

[Dan Nafe]

In article om>,
wrote:

> On Sep 13, 6:14?pm, wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 4:44 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
> >
> > > CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
> >
> > > Cool.
> >
> > >http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
> >
> > > -c
> >
> > Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
> > is so surprising about that?
>
> I've always wondered how EMP-hardened these aircraft are in case of
> outright nuclear exchanges and deliberate EMP air bursts. If not, they
> will be falling out of the sky just like their F-15 escorts.
>
> ZXY
>

A B-747 can fly with no electricity. I had the opportunity to be aboard
a N-601BN in 1980 when it got hit by lightening over the North Atlantic
one night. We were with out electrical power for about 10 minutes.

Landed with a big black streak down the vertical stabilizer and without
the canooe-sized fairing...

[Peter Stickney]

Yeff wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:44:34 -0700, Gatt wrote:
>
>> CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>>
>> Cool.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>
> Someone should knee-cap the producer of the segment...

Would that someone be the Nigh****ch?
--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

"Dan Nafe" > wrote in message
...
> In article om>,
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 6:14?pm, wrote:
>> > On Sep 13, 4:44 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>> >
>> > > Cool.
>> >
>> > >http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>> >
>> > > -c
>> >
>> > Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
>> > is so surprising about that?
>>
>> I've always wondered how EMP-hardened these aircraft are in case of
>> outright nuclear exchanges and deliberate EMP air bursts. If not, they
>> will be falling out of the sky just like their F-15 escorts.
>>
>> ZXY
>>
>
> A B-747 can fly with no electricity. I had the opportunity to be aboard
> a N-601BN in 1980 when it got hit by lightening over the North Atlantic
> one night. We were with out electrical power for about 10 minutes.

Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in. The
first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.

My guess is that the cockpit and instruments always had electricity and that
most of the problem was the electrical system kicking off to protect itself.
Ten minutes sounds about right for the flight engineer to reset the system
to the point that cabin power could be restored.




>
> Landed with a big black streak down the vertical stabilizer and without
> the canooe-sized fairing...

[Dave S]

Leadfoot wrote:

>
> Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
> problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in. The
> first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.

Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
original EMP.

[Al Dykes]

In article >,
Dave S > wrote:
>Leadfoot wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
>> problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in. The
>> first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.
>
>Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
>non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
>your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
>original EMP.


The flyboys have been designing systems for EMP and testing them for
~40 years.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
...
> Leadfoot wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
>> problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in. The
>> first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.
>
> Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
> non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit your
> answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the original
> EMP.

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

>> A B-747 can fly with no electricity. I had the opportunity to be aboard
>> a N-601BN in 1980 when it got hit by lightening over the North Atlantic
>> one night. We were with out electrical power for about 10 minutes.
>
> Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
> problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in. The
> first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.
>
> My guess is that the cockpit and instruments always had electricity and
> that most of the problem was the electrical system kicking off to protect
> itself. Ten minutes sounds about right for the flight engineer to reset
> the system to the point that cabin power could be restored.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Landed with a big black streak down the vertical stabilizer and without
>> the canooe-sized fairing...
>


: Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
: non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
: your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
: original EMP.

What does your reply have to do with a civilian 747 suffering from
electrical problems resulting from a lightning strike?

As for the E-4B that plane is throroughly protected from EMP by design.

Use to work at the 747 factory as an avionics technician at one time in my
life.

Your snippage of the post I was replying to has been restored to restore the
intended meaning of my post.

[Dan[_2_]]

Dave S wrote:
> Leadfoot wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
>> problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in.
>> The first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.
>
> Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
> non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
> your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
> original EMP.

EMP is much less likely to affect a system that is not powered up.
Besides EMP hardening it seems to me keeping an essential buss back up
off line may be an idea.

In answer to aren't and his snide comment about F-15 escorts dropping
out of the sky; they have EMP hardening.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Denny]

>
> Only surprising if you're a newsie. *Everything* surprises them.

Ahh yes, the wonders of a BA in journalism, reporting on technology...

Blow dried, on-air, talent, stuffing microphone in your face:
"So, like, this doomsday plane didn't file a flightplan, right? And
in avoiding the plane with no flightplan the controllers accidentally
directed them into the Pentagon, right?"

You:
" Let me explain."

Blow dried, etc., etc. cutting you off in mid word:
"Thank you Mr. You... And there you have it. For CNN this is Vapor
Locks." <aside to his camera man: 'jeez dickhead, why didn't you tell
me that Britney was seen driving without her seatbelt. That's pulitzer
prize stuff. Lets go!!!!'

denny

[[email protected]]

I have always wished for some reporter to try to interview me like
that. The second they stick the microphone in my face, I will grab it
and look straight into the camera and say, "I have an official
statement to make on this matter" and promptly stick the microphone
down the back of my pants, fart loudly, pull the microphone out and
hand it back to the reporter, smile into the camera and wink one eye,
then turn around and walk away without saying a further word.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, (Al Dykes) wrote:

> In article >,
> Dave S > wrote:
> >Leadfoot wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
> >> problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in. The
> >> first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.
> >
> >Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
> >non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
> >your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
> >original EMP.
>
>
> The flyboys have been designing systems for EMP and testing them for
> ~40 years.

Ahem. Engineers design aircraft and aircraft systems.
By flyboys I impute that you mean pilots.
Some of them are engineers but most are not.

BTW, I thought we (RAM) established several months ago that
"flyboys" is a derogatory term?

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Gatt wrote:
>CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>
>Cool.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>
>-c

Seems to me no BFD...New York gets attacked and and E-4 launches so there is
some backup C&C in the D.C. area.

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 9:33 am, wrote:
> I have always wished for some reporter to try to interview me like
> that. The second they stick the microphone in my face, I will grab it
> and look straight into the camera and say, "I have an official
> statement to make on this matter" and promptly stick the microphone
> down the back of my pants, fart loudly, pull the microphone out and
> hand it back to the reporter, smile into the camera and wink one eye,
> then turn around and walk away without saying a further word.

Wow, you can really fart on command? At any time? That's talent!

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 10:57 am, wrote:
>
> Wow, you can really fart on command? At any time? That's talent!

Not really talent... I just eat a lot of tex-mex fast food.

[Morgans[_2_]]

> wrote
>
> Wow, you can really fart on command? At any time? That's talent!
>
No Doubt! ! !

I can belch on command, but not fart. I can prime for a belch, and leave it
in, and about 30 minutes later, it will usually emanate from lower climes,
but not in a predictable or commandable way!

Wow! My hero! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Sep 14, 10:55 am, wrote:
> On Sep 14, 10:57 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Wow, you can really fart on command? At any time? That's talent!
>
> Not really talent... I just eat a lot of tex-mex fast food.

Hey, you should really enjoy this video of a "drive by farting" on a
live TV newscaster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ouT1UKPiNg

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
> is so surprising about that?

It's surprising that the DoD doesn't admit it. What's the harm in doing so,
especially when it is so obviously that aircraft?

[Mxsmanic]

Dave S writes:

> Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
> non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
> your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
> original EMP.

A sufficiently large EMP will fry anything. The only questions are how large
the EMP can be or would be, and how large an EMP the protected facilities
could withstand. Ideally, the latter should be much larger than the former,
but I suspect it's the other way around.

The problem with EMP, though, is that it fries everything, not just your
enemy's stuff. Today, it's kind of hard to do anything with no electrical
equipment at all, even on your own side.

[Mxsmanic]

Al Dykes writes:

> The flyboys have been designing systems for EMP and testing them for
> ~40 years.

They've been doing the same for antimissile systems, but these systems still
don't provide adequate protection.

[Mxsmanic]

Leadfoot writes:

> What does your reply have to do with a civilian 747 suffering from
> electrical problems resulting from a lightning strike?

Lightning strikes produce EMPs.

> As for the E-4B that plane is throroughly protected from EMP by design.

Famous last words.

[Mxsmanic]

Dan writes:

> EMP is much less likely to affect a system that is not powered up.

Why? EMP can vaporize conductors whether they are energized or not.

[Dan[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Dan writes:
>
>> EMP is much less likely to affect a system that is not powered up.
>
> Why? EMP can vaporize conductors whether they are energized or not.

True, if sufficiently intense, but I was thinking of induced energy in a
closed circuit.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Al Dykes writes:
>
>> The flyboys have been designing systems for EMP and testing them for
>> ~40 years.
>
> They've been doing the same for antimissile systems, but these systems
> still don't provide adequate protection.
>

Like someone who doesn't even know how a wing works would know


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Leadfoot writes:
>
>> What does your reply have to do with a civilian 747 suffering from
>> electrical problems resulting from a lightning strike?
>
> Lightning strikes produce EMPs.
>
>> As for the E-4B that plane is throroughly protected from EMP by design.
>
> Famous last words.
>

They'll never be your last words because you will never fly one.

Ever


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dan writes:
>
>> EMP is much less likely to affect a system that is not powered up.
>
> Why? EMP can vaporize conductors whether they are energized or not.
>

So what, fjukktard

you have no idea how an airplane works, do you?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Dave S writes:
>
>> Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
>> non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
>> your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
>> original EMP.
>
> A sufficiently large EMP will fry anything.


Stand too close to a source, did you?

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
> Stand too close to a source, did you?

We should be so lucky! :-(
--
Jim in NC

[John Keeney]

On Sep 14, 8:47 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
> > is so surprising about that?
>
> It's surprising that the DoD doesn't admit it. What's the harm in doing so,
> especially when it is so obviously that aircraft?

General principles, never verify *ANYTHING* having to do with that
plane.

It does strike as a bit odd though, I would have thought SOP would
keep it a outside of the blast zone of a DC nuke attack. George ride
it back to DC instead of the VC-24 perhaps?

[Mxsmanic]

John Keeney writes:

> It does strike as a bit odd though, I would have thought SOP would
> keep it a outside of the blast zone of a DC nuke attack. George ride
> it back to DC instead of the VC-24 perhaps?

If the terrorists had had nukes, they wouldn't have bothered with flying
planes into buildings, so it was a safe bet that they didn't have them.

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Sep 14, 8:47 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
>> > is so surprising about that?
>>
>> It's surprising that the DoD doesn't admit it. What's the harm in doing
>> so,
>> especially when it is so obviously that aircraft?
>
> General principles, never verify *ANYTHING* having to do with that
> plane.
>
> It does strike as a bit odd though, I would have thought SOP would
> keep it a outside of the blast zone of a DC nuke attack. George ride
> it back to DC instead of the VC-24 perhaps?
>


The Boeing 747 VC-25 is basically an E-4B converted for presidential travel.
It has the same EMP protection as the E-4B however the communications are
as robust as an E-4B

[mike Z]

On Sep 13, 11:01 pm, Dave S > wrote:
> Leadfoot wrote:
>
> > Actually the 747 has numerous back-up power systems. When there is a
> > problem with electrical generation a load shedding system kicks in. The
> > first electrical buss to be shedded is the passenger cabins.
>
> Google EMP, or look it up in the WIKI, and understand what it does to
> non-protected electrical systems and generating systems then re-visit
> your answer. Back ups are no good if they all drop offline from the
> original EMP.

Already taken care of.

Picture of an E-4B being tested in an EMP generator (test facility).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E-4_advanced_airborne_command_post_EMP_sim.jpg

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

"Leadfoot" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Keeney" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Sep 14, 8:47 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>>> writes:
>>> > Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
>>> > is so surprising about that?
>>>
>>> It's surprising that the DoD doesn't admit it. What's the harm in doing
>>> so,
>>> especially when it is so obviously that aircraft?
>>
>> General principles, never verify *ANYTHING* having to do with that
>> plane.
>>
>> It does strike as a bit odd though, I would have thought SOP would
>> keep it a outside of the blast zone of a DC nuke attack. George ride
>> it back to DC instead of the VC-24 perhaps?
>>
>
>
> The Boeing 747 VC-25 is basically an E-4B converted for presidential
> travel. It has the same EMP protection as the E-4B however the
> communications are as robust as an E-4B

Correction

communications are NOT as robust as an E-4B



>

[Mxsmanic]

mike Z writes:

> Picture of an E-4B being tested in an EMP generator (test facility).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E-4_advanced_airborne_command_post_EMP_sim.jpg

Interesting. I see what looks like fuel being loaded into the aircraft. I
wonder if they tried testing the EMP while the fuel was being taken on.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> mike Z writes:

> > Picture of an E-4B being tested in an EMP generator (test facility).
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E-4_advanced_airborne_command_post_EMP_sim.jpg

> Interesting. I see what looks like fuel being loaded into the aircraft. I
> wonder if they tried testing the EMP while the fuel was being taken on.

747s aren't fueled by carrying 5 gal cans up the stairs.

If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> mike Z writes:
>
>> Picture of an E-4B being tested in an EMP generator (test facility).
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E-4_advanced_airborne_command_post_
>> EMP_sim.jpg
>
> Interesting. I see what looks like fuel being loaded into the
> aircraft. I wonder if they tried testing the EMP while the fuel was
> being taken on.
>


You're an idiot.

Bertie

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 21:45:02 GMT, wrote:


>
>747s aren't fueled by carrying 5 gal cans up the stairs.

Not a 747, but check this out:

The large communications company I work for has large P&W turbines &
multi-engine diesel power plants used for emergency power. They have
"day tanks" on the roofs of large buildings to feed the generators.
One of our buildings had the pump that transfers K1 kerosene, from the
8000 gallon tank under the parking lot to the 200 gallon "day tank" on
the 13 story high roof, wired to commercial power.

During the first genuine commercial power failure, there were people
carrying 5 gallon jugs up 12 1/2 stories of stairs to keep the
generators running. <G>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.

There's something green attached to the wing.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.

> There's something green attached to the wing.

Fuel trucks don't attach themselves to wings.

Are you talking about the building behind the airplane associated
with the wire antenna system?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.
>
> There's something green attached to the wing.
>

Mayb e it's the USB port


Bertie

[Dan[_2_]]

wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>>> If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.
>
>> There's something green attached to the wing.
>
> Fuel trucks don't attach themselves to wings.

Maybe not on 747, but they do on some airplanes.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> mike Z writes:
>
>> > Picture of an E-4B being tested in an EMP generator (test facility).
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E-4_advanced_airborne_command_post_EMP_sim.jpg
>
>> Interesting. I see what looks like fuel being loaded into the aircraft.
>> I
>> wonder if they tried testing the EMP while the fuel was being taken on.
>
> 747s aren't fueled by carrying 5 gal cans up the stairs.
>
> If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.

There would also be a small panel hanging down from the RH leading edge.
This give you access to the refueling panel At most airports you don't need
a big ass truck. The fuel lines run underground to where the aircraft is
parked at the terminal. A large pick up with a lift is used to run the fuel
line from the underground fuel head to the aircraft


In this case though there would be a big ass truck.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.
>
> There's something green attached to the wing.

Ground hydraulic units use green hoses

But I've never seen one hooked up near the wing tip on a 747. Usually you
use the hydrualic servicing panel in the gear wheel well.

[Dan[_2_]]

Leadfoot wrote:
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> writes:
>>
>>> If they were fueling, there would be a big ass truck next to the plane.
>>
>> There's something green attached to the wing.
>
> Ground hydraulic units use green hoses
>
I think the USAF uses green AC/heater hoses. I believe they replaced
the yellow ones 20 years ago.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Are you talking about the building behind the airplane associated
> with the wire antenna system?

I'm talking about the flexible green conduit that appears to be connected to
the wing near its tip.

[Mxsmanic]

Leadfoot writes:

> Ground hydraulic units use green hoses

Perhaps that is it, then.

> But I've never seen one hooked up near the wing tip on a 747. Usually you
> use the hydrualic servicing panel in the gear wheel well.

That's what I would expect, so it was puzzling.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Are you talking about the building behind the airplane associated
> > with the wire antenna system?

> I'm talking about the flexible green conduit that appears to be connected to
> the wing near its tip.

Real aircraft don't fuel from the wing tips.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Doug Semler]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>
>> > Are you talking about the building behind the airplane associated
>> > with the wire antenna system?
>
>> I'm talking about the flexible green conduit that appears to be connected
>> to
>> the wing near its tip.
>
> Real aircraft don't fuel from the wing tips.
>


IIRC the pressure refuel valves on a 747 are between the two engines towards
the leading edge of the wing, closer to the inboard engine than outboard (at
least that's what I can recall from memory of watching some show or another
about TWA 800)

Besides, if that was an AirForce shot, isn't there a mil spec 101c or some
such that states that a fuel line would be red (flamable hazmat) and not
green?

--
Doug Semler, MCPD
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
The answer is 42; DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, abbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Leadfoot writes:

> > Ground hydraulic units use green hoses

> Perhaps that is it, then.

> > But I've never seen one hooked up near the wing tip on a 747. Usually you
> > use the hydrualic servicing panel in the gear wheel well.

> That's what I would expect, so it was puzzling.

Since the airplane is sitting with engine covers on in the middle of
one of the EMP test stands at Kirtland AFB, it is most likely some
sort of instrumentation.

And, if you look closely, there another connection to the other wing
tip.

But whatever it is, it certainly isn't fueling.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Doug Semler > wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> writes:
> >
> >> > Are you talking about the building behind the airplane associated
> >> > with the wire antenna system?
> >
> >> I'm talking about the flexible green conduit that appears to be connected
> >> to
> >> the wing near its tip.
> >
> > Real aircraft don't fuel from the wing tips.
> >


> IIRC the pressure refuel valves on a 747 are between the two engines towards
> the leading edge of the wing, closer to the inboard engine than outboard (at
> least that's what I can recall from memory of watching some show or another
> about TWA 800)

> Besides, if that was an AirForce shot, isn't there a mil spec 101c or some
> such that states that a fuel line would be red (flamable hazmat) and not
> green?

The airplane is in an EMP test stand.

There is no reason in the world why the airplane would be fueled on
the test stand.

The test stands at Kirtland AFB are a ways from the runway, but not
that far.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[John Keeney]

On Sep 15, 10:51 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Are you talking about the building behind the airplane associated
> > with the wire antenna system?
>
> I'm talking about the flexible green conduit that appears to be connected to
> the wing near its tip.

Ah, I was wondering. Not sure what that is but definitly not for
adding fuel to the plane.

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Leadfoot writes:
>
>> > Ground hydraulic units use green hoses
>
>> Perhaps that is it, then.
>
>> > But I've never seen one hooked up near the wing tip on a 747. Usually
>> > you
>> > use the hydrualic servicing panel in the gear wheel well.
>
>> That's what I would expect, so it was puzzling.
>
> Since the airplane is sitting with engine covers on in the middle of
> one of the EMP test stands at Kirtland AFB, it is most likely some
> sort of instrumentation.

Instrumentation is orange not green


>
> And, if you look closely, there another connection to the other wing
> tip.
>
> But whatever it is, it certainly isn't fueling.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[J a c k]

B A R R Y wrote:

> During the first genuine commercial power failure, there were people
> carrying 5 gallon jugs up 12 1/2 stories of stairs to keep the
> generators running.


Once started, the generators couldn't run their own pumps?


Jack

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:30:38 -0500, J a c k >
wrote:

>B A R R Y wrote:
>
>> During the first genuine commercial power failure, there were people
>> carrying 5 gallon jugs up 12 1/2 stories of stairs to keep the
>> generators running.
>
>
>Once started, the generators couldn't run their own pumps?
>

They were accidentally wired to the commercial side of the transfer
switch. During tests, commercial power was never removed, so the
pumps worked. The first time the power actually failed long enough to
use up the day tank... <G>

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Real aircraft don't fuel from the wing tips.

Yes, that's what I thought. So what is it?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Richard Riley > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic > wrote in
:
>>
>>> mike Z writes:
>>>
>>>> Picture of an E-4B being tested in an EMP generator (test facility).
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:E-4_advanced_airborne_command_post_
>>>> EMP_sim.jpg
>>>
>>> Interesting. I see what looks like fuel being loaded into the
>>> aircraft. I wonder if they tried testing the EMP while the fuel was
>>> being taken on.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You're an idiot.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> That's unfair to idiots.
>


I know, I'd call him a tit, but I like tits.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Real aircraft don't fuel from the wing tips.
>
> Yes, that's what I thought. So what is it?
>

Told you, it's the USB port


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Leadfoot writes:
>
>> Ground hydraulic units use green hoses
>
> Perhaps that is it, then.
>
>> But I've never seen one hooked up near the wing tip on a 747.
>> Usually you use the hydrualic servicing panel in the gear wheel well.
>
> That's what I would expect,



No it isn't. you don't know anything about airplanes.


so it was puzzling.


You find your own navel puzzling, so what's new there?


Bertie
>

[JasiekS]

Uzytkownik "John Keeney" > napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...

> > I'm talking about the flexible green conduit that appears to be
connected to
> > the wing near its tip.

> Ah, I was wondering. Not sure what that is but definitly not for
> adding fuel to the plane.

It could be grounding or connection of all the transducers packed into
the fuselage. Do you think that scientist will stay away and wait until
airframe vapourised?

--
JasiekS
Warsaw, Poland

[Leadfoot[_2_]]

"KENG" > wrote in message
...
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Real aircraft don't fuel from the wing tips.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that's what I thought. So what is it?
> Earth Ground maybe.

Earth ground wires dor aircraft would be barely visible in that picture.
I'm guessing but maybe 12 gauge wire?


>
> KenG

[Dan[_2_]]

Leadfoot wrote:
>
> "KENG" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Real aircraft don't fuel from the wing tips.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that's what I thought. So what is it?
>> Earth Ground maybe.
>
> Earth ground wires dor aircraft would be barely visible in that picture.
> I'm guessing but maybe 12 gauge wire?
>
>
>>
>> KenG
>
Around that if memory serves. Also, they have yellow insulation.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-09-13 18:53:12 -0700, said:

> On Sep 13, 6:14?pm, wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 4:44 pm, "Gatt" > wrote:
>>
>>> CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>>
>>> Cool.
>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>>
>>> -c
>>
>> Seems pretty clear that it was an E4 called on alert by NORAD. What
>> is so surprising about that?
>
> I've always wondered how EMP-hardened these aircraft are in case of
> outright nuclear exchanges and deliberate EMP air bursts. If not, they
> will be falling out of the sky just like their F-15 escorts.
>
> ZXY

One would expect that the E-4 is TEMPEST hardened.

It is not true, BTW, that an EMP will knock out all electronic
circuitry. One reason the Soviets held on to vacuum tube technology for
so long was that it was more resistant to EMP attacks. There are better
methods available now, however. In any event, "Goldeneye" is Hollywood
fiction. In the event of an actual attack, any self-respecting Russian
interceptor is going to keep flying.

For a look at the unclassified things that can be done to protect
against EMP, see this link:

http://jya.com/emp.htm

Of course, that is just the unclassified stuff. I would not be so quick
to write off the F-15 escorts, either.

There is no reason you could not protect your home and computers
against EMP using the data in the link. Heck, you can buy TEMPEST
hardened laptop computers. You never know when you might need them. :-)
(Seriously, most of the TEMPEST stuff available for sale to the public
is hardened at a somewhat lower level than what you would expect in an
E-4. The lowest level of TEMPEST protects against someone reading your
keystrokes on your machine and stuff like that, not EMP.)

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-09-14 08:33:20 -0700, said:

> I have always wished for some reporter to try to interview me like
> that. The second they stick the microphone in my face, I will grab it
> and look straight into the camera and say, "I have an official
> statement to make on this matter" and promptly stick the microphone
> down the back of my pants, fart loudly, pull the microphone out and
> hand it back to the reporter, smile into the camera and wink one eye,
> then turn around and walk away without saying a further word.

Having had more opportunity to talk to reporters than I care to
remember, all I can say is that even though they say it is "live," it
isn't. Your protest would go completely unnoticed by anyone.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Mxsmanic]

C J Campbell writes:

> There is no reason you could not protect your home and computers
> against EMP using the data in the link. Heck, you can buy TEMPEST
> hardened laptop computers.

TEMPEST and EMP protection are not synonymous.

[Bob Matthews]

Yeff wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:44:34 -0700, Gatt wrote:
>
>> CNN article on "The Doomsday Plane"
>>
>> Cool.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/09/12/king.mystery.plane.CNN
>
> Someone should knee-cap the producer of the segment...

Why don't you do it? Stance too wide?

==bob
>