AWACS being refueled with off-on contrails

[Mick West]

A video passed around by believers in the "chemtrail theory show contrails of planes flying right next to each other leaving contrails, then one plane reduces power to idle, stops making contrails, reduces altitude, powers back up again, and starts making contrails. You can tell it's reducing altitude by the angle of the trails.

What happening here is refueling, followed by separation. Initially the planes are flying together, with similar power settings, so the exhausts are similar, and they both leave contrails. Then the lower plane (the AWACS/E3) separates, moving away by greatly decreasing power, so the contrail stops. Then when there's enough separation the power is restored, and the contrail starts again.

This more recent video shows the same effect:

http://www.planespottingberlin.com/

Expanation:

And to answer the question about the contrail stopping as the power is reduced and starting again as it is pushed back up, Schumann's test explains it.

http://elib.dlr.de/9247/1/aerscitech-2000.pdf

View attachment 13306

 

[solrey]

WAKE UP!!!
In your face ON/OFF spraying.
The proof doesn't get any better than this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWFS...ayer_embedded#!

Problem is, there is no proof of on/off chemtrail spraying in that vid. If that's as good as it gets you've got less than nothing.

What that vid captured was a refueling operation and I can see by the silhouette that it is indeed an AWACS aircraft being refueled. After the refueling boom between the tanker and the AWACS is decoupled, the AWACS cuts its throttles back to idle and immediately begins to decelerate, descend, fall behind the tanker and change course. This maneuver is performed in order to provide adequate separation to avoid the wake turbulence/wing tip vortices from the tanker. Once the AWACS is at the proper separation and heading, the pilot cranks the engines to full throttle and begins to accelerate. The short time the AWACS was not making a contrail was while the engines were at idle during the separation maneuver after refueling.

It's pretty obvious the AWACS begins to decelerate as soon as the contrails stop (engines at idle) and likewise just as obvious that the AWACS stops decelerating as soon as the contrails appear again (engines at full power).

Besides, those are just short lived contrails anyways, they aren't even persistent.

 

[George B]

What that vid captured was a refueling operation and I can see by the silhouette that it is indeed an AWACS aircraft being refueled. After the refueling boom between the tanker and the AWACS is decoupled, the AWACS cuts its throttles back to idle and immediately begins to decelerate, descend, fall behind the tanker and change course. This maneuver is performed in order to provide adequate separation to avoid the wake turbulence/wing tip vortices from the tanker. Once the AWACS is at the proper separation and heading, the pilot cranks the engines to full throttle and begins to accelerate. The short time the AWACS was not making a contrail was while the engines were at idle during the separation maneuver after refueling.

It's pretty obvious the AWACS begins to decelerate as soon as the contrails stop (engines at idle) and likewise just as obvious that the AWACS stops decelerating as soon as the contrails appear again (engines at full power).

Besides, those are just short lived contrails anyways, they aren't even persistent.[/QUOTE]

I would agree with your analysis . . . seems rather clear this is a refueling of an AWACS aircraft . . . interesting . . . where was this captured????

 

[FreiZeitGeist]

. . . interesting . . . where was this captured????

this video was made by Werner Altnickel, owner of chemtrail.de. A well-known chemtrail-activist in Germany. He is our "Carmicom" :-D

Am 19.9.2012 habe ich zwei viermotorige Militärjets im Parallelflug erwischt, als der AWACS-Jet plötzlich keine Streifen mehr ausstieß, dann für ca. 20 Sekunden absolut ohne Streifen flog und dann wieder abrupt Streifen ausstieß! Dies alles geschah im Parallelflug mit dem anderen viermotorigen Militärjet,welcher die ganze Zeit ununterbrochen Streifen verursachte.
Alle Zweifler sind hiermit aufgefordert, eine physikalisch stichhaltige Begründung dafür zu liefern, wie so etwas zu erklären ist!


In freudiger Erwartung von Erklärungsmodellen

Euer Werner Altnickel

http://www.chemtrail.de/?p=2074

He lives in Oldenburg. There is much military activity around Ramstein Air Base the last days...

 

[George B]

Interesting that an AWACS aircraft was in this video . . . another very well studied persistent contrail outbreak occurred over the UK in I think 20 March 2009 . . . http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf

 

[solrey]

I would agree with your analysis . . . seems rather clear this is a refueling of an AWACS aircraft . . . interesting . . . where was this captured????

Hot diggity we agree on something. According to the caption in the bottom right corner at the beginning of the vid it was recorded above Edewecht Germany on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 1:05(?) in the afternoon.

There's an E-3 Sentry AWACS wing at a NATO base in Geilenkirchen about 340km to the SSW of Edewecht.

http://www.151arw.ang.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123161542

 

[George B]

Interesting that an AWACS aircraft was in this video . . . another very well studied persistent contrail outbreak occurred over the UK in I think 20 March 2009 . . .http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Haywood09JGR.pdf

A case study of the radiative forcing of persistent contrails evolving​

into contrail-induced cirrus​

1) Seems this contrail induced cirrus cloud bank was very large and was calculated to have significant Radiative Forcing (RF) . . .
2) The Atmospheric Soundings on the day before and during this event were optimal for persistent contrail formation (my observation) . . .
3) The aircraft with the circular flight pattern was thought to be an AWACS aircraft . . .
4) It seemed to be the trigger . . . though there were many other commercial filights over the UK the same day without similar results . . .
5) At one time I felt this could be an example of testing of electronic countermeasures (somehow triggering the subsequent massive cirrus cloud bank while other traffic did not) by an AWACS . . . since that time I have found evidence of other unexplained persistent contrail induced cirrus cloud banks covering entire states and regions of the US . . .

The radiative forcing due to a distinct pattern of persistent contrails that form into
contrail-induced cirrus near and over the UK is investigated in detail for a single case
study during March 2009. The development of the contrail-induced cirrus is tracked using
a number of high-resolution polar orbiting and lower-resolution geostationary satellite
instruments and is found to persist for a period of around 18 h, and at its peak, it covers
over 50,000 km.

The shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) radiative forcing of the
contrail-induced cirrus is estimated using a combination of geostationary satellite
instruments, numerical weather prediction models, and surface observation sites. As
expected, the net radiative effect is a relatively small residual of the much stronger but
opposing SW and LW effects, locally totaling around 10 W m
during daylight hours and 30 W m during nighttime. A simple estimate indicates that this single localized
event may have generated a global-mean radiative forcing of around 7% of recent
estimates of the persistent contrail radiative forcing due to the entire global aircraft fleet on
a diurnally averaged basis. A single aircraft operating in conditions favorable for persistent
contrail formation appears to exert a contrail-induced radiative forcing some 5000 times
greater (in W m 2 km1) than recent estimates of the average persistent contrail
radiative forcing from the entire civil aviation fleet. This study emphasizes the need to
establish whether similar events are common or highly unusual for a confident assessment
of the total climate effect of aviation to be made.

 

[scombrid]

4) It seemed to be the trigger . . . though there were many other commercial filights over the UK the same day without similar results . . .

Ton of linear contrails consistant with commercial traffic in the photos that you posted.

 

[Mick West]

5) At one time I felt this could be an example of testing of electronic countermeasures (somehow triggering the subsequent massive cirrus cloud bank while other traffic did not) by an AWACS . . . since that time I have found evidence of other unexplained persistent contrail induced cirrus cloud banks covering entire states and regions of the US . . .

What exactly was unexplained?

 

[George B]

What exactly was unexplained?

I mean it in the context that it is unknown how one aircraft can potentially initiate a cascade event of such size and duration . . . not that contrail induced cirrus is unexplained . . .

Ton of linear contrails consistant with commercial traffic in the photos that you posted.

I am aware . . . that is the issue . . . the researchers are assuming the one aircraft was potentially the trigger of the massive cloud bank and not the other aircraft . . .

 

[MikeC]

I think this is a really unusual video - 2 x 4-engined a/c contrailing together -

​

Of course there's also all the usual stuff about us being poisoned, etc.....

 

[Trailspotter]

I think this is a really unusual video - 2 x 4-engined a/c contrailing together...

I agree, it is a rare capture indeed. This instantly made it a "proof of chemtrails" despite the fact that these contrails did not persist but quickly dissipated without trace. I found it more interesting that AWACS briefly stopped contrailing when it dropped speed to pull away from the tanker and resumed it when it speeded up again. As both planes were at essentially the same altitude, it had to be the engine thing.

 

[scombrid]

​

Getting copied far and wide.

Tankerenemy insists that they are at 6000ft.

Of course he won't allow "shills" and "debunkers" to comment on his channel.

 

[scombrid]

Sample Comments:

Great vid. I remember some chemtrail debunker trying to explain that the appearance and dissapearance of these trails being attributed to altitude and atmospheric conditions, lol. The on/off switch is pretty much obvious in this one... so much for debunkers and their altitude theories!
Blargh72 2 days ago 5

gotta love idiot debunkers. A lot of them won't even look at any data or evidence and still come up with a theory of their own with no research or data backing it.
chase21322 in reply to Blargh72 (Show the comment) 1 day ago

Hey was talking with Dane Wigginton today about your video and he has it now up on his site.
Geoengineering Watch
jack42grafton 1 day ago

 

[HappyMonday]

"on/off switch"

The idea being then, during what I would assume is a fairly delicate maneuver, the crew's are also concerned with switching on and off their chemical spraying equipment?

 

[cloudspotter]

​

This one was put forward as on/off proof after I'd debunked that AWACS one on a FB page today. I figured that what was actually happening was the plane flying through a shadow from low cumulus or even mountains. It was filmed between 7-8 am in October in Florida. A quick google gave me sunrise at 7am in Florida at that time of year.

 

[scombrid]

No mountains. Definitely flying in and out of shadow. You can see the change in the way the sun reflects off of the sun and plane both.

Very common weather pattern for us in the wet season is for there to be subsidence over land at night and convection over near-shore waters as the "land breeze" pushes off shore in the early morning hours. This reverses as the sun heats the land and the convection collapses over the water and fires over the land as the sea breeze pushes inland. The result of this is that it is not uncommon to have clear skies in the morning over land and towering cumulus over the water.

Funny how they talk about how un-observant are the sheeple and shills but they fail to notice those thunderstorms that are off both coasts many many mornings from June through mid-October in most years. If you are in the middle of the state (as in Winter Park in this vid) you'll often be able to see the storms off in the distance over the Atlantic and Gulf in the morning. It should be obvious to the viewer that the trail did not even stop/start in this vid...

 

[scombrid]

Warm Season Lightning Distributions over the Florida Peninsula as Related to​

Synoptic Patterns

http://fuelberg.met.fsu.edu/publications/lericos-fuelberg-2002

 

[Jay Reynolds]

If the original videographer had the proper equipment (10" dobsonian mount telescope), he could have captured a magnificent photo like this:
http://images.extremespotting.com/PHOTOS/2653/L

 

[JFDee]

Here is a video in which the detachement maneuver was captured from the tanker's perspective (see end):

​

 

[Jay Reynolds]

OT: I live in a C-130 training area, and got the chance some years ago to witness an amazing sight, a USMC V-22 Osprey vertical takeoff plane doing air-to-air refueling with a C-130 at fairly low altitude over my home.
Imagine your C-130 plane is dragging a fuel hose attached to your wingspan and a plane puts a 38 ft diameter windmills on either side of your hose.
If he makes a mistake, your wing gets yanked off, and probably you both go down in a flaming holocaust!

​

 

[Mick West]

I'd imagine it would detach like whenever someone drives off with the nozzle from a gas station. Still not a good idea though. Ospreys are pretty crazy.

 

[Gunguy45]

Actually...IIRC...there's no real mechanical connection between the planes. It's more of just an O-ring connection. Side to side and up and down movements can damaged the probe or receiver though, I think they have some sort of shear device for that? Have to check with an AF friend, see if he remembers.

Got to lay beside the operator on a KC-135 (though I could swear it was a C-141 until just a few minutes ago) as they did some practice refuelings with a flight of ANG F-4s over Nevada in the early 80's on a flight from CA to IL. Really quite a sight....wish I had a camera at the time.

 

[TWCobra]

I pointed out to Clare Swinney what the video was and that I didn't know why she had posted it because the contrails didn't even persist..... got deleted. Can someone tell me why I bother?

 

[MikeC]

A sense of humour, and an at least making that particular woman realise that not everyone falls for her nonsense?

 

[Mick West]

Here's a nice image of a similar refueling over Germany:

http://www.fightercontrol.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=127&t=35047&start=20#p225234

Here's one of my all-time favourites non-DSLR pictures I took.....
air-to-air refuelling with a NATO AWACS somewhere over Germany back in 2004 while flying on-board a Hawaii ANG KC-135R
taken with a Canon EOS 300 and EF-28-135mm next to the boom operator position... what a sight that was when the E-3A came out of the clouds approaching the contact position. Picture is scanned from print. Oh, the dark "line" cutting through the picture of the left side is actually the safety wire of the refuelling boom and the dark spots on the E-3A wings are the shadows of the KC-135 contrails.

 

[Mick West]

Here's a related video:



Four jets in formation. Two of them (Su30K) intermittently leave contrails, but not at the same time. The other two (Mirages) do not. So I suspect it different power variations?

 

[Trailspotter]

Four jets in formation. Two of them (Su30K) intermittently leave contrails, but not at the same time. The other two (Mirages) do not. So I suspect it different power variations?

Mirage is a single-engine aircraft, whereas Su-30 is a twin-engine aircraft. Perhaps for the show it was just shifting the load to one of the engines, that turned on a trail. Unfortunately, it is not possible to see at this orientation and resolution whether the contrail was coming from both engines, or just one of them.

 

[Mick West]

Mirage is a single-engine aircraft, whereas Su-30 is a twin-engine aircraft. Perhaps for the show it was just shifting the load to one of the engines, that turned on a trail. Unfortunately, it is not possible to see at this orientation and resolution whether the contrail was coming from both engines, or just one of them.

Sounds plausible. But do fighter jets alternate single and dual engine usage?

 

[Gunguy45]

Sounds plausible. But do fighter jets alternate single and dual engine usage?

Do they? Not normally. Can they...yep! They do it for air shows and in training. I've seen dual engine jets do things with one at idle just as a demo of capabilities.

 

[MikeC]

Here's a related video:

Four jets in formation. Two of them (Su30K) intermittently leave contrails, but not at the same time. The other two (Mirages) do not. So I suspect it different power variations?

the French a/c are Mirage 2000B trainers (from this Garuda II description page) with SNEMCA M53 turbofans which only has a bypass ration of 0.36:1.

The Su-30K's have AL-31FL's, wth a bypass ration of 0.59:1 - it might not look like much difference but it is over 60% higher than the Mirage ratio!!

 

[TWCobra]

I doubt they were going from two engines to one. The aircraft would have gone backwards at a great rate. To stay in formation like that you cannot make huge instantaneous power changes. It is an interesting one this video. The trails look to be contrails and not anything to do with smoke such as an aerobatic team would use. You would think that the two similar aircraft would contrail at the same time due to same engines and thrust settings. But they don't.

 

[Trailspotter]

I doubt they were going from two engines to one. The aircraft would have gone backwards at a great rate. To stay in formation like that you cannot make huge instantaneous power changes.

I did not suggest that there were huge instantaneous power changes, merely the redistribution of power between the two engines. It does not look like the fighter jets were flying full throttle, so they might have done it without breaking formation.

Interestingly, I did not see many pictures of twin-engine fighter jet contrails on the web, perhaps, because they are disadvantageous for this type of aircraft and are normally avoided.

 

[TWCobra]

There is no reason to do what you suggest. ANY power change would have registered as a change in relative position between the aircraft in the formation. Formation flight requires the lead aircraft to be very smooth in everything they do. Even a couple of percent change in thrust would be visible as the wingmen adjusted. I have done this in real life. When the contrails are evident in this video, there are no power changes happening.

 

[MikeC]

Without much of a backround to measure against how do we know whether they are speeding up or slowing down, climbing or losing altitude - all quite smoothly together?

 

[TWCobra]

Trailspotter was suggesting that they were going from using both engines to one. There is no need to do that in normal flight. You put two engines on a jet then you require two. You would never just fly around on one unless you lost an engine or were practicing an engine failure. Pulling back one engine and maintaining the same speed would require rapid thrust lever movements and would probably mean going into afterburner on the higher thrust engine. That would cause yaw and a loss of speed whilst juggling the thrust levers. Neither of those things are evident here.

 

[Trailspotter]

Trailspotter was suggesting that they were going from using both engines to one.

No, I was suggesting nothing dramatic as this, just more thrust on one engine than the other. Here is a photo of the same type SU-30MKI jet, doing such a thing:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/angad84/8085501496/in/set-72157631738040300/

Contrail coming from one engine is notably thicker than contrail from the other engine.

UPDATE: For comparison, here is a photo gallery that contains images of three contrailing SU-30MKI jets in formation:

https://picasaweb.google.com/117990383296131038585/Su30MKI

 

[MikeC]

Another repeat of the video in the OP is here - I've been blocked already - guess which my comments are??

 

[KC-10FE]

It does seem like the Su-30's are using actual smoke much like the Thunderbirds use in their show, those are not actually contrails, much like in the French Mirage video. The smoke can be generated by a small oil line being sprayed into the engine, among other methods.

http://www.webanswers.com/automobiles/aircraft/how-do-aerobatic-planes-make-coloured-smoke-f226c3

I worked F15's for 6 years and I would have to ask an actual pilot if they ever went down to just one engine, which I doubt.

 

[KC-10FE]

That is the correct method, where the receiver drops to the bottom of the air refueling "block" or altitude reserva

Here is a video in which the detachement maneuver was captured from the tanker's perspective (see end):

This is what is NOT supposed to look like