The wires you describe would bob around in the breeze, too. The system of pulleys and controls would add unnecessary weight and complexity and to have any steadying effect, they would have to be attached at quite an angle, which would be impossible on the outboard side because they're mounted out towards the wingtip. There would also be no vertical steadying or control.
The basket is actually pretty stable because, well, it's designed to be stable. It's actually called a drogue and like a drogue parachute or a drogue anchor behind a boat, it's intended to be stable. The longer it's trailed back, the more it can bounce around, but it really is stable almost all the time.
I've watched probe-and-drogue refuelling several times from the tanker and I've seen the boom system in use from both ends. The tip of the boom "wobbled" around before making contact about the same amount as the drogue basket did as the probe approached. Since the boom is fully controlled and is actually "flown", t
In February 1993, I flew an air-to-air photo mission with the RNZAF in a TA-4K "Kahu" Skyhawk. We did a series of mock attacks on a joint RAN/RNZN naval group 50 miles off the NSW coast. We went 100 miles out and dropped down to 50 feet for the attack runs. Yes, I said 50 feet. That was what was briefed and that was what was flown. I saw it on the HUD repeater with my own (wide) eyes. The RNZAF's A-4s regularly flew down to 50 feet over both land and water.
There were four Skyhawks plus two RAAF Hornets in the attacking force. The A-4s had different attack patterns for each run and while we were regrouping on the way back out to sea, the Hornets did their attacks and I had a few moments for photos. We climbed a bit for the formation work because both close fomation and low-level flying are inherently risky and there was no need to do both at the same time. Blurred water in the background looks the same whether the aircraft are at 50 or 100 feet.
During the pre-flight briefing, it
The problem with heaping immediate derision on a potential enemy is that they rarely live down to being so underestimated. It's much more sensible to accurately assess the capabilities so that they're not such a surprise when it turns out they're not designed, made, and flown by monkeys after all.
And as for "30 years ago", that's when the F-22 was designed.
Before you laugh at the paint scheme, have a look at the F-4 in Hill Grey II or at the F-16 and you'll see the same idea of darker in the middle and lighter at the extremities for the same reason the T-50 does it: to make it look smaller. Stealth is fine, but sometimes the Mk I eyeball enters the fray, too.
And precisely which "a lot of Russian products" does this plane look like?
Great video. I've had the privilege of flying in quite a few different types of military fighters and trainers in several countries and I've been through the Canadian air force's "high altitude indoctrination" course several times, too, which includes decompression chamber sessions.
It's SOP to always wear the oxygen mask in those aircraft types. The cockpit of a fighter or trainer doesn't maintain a fixed cabin pressure like an airliner or bizjet, but rather has a pressure differential from the outside air pressure. I'm in the middle of packing for a move and my books from the HAI course are already packed, but IIRC, the differential is either 8000 or 10,000 feet.
In other words, if you're flying at 35,000 feet, the cockpit is at either 25,000 or 27,000 feet. Failure of a canopy seal, for example, will quickly match the inside and outside air pressures and won't leave you more than a few seconds to put your mask on, which is one reason why they're worn at all times.
So? They're different aircraft. You do realise (or perhaps you don't) that each aircraft has its own requirements for such things as takeoff roll, maximum takeoff weight, and so on?
Is your assertion that the A340 and A380 are incapable of taking off from a 6100-foot runway based on direct knowledge of their certified technical capabilities and limitations, or is it merely supposition derived from an irrational personal hatred of Airbus products?
It was reportedly in the air for 20 minutes before landing at McConnell, so I wonder if it was the same two pilots enjoying potentially their last Dreamlifter flight. If it was another crew, they got them there quickly and while that's certainly possible to do, don't forget the crew rest rules. I won't be surprised if it was the "oops crew" who repositioned it to where it was supposed to be.