PDA

View Full Version : I think I would crash...


Ween
06-05-2005, 03:00 PM
If they gave me this tail to fly, I'm pretty sure I'd crash:

http://www.ikemeyer.com/pictures/N691LF.jpg

4kV
06-05-2005, 03:12 PM
Wow, she's a beauty. Great colors.

bnsf sammy
06-05-2005, 03:22 PM
why the heck does UP need an airplane for? it looks like a cargo jet...possible for transporting locos?

4kV
06-05-2005, 03:25 PM
This is a joke picture I had a friend of mine create so I could send it to Ween. He flies this type of aircraft and is also not a fan of the UP. Why Mr. Ween would intentionally crash an aircraft dressed in such a beautiful scheme is beyond me.

Ru1056
06-05-2005, 06:43 PM
Thats pretty cool. I think the reporting marks are pretty funny.


If they gave me this tail to fly, I'm pretty sure I'd crash

Nah, that would only be if Boeing gave you a KC135 to demonstrate. (I presume that is a Boeing?)

Sorry, not good at figuring out those flying thingies

cactus65
06-05-2005, 06:59 PM
very sweet repaint, creative as hell

BTW Judging from the markings on the refueling probe it is an Air National Guard Boeing KC-135

4kV
06-05-2005, 07:01 PM
You are correct. It is indeed an ANG KC-135.

SD70MAC
06-05-2005, 10:28 PM
haha now thats cool Ween! Imagine UP actually doing that...yikes!

cmherndon
06-05-2005, 10:44 PM
Shoot, if you're gonna paint a KC-135 in to a railroad's colors, at least paint it black. :grin:

busyEMT
06-06-2005, 03:10 AM
I could tell it was a fake... it was too dang clean.

bnsf sammy
06-06-2005, 03:34 AM
my friend thinks its an ex-milatary re-fueler, a BAE164. My other friend thinks it was done on photoshop

SD70MAC
06-06-2005, 04:28 AM
No way?! R u kiddin? Thats definetly real :)

bnsf sammy
06-06-2005, 04:39 AM
No way?! R u kiddin? Thats definetly real :)
well, lets think about it for a minute.
1st off, that is ovisoly an Ex-military plane, (a fuel plane) which means not a passenger, so it cant be like an executive aircraft...and why would they need such a big aircraft for passenger use?
2. This plane was painted after 9-11-01 when UP started with the building america scheme...is a hard call weither is this real or not..
3. If this is real, and it is now converted to an aircraft for moving equipment, what would UP move in an aircraft?

I think we need an opinion of someone who really, really knows the Union Pacific Railroad to answer this question.

4kV
06-06-2005, 12:40 PM
well, lets think about it for a minute.
1st off, that is ovisoly an Ex-military plane, (a fuel plane) which means not a passenger, so it cant be like an executive aircraft...and why would they need such a big aircraft for passenger use?
2. This plane was painted after 9-11-01 when UP started with the building america scheme...is a hard call weither is this real or not..
3. If this is real, and it is now converted to an aircraft for moving equipment, what would UP move in an aircraft?

I think we need an opinion of someone who really, really knows the Union Pacific Railroad to answer this question.

I guess I must go over this again...........

1. It is a military plane, a KC-135.

2. It was indeed painted after 9-11-01, in fact, it was painted on 6-4-2005 at a secret military installation known as Photoshop, USA

3. It was converted for moving fuel, but the UP now uses it for moving cattle across the country, now that cattle cars have become obsolete.

We do not need the opinion of anyone who knows the UP, since this photo is not a matter of opinion.

Ween
06-06-2005, 02:01 PM
Shoot, if you're gonna paint a KC-135 in to a railroad's colors, at least paint it black. :grin:

As much as I like NS, for the black paint, let me say: no way in hell!!!

It's already topping out at 117F over here, and in the cockpit, it's upwards of 140F (yeah, there's no air conditioning on the ground in the KC-135R). And that's with the AF gray paint they've got now. I'm pretty sure my brain would melt if it were painted black.

busyEMT
06-06-2005, 02:06 PM
3. If this is real, and it is now converted to an aircraft for moving equipment, what would UP move in an aircraft?

I think we need an opinion of someone who really, really knows the Union Pacific Railroad to answer this question.


It is called alleviating congestion. Cram some TOFCs and center beam bulk heads in there and take to the air!

bnsf sammy
06-06-2005, 02:39 PM
I guess I must go over this again...........

3. It was converted for moving fuel, but the UP now uses it for moving cattle across the country, now that cattle cars have become obsolete.

.

Cattle?!!??!? :eek: and spincars? this is a railroad...you dont take cattle in an airplane!...and the colors...the yellow looks painted on compared to the gray...so i still think its fake...

4kV
06-06-2005, 03:04 PM
Cattle?!!??!? :eek: and spincars? this is a railroad...you dont take cattle in an airplane!...and the colors...the yellow looks painted on compared to the gray...so i still think its fake...


And they are considering a fleet of F-15s for their next railroad merger. It's known in corporate circles as a hostile takeover.

busyEMT
06-06-2005, 03:07 PM
2. It was indeed painted after 9-11-01, in fact, it was painted on 6-4-2005 at a secret military installation known as Photoshop, USA
Well now it isn't a secret!


3. It was converted for moving fuel, but the UP now uses it for moving cattle across the country, now that cattle cars have become obsolete.

That would be one hell of a bar-b-que if Ween ever flew this plane!

Is the UP ever going to make articluated KC-135s? They could corner the GULAG market as well (see http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1924 ).

ssw9662
06-06-2005, 03:49 PM
Hey Ween if you want I'll help you crash it. :D

Ween
06-07-2005, 01:54 PM
you dont take cattle in an airplane!

Maybe not in the US, but the current USAF fleet of E-8 JSTARS were re-claimed 707s from other countries, some of which were used to haul livestock.

Glad I'm not flying that jet...