On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:50:01 -0400, Andrew <reply@grouponly.com>
wrote:

On 30 Sep 2006 17:42:48 -0700, miso@sushi.com wrote:

Andrew wrote:

On 24 Sep 2006 19:21:55 -0700, miso@sushi.com wrote:

Peter A. Stoll wrote:

miso@sushi.com wrote in news:1159130030.750745.84120
@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

gpsman wrote:

miso@sushi.com wrote:

http://www.lazygranch.com/ttr_cv22.htm

Wow!  How in the hell do you get a shutter speed fast enough to stop
the *props* almost dead?!  I assume since they're quite large they spin
slower than "normal" sized props, but still...

Nice shootin'!
 -----

- gpsman

Those photographs were shot handheld through a 400mm lens. I would
guess the exposure time was 1/800th of a second. It had to exceed
1/400th of a second, else the camera would have warned me the speed was
too slow to be handheld. Aperture was f5.6.

My guess is faster than 1/800.  Here is a link to a picture of the same
aircraft type I took at Kirtland at 1/500 second exposure time.  Admittedly
the phase of flight is different, but I'd be surprised if the prop rpm
differs so greatly.  In mine at 1/500, the prop blur is quite substantial.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y231/PeterAStoll/Aircraft/Airshows/Kirtlan
d1Jul2006/IMG_5722d.jpg

If the news reader wraps or otherwise makes the above link not work, here
is a tiny URL to the same exact place.

http://tinyurl.com/mzuuj

I do see the difference.

I wasn't paying attention to the shutter speed. I had the camera in
aperture priority and wide open at f5.6. It has been my experiance that
with ISO 100 film the shutter speed doesn't get higher than maybe
1/1200th or so.

nice catch, Miso.

Andrew

But with regard to the CV-22 and UAV's,...
Is there an implication that UAVs are perhaps being test-dropped from CV-22's ?
No need for a landing field for take-off in that case, say somewhere in a very
mountainous country where goats can be your best friend perhaps?

Hmmm,...

>From the most recent information I have, the TTR was still doing flight
monitoring on film. The film was then scanned for computer analysis. I
don't think this is simple, so the time between loops is long. I
suppose they have to reload the cameras. I watched a B1B do some fly
bys that I believe were a test as the plane came back over the base
about every 45 minutes.

The CV22 seems to be just flying around randomly. Here is a map with
the target flight line
http://www.lazygranch.com/images/ttr/787386018.gif
The CV-22 was well east of the flight line.

Well, if it was just loitering around I suppose *it* could be a target, but it
seems monitoring the UAVs is more likely. Still doesn't answer the question
of, "Why bother?". That is, I'm sure the ground crew can recieve whatever
telemetry the UAV has been built to transmit. No matter how "encrypted"
that signal might be it is still just RF in the air and shouldn't require a special
"airborne" reciever (that's sortof a joke, ha,ha). 

Perhaps there is a line of sight issue. Are there substantial elevations between
the possible locations of the ground crew and the flight line of the UAV's ??
The higher the freq. level of the RF the more an issue line of sight would be.

Andrew

the " aircraft " and UAVs  thought could be spot on  .   pretty much
all of the  medium and large  american military UAVs have that odd
looking bubble on the top of the front part of the aircraft. this is a
gimbal mounted satellite antenna and all of them  communicate 
with the ground  ( mostly ) from this antenna , through satellites.
this way they can be flown in the middle east and controlled  from
the UAV center in Colorado ( among other places , as they typically
are ) .  there are numerous reasons for this type of control ,
especially if it is armed and  could have  bad intentions. 

an aircraft flying overhead the UAV could also intercept the 
raw  uplink data  and  be a  " control " link ( for both the visual
data channel and the flight data control channel ) for UAV training
and mission  control practices.  I'm not saying this is the reason for
those particular flights , but there  certainly are lots of reasons
they could be related to UAVs , LOTS.  ( intercepting UAV
communications signals from the ground is nearly impossible,
because most of them are UWB type emissions and they use high gain
antennas that transmit " up " and have intentional  high rejection of
spirus  side and back lobe signals   ) .  it'd  take a network of
satellites or some VERY high flying intercept equipment ( as they
typically work at 20,000 feet or higher in the " kill box " ) to  find
and track the RF from those kewl puppies.  you gotta love 'em , the
standard  ( unmanned )   for the future ,  for sure ! 



k