F/A-22 flyover during Rose Bowl

[Chad Irby]

There's going to be a flyover of an F/A-22 during the Rose Bowl game on
January 1, along with an F-117 and a B-2.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Andrew Chaplin]

Chad Irby wrote:
>
> There's going to be a flyover of an F/A-22 during the Rose Bowl game on
> January 1, along with an F-117 and a B-2.

Does anyone know at what time they are to occur?
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Chris]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
...
> Chad Irby wrote:
> >
> > There's going to be a flyover of an F/A-22 during the Rose Bowl game on
> > January 1, along with an F-117 and a B-2.
>
> Does anyone know at what time they are to occur?
> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step out
for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able to
save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris

[Tex Houston]

"Chris" > wrote in message
...
> The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step out
> for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able to
> save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris
>
The original message was in error. The flyover was to have been, and was,
during the Rose Parade.

Tex

[Chris]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step
out
> > for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able
to
> > save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris
> >
> The original message was in error. The flyover was to have been, and was,
> during the Rose Parade.
>
> Tex
>
>
>
Thanks Tex, saw that just now, with a flyby before the game. Did find this
photo:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040101/photos_ts/mdf437756
Regards, Chris

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:01:18 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:

>
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Chad Irby wrote:
> > >
> > > There's going to be a flyover of an F/A-22 during the Rose Bowl game on
> > > January 1, along with an F-117 and a B-2.
> >
> > Does anyone know at what time they are to occur?
>
> The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step out
> for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able to
> save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris

Not that it matters now, except for the recording, but the fly-over
was of the Rose Parade, right at the beginning. There was another
fly-over, by two Army or Marine helicopters, later in the parade, as
well. I didn't see any fly-over of the game itself and I was
watching.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Michael]

Mary Shafer > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:01:18 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's going to be a flyover of an F/A-22 during the Rose Bowl game on
> > > > January 1, along with an F-117 and a B-2.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know at what time they are to occur?
> >
> > The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step out
> > for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able to
> > save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris
>
> Not that it matters now, except for the recording, but the fly-over
> was of the Rose Parade, right at the beginning. There was another
> fly-over, by two Army or Marine helicopters, later in the parade, as
> well. I didn't see any fly-over of the game itself and I was
> watching.
>
> Mary

NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.

How many F/A 22's are there currently? Is it still set to become
operational in late 2005 or is it a gradual induction into the
inventory / operations?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tex Houston" > wrote:

> "Chris" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step out
> > for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able to
> > save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris
> >
> The original message was in error. The flyover was to have been, and was,
> during the Rose Parade.

Except that they *did* show the planes flying over during the pregame
show.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Mary Shafer]

On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:

> NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
> very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
> see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.

The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.

I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact, that
we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we chased
it with.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:

> In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
> > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
> > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
> > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact, that
> > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we chased
> > it with.
>
> Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?

No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
enough for the regular system to take over. I think there was also a
range safety package that would destroy the HiMAT if necessary, but I
think it was only in the control room and not in the chase plane. I'd
have to check on that, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 21:01:18 -0800, "Chris" > wrote:
>
> >
> > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Chad Irby wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There's going to be a flyover of an F/A-22 during the Rose Bowl game
on
> > > > January 1, along with an F-117 and a B-2.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know at what time they are to occur?
> >
> > The half time show was the only thing that I wanted to see. Did I step
out
> > for the one minute that they showed the flyby? I hope someone was able
to
> > save the vid, if there was anything to save. Regards, Chris
>
> Not that it matters now, except for the recording, but the fly-over
> was of the Rose Parade, right at the beginning. There was another
> fly-over, by two Army or Marine helicopters, later in the parade, as
> well. I didn't see any fly-over of the game itself and I was
> watching.

So then, is USC #1?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
>
> > NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
> > very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
> > see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.
>
> The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
> It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
> 50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.
>
> I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
> Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
> escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.

No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
> >
> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact, that
> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we chased
> > > it with.
> >
> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
>
> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
> enough for the regular system to take over.

Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight. NASA's data link was crap
and the HiMAT was designed to immediately pitch down, for data loss.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
>> >
>> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
>> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
>> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
>> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact, that
>> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we chased
>> > > it with.
>> >
>> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
>>
>> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
>> enough for the regular system to take over.
>
>Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html


Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
26.


http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactSheets/FS-025-DFRC.html

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
>>
>> > NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
>> > very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
>> > see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.
>>
>> The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
>> It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
>> 50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.
>>
>> I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
>> Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
>> escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
>> Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.
>
>No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
>demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.
>


Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
rate.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
> >>
> >> > NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
> >> > very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
> >> > see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.
> >>
> >> The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
> >> It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
> >> 50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.
> >>
> >> I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
> >> Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
> >> escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> >> Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.
> >
> >No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
> >demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.

> Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
> rate.

The first aircraft crashed 26 times. The second aircraft is in such good
condition because NASA was spending more on cotton than flying the HiMAT.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
> >> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
Mach)
> >> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> >> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact,
that
> >> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
chased
> >> > > it with.
> >> >
> >> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
> >>
> >> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
> >> enough for the regular system to take over.
> >
> >Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.
>
>
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html
>
>
> Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
> 26.

The last time you checked the F-22 was doing fine, Ferrin.

The HiMAT was so unrelable that they killed the program.

[B2431]

>From: Scott Ferrin
>Date: 1/3/2004 5:13 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
>>>
>>> > NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
>>> > very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
>>> > see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.
>>>
>>> The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
>>> It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
>>> 50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.
>>>
>>> I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
>>> Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
>>> escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
>>> Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.
>>
>>No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
>>demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.
>>
>
>
>Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
>rate.
>
According to NASA the only 2 HiMATs made are on display in the Smithsonian.

According to tarver's 100% crash theory the 2 HiMATs would have averaged 13
"crashes" each.

If that were the case the things must have been rebuilt 13 times each. I know
of no major aircraft that rebuilt that many times.

It seems to me they would have gotten the hint after the second crash.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:31:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
>> >> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
>Mach)
>> >> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
>> >> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact,
>that
>> >> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
>chased
>> >> > > it with.
>> >> >
>> >> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
>> >>
>> >> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
>> >> enough for the regular system to take over.
>> >
>> >Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.
>>
>>
>> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html
>>
>>
>> Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
>> 26.
>
>The last time you checked the F-22 was doing fine, Ferrin.

The last itme I checked the F-22 still doesn't have strakes. You
going to put up or shut your pie hole?

[Scott Ferrin]

On 04 Jan 2004 01:06:54 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: Scott Ferrin
>>Date: 1/3/2004 5:13 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
>>>> > very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
>>>> > see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.
>>>>
>>>> The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
>>>> It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
>>>> 50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.
>>>>
>>>> I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
>>>> Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
>>>> escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
>>>> Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.
>>>
>>>No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
>>>demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
>>rate.
>>
>According to NASA the only 2 HiMATs made are on display in the Smithsonian.
>
>According to tarver's 100% crash theory the 2 HiMATs would have averaged 13
>"crashes" each.
>
>If that were the case the things must have been rebuilt 13 times each. I know
>of no major aircraft that rebuilt that many times.
>
>It seems to me they would have gotten the hint after the second crash.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired



It's even better. Tarver claims the first one crashed 26 times and
the other one never flew.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:31:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo >
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly
Maneuverable
> >> >> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
> >Mach)
> >> >> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> >> >> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in
fact,
> >that
> >> >> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
> >chased
> >> >> > > it with.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
> >> >>
> >> >> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
> >> >> enough for the regular system to take over.
> >> >
> >> >Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
> >> 26.
> >
> >The last time you checked the F-22 was doing fine, Ferrin.
>
> The last itme I checked the F-22 still doesn't have strakes. You
> going to put up or shut your pie hole?

Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.

NASA's little toy was a dud.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.

And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
them.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 16:31:22 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo >
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > In article >,
> >> >> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly
Maneuverable
> >> >> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
> >Mach)
> >> >> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> >> >> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in
fact,
> >that
> >> >> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
> >chased
> >> >> > > it with.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
> >> >>
> >> >> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
> >> >> enough for the regular system to take over.
> >> >
> >> >Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Two aircraft made 26 flights. Last time I checked 2 does not equal
> >> 26.
> >
> >The last time you checked the F-22 was doing fine, Ferrin.
>
> The last itme I checked the F-22 still doesn't have strakes. You
> going to put up or shut your pie hole?

Asking a proven and repetitive liar to prove his lie is not likely to get
you anywhere fast, Scott. We all know if the Tarvernaut's claim was correct
he should be able to post a link to a photo of one of these mythical
beasties--but he won't, because he can't. He'll just run his mouth, generate
a few more lies, then astonishingly claim victory with his trademark and
juvenile, "Thanks for playing", and be off to his next set of lies. The
F-22-with-strakes will join the rest of the Tarvernaut's growing pile of
noxious and odious past Tarverisms, such as his
recoilless-howitzer-on-the-AC-130, his "optical nuke", his F-106's carrying
AIM-7's and AIM-9's, his pitot tube nonsense, his unique analysis of Civil
War naval history that "proves" the Confederate Navy was blockading the
Union, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Of course, then again he might just get
really nasty and threaten to sick his personal US-Senator-cum-attack-dawg on
you, or even allude to personal threats...but in the end he is just a sad
little cretin craving attention in any form he can get it, not unlike the
child who throws a tantrum just to get noticed. Just killfile the pitiful
creature--as another poster mentioned to me, that single act can bring you
significant peace of mind...and the fact that you are at the same time
denying him what he really wants (an audience) is just icing on the cake.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> > Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.
>
> And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
> them.

That would be illegal.

Perhaps I'll post up the FY05 budget later this year. :)

[fudog50]

What in the heck does an F-104 and HiMAT have to do with the Rose Bowl
and the flyover?? for cryin out loud, you need to change your name to
"Tangent Engineering" there Tarver guy!!

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:39:57 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>
>> > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
>> > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
>> > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
>> > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact, that
>> > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we chased
>> > it with.
>>
>> Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
>
>No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
>enough for the regular system to take over. I think there was also a
>range safety package that would destroy the HiMAT if necessary, but I
>think it was only in the control room and not in the chase plane. I'd
>have to check on that, though.
>
>Mary

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 1/3/2004 8:22 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
>> Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.
>
>And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
>them.
>

And pigs will fly. He's tarver, his word is more reliable than any evidence.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:49:53 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
>> In article >,
>> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>>
>> > Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.
>>
>> And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
>> them.
>
>That would be illegal.



Yeah that explains why so many people have taken pictures of them at
airshows. Loser. Why don't you tell me which one has strakes on it?
You don't even need to post a picture. I'll find one and post it and
show you that it doesn't. Hell, I'll bet I don't even go to jail.

[Scott Ferrin]

>NASA's little toy was a dud.




Evidence. Give us some evidence or do us all a favor and shut your
hole.

[John Keeney]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly
Maneuverable
> > >> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
> Mach)
> > >> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> > >> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact,
> that
> > >> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
> chased
> > >> > > it with.
> > >> >
> > >> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
> > >>
> > >> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
> > >> enough for the regular system to take over.
> > >
> > >Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.
> >
> >
> > http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html

Specifically:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/HTML/EC79-12055.html
which shows the "HiMAT on lakebed after landing."
Since HMAT isn't attached to the B-52 and the scoot marks across the lake
bed
behind it lead directly to the landing gear we can safely say it didn't
"lawn dart"
on at least one flight.

[Scott Ferrin]

>Asking a proven and repetitive liar to prove his lie is not likely to get
>you anywhere fast, Scott.

Yeah, I know. I get a kick out of the stupid **** he says though.
I've come to the conclusion that he's just a troll (and not even a
good one at that) but I just can't help myself when he begs to be
kicked. Maybe he's a masochist.




> We all know if the Tarvernaut's claim was correct
>he should be able to post a link to a photo of one of these mythical
>beasties--but he won't, because he can't. He'll just run his mouth, generate
>a few more lies, then astonishingly claim victory with his trademark and
>juvenile, "Thanks for playing", and be off to his next set of lies. The
>F-22-with-strakes will join the rest of the Tarvernaut's growing pile of
>noxious and odious past Tarverisms, such as his
>recoilless-howitzer-on-the-AC-130, his "optical nuke", his F-106's carrying
>AIM-7's and AIM-9's, his pitot tube nonsense, his unique analysis of Civil
>War naval history that "proves" the Confederate Navy was blockading the
>Union, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Of course, then again he might just get
>really nasty and threaten to sick his personal US-Senator-cum-attack-dawg on
>you, or even allude to personal threats...but in the end he is just a sad
>little cretin craving attention in any form he can get it, not unlike the
>child who throws a tantrum just to get noticed. Just killfile the pitiful
>creature--as another poster mentioned to me, that single act can bring you
>significant peace of mind...and the fact that you are at the same time
>denying him what he really wants (an audience) is just icing on the cake.
>
>Brooks
>

[Chad Irby]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
> >
> > > Get a clue, Ferrin, some of those 19 different F-22s do have strakes.
> >
> > And some year now, Tarver's going to find us an actual photo of one of
> > them.
>
> That would be illegal.

Well, you'd better go arrest the TV networks, since they showed those
videos of one flying around on January 1. No strakes, by the way.

And out of the *hundreds* of photos of the F-22 that have been posted
and published in the last couple of years, it's really funny that *none*
of them have strakes.

And the only person on the planet who seems to claim that they *do* have
them is, well, one lunatic.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[B2431]

>From: "John Keeney"
>Date: 1/3/2004 10:47 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 09:57:26 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 16:27:31 -0800, Hobo > wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> > In article >,
>> > >> > Mary Shafer > wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly
>Maneuverable
>> > >> > > Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9
>> Mach)
>> > >> > > escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
>> > >> > > Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close. So much so, in fact,
>> that
>> > >> > > we put a backup control into the back seat of an F-104 that we
>> chased
>> > >> > > it with.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Was the F-104 equipped to shoot down the HIMAT, if necessary?
>> > >>
>> > >> No. It was prepared to control it well enough to get it back close
>> > >> enough for the regular system to take over.
>> > >
>> > >Bull****, the HiMAT lawn darted on every flight.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/index.html
>
>Specifically:
>http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/HTML/EC79-12055.html
>which shows the "HiMAT on lakebed after landing."
>Since HMAT isn't attached to the B-52 and the scoot marks across the lake
>bed
>behind it lead directly to the landing gear we can safely say it didn't
>"lawn dart"
>on at least one flight.
>

There you go ruining a perfectly good tarversim with facts. Have you no shame?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Keeney" > wrote in message
...

> Specifically:
> http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/HiMAT/HTML/EC79-12055.html
> which shows the "HiMAT on lakebed after landing."
> Since HMAT isn't attached to the B-52 and the scoot marks across the lake
bed
> behind it lead directly to the landing gear we can safely say it didn't
"lawn dart"
> on at least one flight.

One in thirteen is pretty a poor record, especially when at that point there
is no fix.

Did you know that if your RC toy cuts through a row of cotton, you have to
buy the entire row? Nowhere near the San Gabrial Mountains though. :)
Speaking of debrit fields over populated areas, perhaps the Shuttle will
come back to Eddie's.

[F-117A Webmaster]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> So then, is USC #1?

Yes Tarver, they are.

The formation flew once down Colorado when the USAF Band rounded the
TV corner, did a turn and then came back. They had been circling for
at least 45 min prior north of the mountains.

The Helo flyover was the La County "Firehawk" and 2 of their Hueys
when the fire fighters float ended the parade.

The stealth formation also went over the Rose Bowl at the end of the
national anthem. The USAF Academy Wings of Blue parachuted in prior
with the game ball and the coin for the flip. Gen Tommy Franks (ret)
flipped the coin with composer John Williams.

Kevin
F-117A: The Black Jet
www.f-117a.com

[Mark and Kim Smith]

F-117A Webmaster wrote:

>"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>So then, is USC #1?
>>
>>
>
>Yes Tarver, they are.
>
>The formation flew once down Colorado when the USAF Band rounded the
>TV corner, did a turn and then came back. They had been circling for
>at least 45 min prior north of the mountains.
>
>The Helo flyover was the La County "Firehawk" and 2 of their Hueys
>when the fire fighters float ended the parade.
>
>The stealth formation also went over the Rose Bowl at the end of the
>national anthem. The USAF Academy Wings of Blue parachuted in prior
>with the game ball and the coin for the flip. Gen Tommy Franks (ret)
>flipped the coin with composer John Williams.
>
>Kevin
>F-117A: The Black Jet
>www.f-117a.com
>

Where were the ships temporarily based at for this flyover?

[Chris]

"F-117A Webmaster" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > So then, is USC #1?
>
> Yes Tarver, they are.
>
> The formation flew once down Colorado when the USAF Band rounded the
> TV corner, did a turn and then came back. They had been circling for
> at least 45 min prior north of the mountains.
>
> The Helo flyover was the La County "Firehawk" and 2 of their Hueys
> when the fire fighters float ended the parade.
>
> The stealth formation also went over the Rose Bowl at the end of the
> national anthem. The USAF Academy Wings of Blue parachuted in prior
> with the game ball and the coin for the flip. Gen Tommy Franks (ret)
> flipped the coin with composer John Williams.
>
> Kevin
> F-117A: The Black Jet
> www.f-117a.com

Dang it, I missed it.

[Tarver Engineering]

"F-117A Webmaster" > wrote in message
om...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
>...
> > So then, is USC #1?
>
> Yes Tarver, they are.
>
> The formation flew once down Colorado when the USAF Band rounded the
> TV corner, did a turn and then came back. They had been circling for
> at least 45 min prior north of the mountains.
>
> The Helo flyover was the La County "Firehawk" and 2 of their Hueys
> when the fire fighters float ended the parade.
>
> The stealth formation also went over the Rose Bowl at the end of the
> national anthem. The USAF Academy Wings of Blue parachuted in prior
> with the game ball and the coin for the flip. Gen Tommy Franks (ret)
> flipped the coin with composer John Williams.

UCLA however is whining.

Go dogs.

[Tarver Engineering]

"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
> What in the heck does an F-104 and HiMAT have to do with the Rose Bowl
> and the flyover?? for cryin out loud, you need to change your name to

I like Mary and she can change the subjet to anyting she wants to, anytime
she wants to. A net contributer to the newsgroup.

[Tarver Engineering]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: Scott Ferrin
> >Date: 1/3/2004 5:13 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 08:03:55 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On 2 Jan 2004 06:46:15 -0800, (Michael) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > NBC's coverage of the parade had some tight shots of the formation -
> >>> > very pretty. As the plane is not operational, I was surprised to
> >>> > see it in something as trivial (sorry) as a parade flyby.
> >>>
> >>> The F-22 lives just over the San Gabriels, though, no distance at all.
> >>> It's not as if it came from somewhere far away. EDW is probably only
> >>> 50 miles from Pasadena, maybe less, by air.
> >>>
> >>> I know that we always worried about the HiMAT (Highly Maneuverable
> >>> Aircraft Technology, a subscale research vehicle capable of 0.9 Mach)
> >>> escaping from remote-piloting control and zipping over the San
> >>> Gabriels to Pasadena because it's so close.
> >>
> >>No, that would be because NASA built a crappy data link to the HiMAT; as
> >>demonstrated by it's 100% crash rate.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
> >rate.
> >
> According to NASA the only 2 HiMATs made are on display in the
Smithsonian.

Pretty much irrelevent, Dan.

The HiMAT is a nice little bee, if one were to want to make a swarm of bees.
The problem with the vehicle was electrical (data link) and that is what has
robbed NASA of many successes even to today.

Remember, the Shuttle crash investigation board made a specific finding that
NASA's problems were partly tracable to their "failure to attract and retain
EEs". What I am writing is no surprise to anyone familiar with timely
information.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"fudog50" > wrote in message
...
>> What in the heck does an F-104 and HiMAT have to do with the Rose Bowl
>> and the flyover?? for cryin out loud, you need to change your name to
>
>I like Mary and she can change the subjet to anyting she wants to, anytime
>she wants to. A net contributer to the newsgroup.
>
Possibly true...unless you want to discuss 'Pilot Error' (she
thinks that there's no such thing)
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"fudog50" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> What in the heck does an F-104 and HiMAT have to do with the Rose Bowl
> >> and the flyover?? for cryin out loud, you need to change your name to

> >I like Mary and she can change the subjet to anyting she wants to,
anytime
> >she wants to. A net contributer to the newsgroup.

> Possibly true...unless you want to discuss 'Pilot Error' (she
> thinks that there's no such thing)

I do not claim that Mary is accurate, or even honest, just interesting.

[Jeb Hoge]

(B2431) wrote in message >...
> >From: Scott Ferrin
> >Date: 1/3/2004 5:13 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >

> >Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
> >rate.
> >
> According to NASA the only 2 HiMATs made are on display in the Smithsonian.
>
> According to tarver's 100% crash theory the 2 HiMATs would have averaged 13
> "crashes" each.

Well, HiMAT did land on skids, and maybe Tarver's definition of
"landing" only involves tires. It was a wicked-looking little thing,
though.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jeb Hoge" > wrote in message
om...
> (B2431) wrote in message
>...
> > >From: Scott Ferrin
> > >Date: 1/3/2004 5:13 PM Central Standard Time
> > >Message-id: >
>
> > >Explain to us how two aircraft making 26 flights equals a 100% crash
> > >rate.
> > >
> > According to NASA the only 2 HiMATs made are on display in the
Smithsonian.
> >
> > According to tarver's 100% crash theory the 2 HiMATs would have averaged
13
> > "crashes" each.
>
> Well, HiMAT did land on skids, and maybe Tarver's definition of
> "landing" only involves tires. It was a wicked-looking little thing,
> though.

HiMAT also flew on the West Side of the SJV, so the San Gabrials were not at
risk. HiMAT is a nice little to, aerodynamically, but electrically, it was
a dud. What the shuttle crash investigation boads says is true, as many of
NASA's problems are directly tracable to the "inability to attract and
retain EEs".