To: GoldCountryRedneck
No offense, but it doesn't look real. The BUFF looks way too low and the size doesn't seem proportional. Anyone else?
6 posted on
07/06/2006 8:06:44 PM PDT by
TankerKC
(¿José puede usted ver?)
To: TankerKC
You can see what appears to be its shadow.
8 posted on
07/06/2006 8:18:30 PM PDT by
1066AD
To: TankerKC
To: TankerKC
I don't think the BUFF is too low...the reason BUFFs usually travel at treetop level is because they're over land. Nothing would stop them from travelling 20 or 40 feet above the waves at sea.
As for size...BUFFS are big jets, but Ranger is immense. A BUFF is about 140-150 feet long, and a Forrestal class carrier is several football fields long.
25 posted on
07/06/2006 9:48:48 PM PDT by
Mr. Silverback
(Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof - Lev. XXV, v. X)
To: TankerKC
The second fly by was even most impressive.
Yes this is a phototshop. The original is not though......usmcobra
38 posted on
07/07/2006 4:44:51 AM PDT by
usmcobra
(How many ICBM tests does it take before Kim Jung Il is consider a threat? let's find out 1,2,3...)
To: TankerKC
No offense, but it doesn't look real. The BUFF looks way too low and the size doesn't seem proportional.Agreed. Besides, I didn't think a B52 could fly that low and still remain aloft (except for landings and takeoffs).
The outline of the plane in the above photo is correct, though.
These photos help to give a sense of scale. They are huge aircraft.
73 posted on
07/08/2006 11:35:28 PM PDT by
Wolfstar
(Where you go with me, heaven will always be.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson