November 06, 2004
The Return Of Aviation Trivia
What is "wrong" with this banner ad, i found while websurfing?
Posted by: annika at
12:01 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Re Rotating Epigram -- the flip side (of right to be heard is not a right to be taken seriously epigram) is "Just because you have a right to an opinion, does not mean your opinion in right."
Posted by: Iam Doubt at November 06, 2004 12:47 PM (9kTFs)
2
Let's see.....an F-18 Hornet in an ad for the Air Force does not compute. The F-18 is supposed to be exclusive to the arsenal of the Navy and Marine Corps. I don't believe the Air Force has any Hornets in any of their tactical fighter wings. Basically, the Navy is either advertising for the Air Force or the Air Force is advertising for the Navy in some sort of bizarre recruiter swing party.
Posted by: reagan80 at November 06, 2004 01:09 PM (hlMFQ)
3
Reagan80, since they give a non-US phone number and the site is the Australian version of Yahoo, I assume it's an ad for the Australian AF. I know the USAF has no F-18's, but the Australian AF has 71 according to their website.
But as far as answering the question of what's "wrong" with the picture, I've got nothing.
Posted by: Paul W at November 06, 2004 04:16 PM (Xho2N)
4
The F-18 is flying west but the shadows clearly indicate the sun has set.
Or is it that the plane looks like it is standing still and the water is moving.
No, Wait, now that I moved the picture into photoshop, I see that the pilot has his oxygen mixture set to rich for such a low altitude.
Posted by: mike at November 06, 2004 04:18 PM (0ZdtC)
5
Could it be a Su-27 Flanker, painted haze grey, with USN insignia. Nah, Reagan80 got it; I just wanted to post a comment to celebrate the return of aviation trivia.
Annika, have you read Ben Rich's 'SKUNK WORKS'? If not, I'd certainly recommend it. Rich was Kelly Johnson's protégé and worked for Johnson on the U-2 and SR-71. After Johnson retired Rich led the Skunk Works team through the F-117 program.
Posted by: Jasen at November 06, 2004 04:25 PM (WXicR)
6
Yeah, reagan80 nailed it -- but I think Paul made a very good catch. Our clever hostess put "wrong" in quotes because "the" (U.S.) Air Force doesn't fly the F/A-18 (thus the ad seems wrong), but she knows the RAAF does (thus it's not really wrong -- i.e., "wrong"). Annika's busting out a little of that freshman psych on us.
Posted by: Matt at November 06, 2004 04:59 PM (eWM9Y)
7
Annika, I just saw an ad saying the Marine Corps is looking for women to fly high-performance aircraft. Sure you really want to go to law school?
Posted by: David Foster at November 06, 2004 07:19 PM (0PXmV)
8
Foster, the two aren't mutually exclusive: military JAG's can do ANYTHING. I saw it on TV, so it must be true. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at November 06, 2004 09:26 PM (GEMsk)
9
You guys are too fucking good. i thought this was much harder than it turned out to be. Paul W. got it first. There is nothing "wrong" with the ad. It is for the Royal Australian Air Force, which does indeed fly the F/A-18, built in Australia under license from McDonnell Douglas.
Posted by: annika! at November 06, 2004 09:40 PM (ZW23W)
10
She's like fucking with our minds and shit 
...only cuz I did not catch it...
...only cuz I did not catch it...Posted by: Scof at November 07, 2004 12:16 AM (Oo2Oh)
11
In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I went for it hook, line and sinker. I was going to comment that the AF doesn't fly F/A-18s, until I saw Paul's comment.
Posted by: Matt at November 08, 2004 10:10 AM (SIlfx)
<< Page 1 of 1 >>
16kb generated in CPU 0.0131, elapsed 0.0643 seconds.
60 queries taking 0.056 seconds, 139 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
60 queries taking 0.056 seconds, 139 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
