AWACS being refueled with off-on contrails

If a vapor trail starts some distance from the exhaust and a purposeful spray, be it of smoke, pesticides or whatever, starts inside (or thereabouts) of the spray device than surely that should be the same principal for a 'chemtrail' shouldn't it? I mean presumably that would discount any video showing a plane during an alleged spray run.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If a vapor trail starts some distance from the exhaust and a purposeful spray, be it of smoke, pesticides or whatever, starts inside (or thereabouts) of the spray device than surely that should be the same principal for a 'chemtrail' shouldn't it? I mean presumably that would discount any video showing a plane during an alleged spray run.
Generally. Although you can get a type of smoke trail with a gap.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-military-chemtrails-on-off-su-30-smoke-skywriting.2926/

And with larger planes the gap can sometimes be hard to see
http://contrailscience.com/how-big-is-the-gap-between-contrails-and-engines/

And aerodynamic contrails don't have a gap:
http://contrailscience.com/aerodynamic-and-rainbow-contrails/
 
That makes sense. I'm really not knowledgeable on the subject at all, it just struck me as being more binary than it is. I guess that's the trap that most believers fall into too.
 

captfitch

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



This is what is NOT supposed to look like:)

Two questions...

Does the boom operator have any aircraft control? It looked like the refueling plane pitched away. Or I thought it could have been bow wave pushing it up?

Did the boom operator fly the boom up that well or was it some more bow wave action?
 

KC-10FE

Active Member
Two questions...

Does the boom operator have any aircraft control? It looked like the refueling plane pitched away. Or I thought it could have been bow wave pushing it up?

Did the boom operator fly the boom up that well or was it some more bow wave action?
The boom operator only has control of the boom, I cannot speak for the KC135R, but with our KC10, once one of our receivers had established itself in the "precontact" position, the boom operator has full control of the boom while the pilots fly the aircraft. The boom operator will then use a set of pilot director lights located on the belly of our aircraft to direct the receiver into contact, along with verbal corrections. I know when we are refueling off a KC135, and our pilot moves in too fast, he will cause the 135 autopilot to disengage, resulting in a significant downward pitch of the 135 nose, and a "breakaway" much like the above video. That definitely will wake you up!
 

KC-10FE

Active Member
These people have no shame when it comes to pushing their agenda, this one claims to be an ECO or Electronics Combat Officer on an AWACS, and his main job is to spray chemtrails for weather modification.


Screen Shot 2014-01-30 at 3.40.47 AM.png


Screen Shot 2014-01-30 at 3.41.06 AM.png



From: http://journalrecord.com/tinkertakeoff/2003/10/03/onboard-awacs-a-look-at-crew-positions/

"Electronic combat officers hold the newest position on the E-3. The position, designated in 1996, gives a fuller AWACS picture for air battle managers. ECOs use a passive detection system to associate any electromagnetic emission to a specific threat system. This provides threat warning not only to AWACS, but to the other aircraft in the theater as well. They also coordinate with other intelligence-gatherers to determine the primary threat for a specific region, using that information to optimize the PDS’s electronic search for threats"
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member
I think they have some sort of shear device for that?
Yes there is. On a GR4 the probe folds out and connects to the basket. This one is of a Luftwaffe Tornado, but the red collar just down the shaft from the tip is the shear point.
78d21da5378d1334b05deb537d7b2751.jpg


On the RAF model, they usually also cover the collar with green tape, so that inspect it to see if there is any movement or weakening of the collar (so I have been informed).

KC-10FE will probably know this better than me, but I believe the GR4 can jettison the whole refuelling arm if necessary and the tanker can jettison the entire hose, though I may be mistaken on this (?) - I just told them where to go and what to do when they got there, what happens on the way I didn't really care about too much, but tanker issue were the most common cause of mission failure or abortion.
 

KC-10FE

Active Member
Yes there is. On a GR4 the probe folds out and connects to the basket. This one is of a Luftwaffe Tornado, but the red collar just down the shaft from the tip is the shear point.View attachment 13311

On the RAF model, they usually also cover the collar with green tape, so that inspect it to see if there is any movement or weakening of the collar (so I have been informed).

KC-10FE will probably know this better than me, but I believe the GR4 can jettison the whole refuelling arm if necessary and the tanker can jettison the entire hose, though I may be mistaken on this (?) - I just told them where to go and what to do when they got there, what happens on the way I didn't really care about too much, but tanker issue were the most common cause of mission failure or abortion.
I am not sure about the probe, but our boom operator can jettison the hose if necessary. When that switch is thrown, it will activate the drogue guillotine which chops off the hose and clamps it off to prevent leakage. This usually is done when a receiver tears off the basket, and the hose starts whipping around uncontrollably. I had a Brit GR4 tear off the basket, and pull up alongside our tanker with it stuck on his probe. By the time we landed the basket was on a C130 coming back to our main operating base:)
 

tavacid

New Member
Expanation:
KC-10FE said: ↑
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
And it's nothing new that can be attributed to "chemtrails"

1955 May 31 Centralia Daily Chronicle

https://newspaperarchive.com/centralia-daily-chronicle-may-31-1955-p-1/
 
Top