|
Interesting conspiracy theory about Malaysian Airlines 370
5 Attachment(s)
Keith Ledgerwood
Did Malaysian Airlines 370 disappear using SIA68 (another 777)? Monday, March 17, 2014 - 12:01 AM EST By: Keith Ledgerwood As the search for missing flight Malaysian Airlines flight 370 drags on into the 10th day, so many questions continue to remain unanswered about how and why the airliner could have disappeared while seemingly under the control of a skilled pilot intent on making it invisible. With satellite pings showing where the plane could be after more than seven hours of flight, speculation has arisen that the plane could be on the ground anywhere along a path from northern Thailand to the border of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. The major roadblock to this theory has been the insistence from India and Pakistan that their radar network showed no such unidentified aircraft entering or traversing their airspace. It would seem highly unlikely given such information that a Boeing 777 could indeed slip through undetected. As a hobby pilot and aviation enthusiast, a theory began to form in my own mind on this 10th day as all of the latest information began to trickle in slowly through media outlets globally. After being unable to escape the idea that it may have happened, I began to do some analysis and research and what I discovered was very troubling to me! Starting with a set of facts that have been made available publically and verified over the past few days, I first plotted MH370’s course onto an aviation IFR map which shows the airways and waypoints used to navigate the skies. I plotted the point where it stopped transmitting ADS-B information at 1621UTC. I then plotted the Malaysian military radar track from that point towards “VAMPI”, “GIVAL”, and then onward toward “IGREX” on P628 ending with where the plane should be at 1715UTC when military radar lost contact. That chart looks like this: https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395087754 Source: SkyVector.com Nothing profound there… but then I looked to see what other planes were in the air at 1715UTC and I looked to see exactly where they were positioned in the sky and where they were flying. The picture started to develop when I discovered that another Boeing 777 was en-route from Singapore over the Andaman Sea. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395087754 Source: FlightRadar24.com I investigated further and plotted the exact coordinates of Singapore Airlines flight number 68’s location at 1715UTC onto the aviation map. I quickly realized that SIA68 was in the immediate vicinity as the missing MH370 flight at precisely the same time. Moreover, SIA68 was en-route on a heading towards the same IGREX waypoint on airway P628 that the Malaysian military radar had shown MH370 headed towards at precisely the same time. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395087754 Source: SkyVector.com It became apparent as I inspected SIA68’s flight path history that MH370 had maneuvered itself directly behind SIA68 at approximately 17:00UTC and over the next 15 minutes had been following SIA68. All the pieces of my theory had been fitting together with the facts that have been publically released and I began to feel a little uneasy. Singapore Airlines Flight 68 proceeded across the Andaman Sea into the Bay of Bengal and finally into India’s airspace. From there it appears to have proceeded across India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and finally Turkmenistan before proceeding onward across Europe to its final destination of Barcelona, Spain. This map depicts the approximate flight path of SIA flight 68 on that particular day. Additional detail will be required from each countries aviation authorities to establish exact particulars of the route. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395087754 Source: SkyVector.com So by now, you may have caught on or you may be scratching your head and wondering if I’ve gone insane! How does SIA68 have anything to do with MH370 disappearing? Remember the one challenge that is currently making everyone doubt that MH370 actually flew to Turkmenistan, Iran, China, or Kyrgyzstan? That challenge is the thought that MH370 couldn’t make it through several key airspaces such as India or Afghanistan without being detected by the military. It is my belief that MH370 likely flew in the shadow of SIA68 through India and Afghanistan airspace. As MH370 was flying “dark” without transponder / ADS-B output, SIA68 would have had no knowledge that MH370 was anywhere around and as it entered Indian airspace, it would have shown up as one single blip on the radar with only the transponder information of SIA68 lighting up ATC and military radar screens. Wouldn’t the SIA68 flight have detected MH370? NO! The Boeing 777 utilizes a TCAS system for traffic avoidance; the system would ordinarily provide alerts and visualization to pilots if another airplane was too close. However that system only operates by receiving the transponder information from other planes and displaying it for the pilot. If MH370 was flying without the transponder, it would have been invisible to SIA68. In addition, the TCAS system onboard MH370 would have enabled the pilot(s) to easily locate and approach SIA68 over the Straits of Malacca as they appeared to have done. The system would have shown them the flight’s direction of travel and the altitude it was traveling which would have enabled them to perfectly time an intercept right behind the other Boeing 777. Here is a picture of a TCAS system onboard a 777. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395087754 How does this solve the mystery??? We know MH370 didn’t fly to Spain! Once MH370 had cleared the volatile airspaces and was safe from being detected by military radar sites in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan it would have been free to break off from the shadow of SIA68 and could have then flown a path to it’s final landing site. There are several locations along the flight path of SIA68 where it could have easily broken contact and flown and landed in Xingjian province, Kyrgyzstan, or Turkmenistan. Each of these final locations would match up almost perfectly with the 7.5 hours of total flight time and trailing SIA68. In addition, these locations are all possibilities that are on the “ARC” and fit with the data provided by Inmarsat from the SATCOM’s last known ping at 00:11UTC. There are too many oddities in this whole story that don’t make sense if this theory isn’t the answer in my opinion. Why did MH370 fly a seemingly haphazard route and suddenly start heading northwest towards the Andaman Islands on P628? If not for this reason, it seems like a rather odd maneuver. The timing and evasive actions seem deliberate. Someone went through great lengths to attempt to become stealthy and disable ACARS, transponder/ADS-B (even though SATCOM to Inmarsat was left powered). After looking at all the details, it is my opinion that MH370 snuck out of the Bay of Bengal using SIA68 as the perfect cover. It entered radar coverage already in the radar shadow of the other 777, stayed there throughout coverage, and then exited SIA68’s shadow and then most likely landed in one of several land locations north of India and Afghanistan. Sources: SkyVector.com, FlightRadar24.com, FlightAware.com, CNN.com, Reuters.com. -Keith L. KeithLCincy@gmail.com I find some of his conclusions to be slightly unfounded (eg: "We know MH370 didn’t fly to Spain!" when in fact we only suspect that, we do not know it to be true), but the overall gist is that someone devised and executed a plan of James-Bondian proportions to steal a Boeing 777 and make it look like an accident. |
Author assumes there wasn't enough fuel to reach Spain.
As for using TCAS or ADS-B to perform the intercept, those systems would need to be turned on to make that happen. If that were the case, SIA68's TCAS would have been SCREAMING as MH370 approached. That said and assuming some military/tactical experience on the part of MH370's crew, a visual intercept would have been a snap. You can see other aircraft for tens of miles in good weather at night. Interesting theory. I hope they find this jet and give the victim's relatives some peace. |
Tl;dr aliens
|
I would think a 777 would be too big to hide in anther planes "shadow" so to speak. That being said I know nothing about radar signatures of airplanes, or how good the radar systems are where the plane seems to have disappeared.
I read somewhere that an explosion aboard an aircraft would leave no derbies field, I do not know if this is true or not (I kinda find it hard to believe), but there are many terror groups operating in Southeast Asia. That being said a group probably would have calmed responsibility by now, after all whats the point of committing an act of terror if you don't terrorize anyone. |
Originally Posted by gearhead_318
(Post 1112439)
That being said a group probably would have calmed responsibility by now, after all whats the point of committing an act of terror if you don't terrorize anyone.
|
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1112442)
Because its not over yet.
|
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1112401)
As for using TCAS or ADS-B to perform the intercept, those systems would need to be turned on to make that happen. If that were the case, SIA68's TCAS would have been SCREAMING as MH370 approached.
It'd be a risky proposition, but plausible.
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1112401)
Interesting theory. I hope they find this jet and give the victim's relatives some peace.
Originally Posted by gearhead_318
(Post 1112439)
I would think a 777 would be too big to hide in anther planes "shadow" so to speak. That being said I know nothing about radar signatures of airplanes, or how good the radar systems are where the plane seems to have disappeared.
At close range, a modern phased-array SAM launcher could tell the difference between the #1 and #2 engines. At long-range, a typical surveillance radar takes it on faith that the airplane's transponder is working as intended and does a lot of filtering to reduce background noise and null out spurious reflections. I read somewhere that an explosion aboard an aircraft would leave no derbies field, I do not know if this is true or not (I kinda find it hard to believe), |
Originally Posted by gearhead_318
(Post 1112445)
Its been 10 days and nothing else has happened. I'm sure security forces have their guard up, but I would think the next part of any attack would have happened by now. Not saying your wrong, but hijacking an aircraft for the purpose of using it as a missile later on would require any terrorist to land the aircraft, which would require a runway. Not saying its imposable though.
|
Originally Posted by good2go
(Post 1112459)
If indeed the aircraft was 'stolen', is this generally accepted as the most likely explanation for what they would have wanted it for? Are there any other plausible reasons for wanting the plane?
1: Ransom (decreasingly likely as time goes on). 2: They didn't want the plane itself, but rather someone or something that was aboard it (the Thunderball hypothesis.) 3: Industrial espionage. 4: A rogue state wishes to purchase it for government or military use other than as a kamikaze weapon. 5: This is the result of a drunken bet made years ago at a tavern in Marrakesh. 6: It's being parted out as we speak, and bits of it will soon hit craigslist.ru 7: Now that the re-construction of One World is complete, small pieces of MH370 are going to be altered, selectively re-buried, and then "discovered" as proof that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by CIA-funded time travelers as part of an intricate plot to prop up the US Federal Reserve against a (now-averted) collapse in the year 2019. (The JasonC hypothesis.) |
Originally Posted by gearhead_318
(Post 1112439)
I would think a 777 would be too big to hide in anther planes "shadow" so to speak. That being said I know nothing about radar signatures of airplanes, or how good the radar systems are where the plane seems to have disappeared.
According to the Wikipedia article on transponders, search radars are not very good a providing altitude readings. They provide range and bearing, and rely on the transponder to report altitude. Feasibly this means you could fly some distance under the aircraft, as the radar would read the single transponder and think there was only a single aircraft. In the discussions my office had about this incident, someone said that they didn't think that the should have the ability to turn off the transponders. I ended up being in the minority opinion that they should saying that they should. What do you guys think? My thoughts were the more control a pilot has over the plan the better, this allows you more flexibility in responding to unexpected situations. Also, If you can't trust your pilots to operate a transponder properly, then you shouldn't trust them to fly a plane with 300 people onboard. |
2 Attachment(s)
Thought this was appropriate:
|
This seems much more plausible, although I do love a good conspiracy theory.
A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com |
Originally Posted by rleete
(Post 1112559)
Thought this was appropriate:
|
Originally Posted by z31maniac
(Post 1112611)
This seems much more plausible, although I do love a good conspiracy theory.
A Startlingly Simple Theory About the Missing Malaysia Airlines Jet | Autopia | Wired.com mulletman said: "I'll be the first to call BS on that fire theory. For that story to work, the following have to be true: - The fire was enough to overwhelm the crew, but then not enough to compromise the rest of the airplane. Fires don't do this. - Part of the Emergency checklist for smoke or fire involves powering down the airplane completely. - While the airplane is burning, the autopilot continues to function. The A/P was one of the very first casualties of the SwissAir crash. Autopilots are designed to self-disengage if issues start happening. A medium-sized bump of turbulence is usually enough to cause the A/P to disengage. That article states that "Yes, the pilots have oxygen masks, but this is a no-no with fire." Bull. Shit. Want to know what the FIRST action item is at my airline when smoke is detected? The person who identifies the smoke will state: "SMOKE. DON MASK." Then the Ox mask donning procedure is to be completed before anything else is done. No checklist will ever direct you to completely power down the airplane while in-flight. If that is done, you lose all fire caution and warning advisory systems, which is exactly what you don't want happening. If you want a good example of how fires progress in airplanes, take a look at SwissAir 111. Airplanes are complex, and do not suffer fires well. People, if they're provided with oxygen to breathe, will handle fires actually quite well. The SwissAir crew was still trying to fly the airplane even as their plastic checklist was melting into a solid chunk. In case you don't want to look it up, here are some of the facts about 111: - The time between smoke detection and impact with the surface was 16 minutes. They were at 33,000 feet when the scenario started. - In that time, the fire became intense enough to trigger a fire detection in the #2 engine, mounted high above the fuselage. Engine detection systems work based on heat detection. So in 16 minutes, they went from "Hey, do you smell something?" to entire length of the airplane completely engulfed in flames. The rule of thumb with fire in an airplane is simple: GET DOWN. Had the Malaysian crew been on fire, and made a turn toward an airport, they also would have started a pretty severe descent. If fire was the cause, your search radius would be small enough that all you'd need would be a boat and a pair of binoculars. " Missing Flight MH370 777-200 - Page 12 - R3VLimited Forums |
Originally Posted by good2go
(Post 1112459)
If indeed the aircraft was 'stolen', is this generally accepted as the most likely explanation for what they would have wanted it for? Are there any other plausible reasons for wanting the plane?
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1112531)
4: A rogue state wishes to purchase it for government or military use other than as a kamikaze weapon.
Originally Posted by Davezorz
(Post 1112537)
According to the Wikipedia article on transponders, search radars are not very good a providing altitude readings. They provide range and bearing, and rely on the transponder to report altitude. Feasibly this means you could fly some distance under the aircraft, as the radar would read the single transponder and think there was only a single aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by gearhead_318
(Post 1112722)
I would think it would be easier to buy one from a 3rd party. Rogue states get stuff they aren't supposed to have all the time. A rare full auto Glock 18 was found with Saddam Hussein when he was captured (and later presented to G.W. Bush by the team who got him {'merka}), this is not the sort of thing one can just buy from a gun store. Point being people can get shit that they are not supposed to have. Maybe a 777 is new and special or something, but I would think a similar plane could be had for less hassle.
|
Originally Posted by gearhead_318
(Post 1112722)
...
Supposedly Seal Team 6 flew under Pakistani radar to carry out the raid on OBL. |
I'm surprised with all the other info here, we don't have any pilots.
|
it is entirely possible to fly under radar over water in a non-stealth plane. Radar starts hallucinating at long ranges and low altitudes, in order to prevent that, you simply don't detect anything below, say, 500' AGL.
|
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 1112774)
it is entirely possible to fly under radar over water in a non-stealth plane. Radar starts hallucinating at long ranges and low altitudes, in order to prevent that, you simply don't detect anything below, say, 500' AGL.
It's also possible the Semiconductor company out of Austin hatched a scheme to kill 20 of their employees by orchestrating the hijacking/crashing of an International flight to get the other 80% of patent for some unknown radio-based weapon. Who is going to post about the WTC 7 coming down without a building hitting it? :hustler: |
Originally Posted by good2go
(Post 1112735)
True, but weren't they supposedly terrain following in some kind of stealth choppers . . . as opposed to a huge airliner?
Illuminati did it. Jay Z is the one responsible. |
Fools.
They crash landed on the lost island and are now running in fear of the smoke monster. |
Originally Posted by fooger03
(Post 1112774)
it is entirely possible to fly under radar over water in a non-stealth plane. ... below, say, 500' AGL. |
Originally Posted by good2go
(Post 1112804)
Ok, I could be wrong, but I thought this whole evasion concept pertained to the possibility of it flying over land; more specifically India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. . I don't really see a plane with a 200' wingspan easily staying less than 500' over such varied terrain.
Aliens. |
Some have seen it flying low over the Maldives.
Missing Plane MH370: Maldives Island Residents Report 'Low Flying Jet' Could it have reached Somalia etc (low altitude consumes more fuel?)? But dealing with all the passengers is messy business. |
people also report seeing aliens/ghosts/ufos/etc...
|
Originally Posted by good2go
(Post 1112804)
Ok, I could be wrong, but I thought this whole evasion concept pertained to the possibility of it flying over land; more specifically India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc. . I don't really see a plane with a 200' wingspan easily staying less than 500' over such varied terrain.
The point of my post was that there are ways to avoid radar detection even if you are within line of sight of the radar antenna. |
Originally Posted by Davezorz
(Post 1112861)
The point of my post was that there are ways to avoid radar detection even if you are within line of sight of the radar antenna.
|
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1112863)
maybe the plane morphed into a F-22?
|
My real question is if the plane was landed somewhere, how hard is it to change it to look like a different plane. What all needs to be done so it would no longer show up as Flight 370. There were reports that Rolls-Royce was receiving engine information after final contact. So if that is true, if the plane was restarted wouldn't RR start getting new engine data?
|
Report in the India Times of possible aircraft debris found in water.
|
I am somewhat of a radar expert... kinda my thing.
So let's talk about a certain country for a minute. I'll give anybody a dollar if they can tell me which country has the most advanced long-range radar tracking systems in the world. It's not the US, because we have airplanes and ships and tons of friends and no threats against our homeland. Anybody? OK, a hint... it rhymes with the female pro-wrestler Chyna, aka, the "Ninth Wonder of the World". Anyways, China (the country... see, I spelled it with an "i") has a ridiculous series of radars stationed all over the country that can see the a good portion of the Pacific this side of Hawaii and the majority of the Indian Ocean. They're some very special long-range stuff (obviously not line-of-sight) that bounces the signals many times off the atmosphere/land and some very fancy computers to figure out the return signals. They were designed to find our battle-groups, and while a 777 isn't as big as a Nimitz Class, it's certainly as big on radar as a Frigate. I promise you they can see a 777 off the coast of Malaysia. We have the same kind of radars here in the US, just not as many or as good. So my not-conspiracy-theory opinion is that China knows exactly what happened to the plane as long as it was within range of it's radar net...which if over water, it was. My guess is that China knows where it went down and is keeping quiet about it for the intelligence gathering opportunity and to see what the US does. On a side note, the guys on duty that night at the radar facility had an unfortunate smelting accident and are dead. Also, due to an administrative error, all the tapes were destroyed when the Chinese police performed a no-knock raid on the wrong address (was supposed to be the laundrymat next to the radar office) and used 36 breaching charges placed all around the building instead of the normal single charge on the door. The police chief indicates the officer responsible has been placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation and will never be available for comment... ever. |
Originally Posted by samnavy
(Post 1112977)
I am somewhat of a radar expert... kinda my thing.
So let's talk about a certain country for a minute. I'll give anybody a dollar if they can tell me which country has the most advanced long-range radar tracking systems in the world. It's not the US, because we have airplanes and ships and tons of friends and no threats against our homeland. Anybody? OK, a hint... it rhymes with the female pro-wrestler Chyna, aka, the "Ninth Wonder of the World". Anyways, China (the country... see, I spelled it with an "i") has a ridiculous series of radars stationed all over the country that can see the a good portion of the Pacific this side of Hawaii and the majority of the Indian Ocean. They're some very special long-range stuff (obviously not line-of-sight) that bounces the signals many times off the atmosphere/land and some very fancy computers to figure out the return signals. They were designed to find our battle-groups, and while a 777 isn't as big as a Nimitz Class, it's certainly as big on radar as a Frigate. I promise you they can see a 777 off the coast of Malaysia. We have the same kind of radars here in the US, just not as many or as good. So my not-conspiracy-theory opinion is that China knows exactly what happened to the plane as long as it was within range of it's radar net...which if over water, it was. My guess is that China knows where it went down and is keeping quiet about it for the intelligence gathering opportunity and to see what the US does. On a side note, the guys on duty that night at the radar facility had an unfortunate smelting accident and are dead. Also, due to an administrative error, all the tapes were destroyed when the Chinese police performed a no-knock raid on the wrong address (was supposed to be the laundrymat next to the radar office) and used 36 breaching charges placed all around the building instead of the normal single charge on the door. The police chief indicates the officer responsible has been placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation and will never be available for comment... ever. |
I doubt they want to expose their capabilities. In China, the society, not the individual, is paramount -- has been that way for 5000 years. Completely different way of thinking than what we are used to.
|
BTW, I really enjoyed going to the Chinese AF museum outside of Beijing. Lot's of Soviet hardware to check out. Every other MIG had a sign that said it had shot down an American "Air Pirate." LOL. I resemble that remark. The guards did not look pleased.
Who was it that said there were no pilots chiming in? |
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1112993)
I doubt they want to expose their capabilities. In China, the society, not the individual, is paramount -- has been that way for 5000 years. Completely different way of thinking than what we are used to.
|
Originally Posted by shuiend
(Post 1113001)
They are on the worlds stage here and coming out being the ones to find the plane would be good for them in the worlds view. It would also show that yes as a country they have "concern" for their citizens, even if inside the country it is not true.
Nope, I don't think the Chinese officials give a shit about "being on the worlds stage" anymore than Russia cared about toilets installed on the ceiling at Sochi. All kidding aside, nobody in the media has a clue yet what happened to that plane... it's just the latest "thing" to give us a break from how fucked up our country is. In a few days when they find the wreckage somewhere and it turns out they just had a fire and crashed, Fox can go back to pointing out that Obama is the worst president in history and CNN/NBC/ABC can go back to blaming Bush. |
Originally Posted by samnavy
(Post 1113005)
nobody in the media has a clue yet what happened to that plane...
|
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1112995)
Who was it that said there were no pilots chiming in?
|
Aviator, actually. LOL. :dealwithit:
|
You navy folk and yer fancy-talkin'... :D
|
Naval aviator.
/Top Gun |
Just a glory hound that in the end has to listen to what the guy with the big radar says.
|
Maybe Joe should send this theory in to cnn for comment. It appears to be less crazy than some of their speculation:
CNN: Black Holes Swallow Malaysia 370? - Business Insider |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1113017)
Just a glory hound that in the end has to listen to what the guy with the big radar says.
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395324385 |
LOLOL.
I'm old. Flew the C model when it was brand new in an all-Grumman air wing. I'd be behind my fuel ladder on the cat. KF/A-18 just boggles my mind. Be gentle, please. |
I built the model of an A-10 once.
|
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1113289)
LOLOL.
I'm old. Flew the C model when it was brand new in an all-Grumman air wing. I'd be behind my fuel ladder on the cat. KF/A-18 just boggles my mind. Be gentle, please. All my flying was done in a Wills Wing Raven 209, no complaints or apologies. |
Originally Posted by good2go
(Post 1113314)
I always figured flying was a bit like sex; sure, there's always hotter models to do it with, but as long as you were getting some, you really didn't have anything to complain about.
All my flying was done in a Wills Wing Raven 209, no complaints or apologies. |
2 Attachment(s)
Mine was almost as slow as yours. A 1948 Stinson 108-3
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395353838 EDIT: The internet is amazing. May I introduce an early picture of N4219C: https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395353838 She had a variant of the same Franklin flat 6 engine that was in the Tucker automobile. |
That's cool.
I used to have a Velocity homebuilt with a Franklin. These days I fly the company Baron whenever we need to test new avionics (it's Experimental R&D category). |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1113410)
That's cool.
I used to have a Velocity homebuilt with a Franklin. These days I fly the company Baron whenever we need to test new avionics (it's Experimental R&D category). https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395360371 |
Last night I talked to someone that used to do maintenance on planes.
So I'm pretty much right when I guessed aliens. |
If I was going to pretend there was a wreck in the sea, what better place to not find it but in the Southern Indian Ocean?
|
Could the plane have sea-landed, (U.S. Airways 1549) lost buoyancy, and sunk before anyone could escape, without breaking apart? Without losing any petrol thus creating no observable oil "sheen"? The theory would carry everything on board to the bottom of the sea, leaving no debris.
I am on board with the fire theory. https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/i...AcWUErRoi3N60w |
Originally Posted by olderguy
(Post 1113579)
If I was going to pretend there was a wreck in the sea, what better place to not find it but in the Southern Indian Ocean?
|
2 Attachment(s)
Megalodon theory!!
If it did ditch where they're looking for it now, it was out of fuel so no slick. Plus, that's some rough ocean down there. The Velocity was a great cross-country cruiser. I used to get an honest 25mpg out of it at 165KTAS. But, propeller was completely on the wrong end of the plane. It got damaged on every flight from debris kicked up by the landing gear. That plane gave me a lot of excitement (the bad kind). I'll take the Baron, thanks. Plus, someone else buys gas and insurance for the Baron. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...1&d=1395425400 |
10 Attachment(s)
I took an old Piper to one of the minor outlying islands of the Bahamas a little while back.
https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 I rode bitch. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 I'd love me some better gauges in the Miata. https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1395432291 I brought some parts and fixed a machine: http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/y...Feb2011309.jpg |
Nice sand. I did a survival school in Antigua. It wasn't hard to survive there at all. LOL.
|
Originally Posted by hornetball
(Post 1113900)
Nice sand. I did a survival school in Antigua. It wasn't hard to survive there at all. LOL.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:32 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands