|
| 1. | Date Posted: 2013-09-29 03:33:00. Subject: GALiRe Testarea Name: jetwhiz Message: http://www.google.com http://www.google.com ~JetWhiz Sunday, September 29, 2013 -- 3:33:36 AM PDT |
| 2. | Date Posted: 2012-02-03 18:53:32. Subject: Top 10 deadliest air crash Name: jetwhiz Message: I just wasted the past 6 hours trapped in a web of Wikipedia links after looking this up. But I do agree, they definitely left this off the list (i'm thinking it should be top 5). ~JetWhiz Friday, February 03, 2012 -- 6:53:32 PM PDT |
| 3. | Date Posted: 2010-11-16 13:19:11. Subject: Information about standard aircraft lights at nigh Name: jetwhiz Message: Welcome, Nesh! This resource can describe it better than I could in only words -- Aerospaceweb.org -> Aircraft Lights & Beacons The key points is that there are typically white, red and green lights. They normally do not need to be located in specific locations, but some must be visible from certain perspectives. For instance, for navigation lights a red light must be visible on the left side of the aircraft and a green light must be visible on the right side. The only requirement specified by the FAA is that they must be "spaced laterally as far apart as practicable" -- typically this means near the wingtips. ~JetWhiz Tuesday, November 16, 2010 -- 1:19:11 PM PDT |
| 4. | Date Posted: 2010-08-21 11:52:43. Subject: Are all soviet planes copies of american planes? Name: jetwhiz Message: Yeah there are a lot of similarities ... the Americans and Russians went back and forth designing aircraft in response to each other during the cold war era. For instance, when the Russians designed the MiG-25, the Americans designed the F-15 Eagle in response to that. The Russians then designed the MiG-29 and Su-27 in response to the F-15 and F-16. Also, don't forget the Tu-144 and the Concorde (British/French), the Tu-160 and the B-1, the Buran and the Space Shuttle ... ~JetWhiz Saturday, August 21, 2010 -- 11:52:43 AM PDT |
| 5. | Date Posted: 2010-01-09 00:38:59. Subject: Picture for contest Name: jetwhiz Message: That sounds great, can you e-mail it to me along with the answer? I'll put it up for the contest next week ~JetWhiz Saturday, January 09, 2010 -- 12:38:59 AM PDT |
| 6. | Date Posted: 2009-12-09 00:04:53. Subject: Update for the picture of the week??? Name: jetwhiz Message: I was starting to get that feeling ... it's been 3 weeks and still no one has answered it correctly yet. I'll raise the pot to 60 and change it this weekend if no one gets it still. ~JetWhiz Wednesday, December 09, 2009 -- 12:04:53 AM PDT |
| 7. | Date Posted: 2009-11-15 21:01:07. Subject: Update for the picture of the week??? Name: jetwhiz Message: I think I've been making them too easy ... should I start doing tighter closeups to make it more difficult? ~JetWhiz Sunday, November 15, 2009 -- 9:01:07 PM PDT |
| 8. | Date Posted: 2009-10-11 22:11:09. Subject: Update for the picture of the week??? Name: jetwhiz Message: I didn't actually change anything in my last message. In order to implement the new contest administration area I decided to completely re-do the membership permissions and I had to test out everything on the site to make sure I didn't break anything. Everything should be in place now, though. The new contest should be up for this week, and the contests should be a lot easier to maintain now. If you notice any problems anywhere on the site please let me know ASAP. Volunteers should still be able to moderate the forum and make modifications to the website directly. ~JetWhiz Sunday, October 11, 2009 -- 10:11:09 PM PDT |
| 9. | Date Posted: 2009-10-07 21:27:56. Subject: Update for the picture of the week??? Name: jetwhiz Message: Firstsgt_cap wrote: That pic has been up for months now, any chance we could get an answer and a new pic Jetwhiz? You're not kidding ... that thing has been up for more than half a year. I'll automate the process more tomorrow afternoon to make it easier to maintain and update it then. ~JetWhiz Sunday, October 11, 2009 -- 12:47:08 AM PDT |
| 10. | Date Posted: 2009-10-03 14:20:57. Subject: The Y in YF-22 Name: jetwhiz Message: Firstsgt_cap wrote: The X- designation can mean a number of things, it generally stands for experimental, however an aircraft with the X- designation can still become a production aircraft without officially having a YF-, YB-, etc designation. Very true, there are no requirements to have official aircraft status designations start at X and then Y before going to production; there were no official XF-22 aircraft released before the prototype was shown to the USAF. There are two different meanings to 'X' in an aircraft designation:
The X-35 has a basic mission of experimental (not fighter) ... it was an experimental aircraft (not a fighter with experimental status). If it were a fighter with experimental status then it would have been the XF-35. In that sense, there were no XF-35 and YF-35 aircraft made -- just a fully experimental aircraft that led to a production aircraft. ~JetWhiz Saturday, October 03, 2009 -- 3:56:01 PM PDT |
|
|
[ Submit A Site | Legal Notice | Privacy Policy ]