sacex250

Not to mention the fact that Reno IS an airshow. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Well good thing for us, and them, that you've already taken the time to consider the homophobic attitudes of our heterosexual service personnel so that their precious feelings won't be hurt when they're told that threats, intimidation, assault, and discrimination aren't acceptable behavior. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

How about this one? Tilt-Rotor on the Cheap It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Just a question - Is it the claim that the neutrinos exceeded the vacuum speed of light, c? Or did they exceed the speed of light through air or some other medium that would have slowed "light" but would have had no effect on the speed of the neutrinos? I would think that the "precise" measurement of the distance between emitter and detector would have had to have used some process that involved radio or other "photon-based" devices, including GPS, etc. How about local gravitational fields that might have more interaction with light than it does with neutrinos? My point is that there are a lot of things to take into consideration, given the 730 km distance. Any mistake or omission in the distance measurement could account for the "observed" speed. This experiment definitely needs to be reproduced by an independent team at a different location. Yes, the claim is that the neutrinos are faster than the vacuum speed of light. There are already particles that are faster than light when light is slowed down by a medium. I don't think they were having a race at the time. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

1) I don't see how he was a red-flag flapping in the wind. All he did was use his mom's debit card without her permission. 2) Why does the officer have a lawyer to make press statements for him? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

A Neutrino sounds like it might be manufactured by Fiat. "My Neutrino goes faster than the speed of light," has a nice ring to it! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

If Davis did kill the Officer then he must've thought that the Officer deserved to die; so, by your logic, Davis killing the Officer was the right thing to do. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

^^^Speaking of assumptions^^^ It's pretty much a universal fact that once a pilot G-LOCs his hand will fall off the stick and the airplane will then try to return to its trimmed 1G airspeed. If it's flying faster than its trimmed airspeed it will nose-up, if it's flying slower than its trimmed airspeed it will nose-down relative to the airplane's attitude. When an airplane is in a steeply banked turn, it requires a higher G-loading to maintain altitude, if the pilot releases the back pressure on the stick at low altitude then the airplane is going to go into the ground. Again, ignoring the broken trim tab, if Leeward G-LOC'd for any reason while in a steeply banked turn, the aircraft would immediately ease up the G-forces on its own widening the radius of the turn and the aircraft would have descended into the ground long before it would've ever reached the crowd, if it was still steeply banked. If the aircraft had managed to get wings level before the pilot G-LOC'd then the airplane would have simply returned to 1G flight and since it was at high power it would've started to speed up out of the turn and the aircraft would have started a shallow climb to try and maintain its trimmed airspeed. The problem here is that there's a missing trim tab which accounts for the airplane's violent and sustained nose-up pitch until it crashed. Had Leeward caused a violent pitch-up from a broken seat back, the pressure on the trim tab (lowered angle-of-attack) would have been reduced by the elevator's up movement and the increased angle-of-attack of the horizontal stabilizer causing less aerodynamic stress on the trim tab, not more. And, the trim tab would be a part of the airplane least affected by G-force because it actually produces many times its own weight in lift. It far more likely that the trim tab separated from the airplane while it was in a steeply banked turn causing the aircraft to violently pitch nose-up (tightening the turn) towards the inside of the course. Leeward was probably just able to start leveling the wings before he G-LOC'd which started the steep climb. The aircraft then continued to roll to the right from either the weight of some part of the pilot on the stick or the G-loading on the stick itself. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Perhaps you should take your complaint to the good people at www.chutingstar.com. chute It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

It's not a likely theory at all. Even if the seat back had broken, it wouldn't have caused this type of crash. Broken seat backs and unlocked seats usually happen on takeoff in which the pilot instinctively grabs the yoke/stick to keep from sliding back causing a pitch up and stall/spin at too low of an altitude to recover. That wasn't the case here. If Leeland was knocked unconscious by a pitch-up from a broken seat he would have let go of the stick which would have lessened the G-forces and the reclined position would've helped him recover from the G-LOC. A broken seat back and pitch-up doesn't explain the broken trim-tab, the flight path of the aircraft, or the photo of the pilot's head down in the cockpit. The photo in the article is misleading as well because the canopy of the pictured airplane is nothing like Galloping Ghost's modified canopy. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

If the perps were indeed non-cops, yes. If they were cops, then, nope not at all, IMO. First, you'd have to escape without being run down and being beaten. Second, you'd have to escape without being shot in the back. Third, you'd have to go directly to a lawyer that would work out a deal for you to turn yourself in safely. Fourth, you're making a mistake if you trust one cop to believe you over his buddy. You're talking thin blue line here. It doesn't matter if the cops are real or not. You have the right to resist an unlawful arrest and to use self-defense against excessive force. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I guess you missed this line: It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Genuine Factory Installed Ferrari Prancing Horse Emblem! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Since he is taxed on the 600k, that would leave about 450k, and he said most of that goes back into his businesses. That would leave about 200k for his personal expenses. try again Bill. and were did he say he was hurting or struggling? The argument is if Obama raises taxes what would he use to continue and expand his businesses and who would suffer in the end. Actually, he's probably not taxed on the $600,000 since his corp world be paying the taxes on the $6.3 million. However, his family must be pretty fat if it takes $200,000 to feed them. I guess he could go out and get a second job; oh wait, he does have a second job and it also pays him a six figure salary! It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

An airshow is one thing, and if you pay attention to the layout of most airshows, the crowd is on one side of a line, and the performers tend to stay on the other side of the line. Additionally, the majority of movements are made perpendicular or away from the line, so if there is a problem the plane won't carry into the crowd. The races, on the other hand, have the spectators on the outside of the course, so if any of the planes have a problem during a high-g turn, the tendency will be for the plane (or the debris) to continue outward (thanks Newton) toward the crowd, not hold the turn. Of course, that's not at all what happened here, but that's the primary danger in these situations. Anytime you have a plane moving at high speed toward a crowd, the possiblity of it ending up in the crowd exists. The main spectator area at Reno is very similar to an airshow in that there's a crowd line set back a similar distance from the show line. The racers don't get any closer to the showline than airshow performers but spend much more time further away from the main spectators. Air Race spectators don't spend quite as much time looking straight up as airshow spectators do; the air racers are very close to the ground and if an aircraft has a catastrophic problem it's not going to travel far before it hits the ground. In this case, the P-51 was in a steep bank when it pitched-up which sent it to the inside of the course before it rolled to the right and climbed towards the crowd at which point it was a pilotless machine. I'd say at airshows there are many more times when an aircraft is pointed at the crowd during even more extreme turns than at Reno. An F-22 demonstration and the Blue Angels come to mind. At both the air races and airshows there are always areas where there are groups of spectators, homes, and other buildings that are often overflown. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

I believe Reno's accident was the first involving a spectator fatality in the US since the 1950s. So much for that argument. Banning airshows for the sake of the pilots is rather dubious, don't you think. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Pat Robertson goes kooky, once again! So much for sanctity of marriage It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Here's a link to a close up video of the impact area right as the aircraft crashed. You don't see the crash, but about ten minutes of footage as they try to help the victims. You can also see the spot where the aircraft hit the ground, the top layer of asphalt appears knocked away. Warning: there's a little gore. (There's a close-up of a victim lying on the ground with an amputated leg.) The crash happens just after the 39:00 minute mark. http://www.livestream.com/loadedtv/video?clipId=pla_b2efcd7d-ed04-4edf-89e8-f21ff436ccb4 It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Torque would've caused the aircraft to roll to the left. Considering the events, I think it's highly likely that Leeward was unconscious because he never would have rolled the aircraft to the right towards the crowd intentionally. His priority would've been to slow the airplane down by doing a steep climbing turn to reduce the control stick forces. It's the roll to the right that put the aircraft inverted directly over the crowd. If Leeward could have done anything to avoid the crowd he would've rolled the aircraft to keep it in a steep bank to keep the it in the air. He would've never given it the chance to drop its nose and dive straight down. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Considering that tandem jumps are a part of the ISP and the jumps count towards an A-license, why shouldn't they be called students? It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Early conjecture based on in-flight photos of the airplane just before the crash is that the aircraft lost a pitch trim tab causing a violent pitch up which may have overpowered the pilot and even caused a loss-of-consciousness. In the first photo, the trim tab is missing from the trailing edge of the port elevator. The pilot's head also appears to be fairly far forward and low in the cockpit In the second photo, the pilot's head is not visible. Also the tail wheel is down which may be the result of high-G forces. This theory makes sense considering the flight path of the aircraft before the crash. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Video of plane pulling up and doing a cloverloop before crashing right in front of spectator area. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTzX35wOGas ETA: Video's been pulled by user. My unofficial description: From the video it appears that as the P-51 was rounding the final turn to line up with the runway to pass in front of the crowd, the aircraft tightened up the turn to the inside until parallel with the runway and then rolled wings level as it pitched-up into the vertical. Prior to reaching 90 degrees vertical the aircraft started to roll to the right towards the crowd beginning a Clover Loop type maneuver. As the aircraft reached the inverted it had completed 90 degrees of turn in a wings-level position so that the aircraft was flying perpendicular to the runway and heading straight towards the crowd line. The aircraft then remained wings-level as it began to descend the backside of the loop directly down towards the spectator area as it began to reverse course (essentially a Split-S maneuver) back towards the runway. The aircraft had only climbed to approximately 1,000' agl during the first half of the loop and completed just over 90 degrees of the back-half of the loop before impacting the ground in a nearly vertical attitude just in front of the main crowd line. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

They learned how to hide their money when going through a divorce so they won't lose any more of it than they have to. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Capote - "Overcoat" Anglaise - "English" Capote Anglaise - "Condom" It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.

Well obviously, it came from the Hubble telescope. It's all been said before, no sense repeating it here.