Spangdahlem (ETAD/SPM) - 2008
Forum rules
Mode S / SBS and radio logs, airfield specific, are allowed, but always state your source, mode S / SBS or air traffic conversations. These logs can be placed in the "day topic" so a separate Mode S / SBS radio log is not necessary |
-
- Scramble Rookie
- Posts: 68
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 12:08
- Subscriber Scramble: groundcontrol
- Location: Germany
Hi all,
we do not think that Spang received 8 new F-16 until today but only six!
Confirmed deliverys are 10361 and 10349 as RETRO88/89 on 18.1. and 10358 and 10366 on 19.3.
We think that the delivery on 28.1. did not take place. Confirmed delivery on 10.2. were unidentified Retro78/79 from KFFO to Spang. These should have been 10360 and 10388 both noted in the meantime.
Time will tell!
Regards Groundcontrol
we do not think that Spang received 8 new F-16 until today but only six!
Confirmed deliverys are 10361 and 10349 as RETRO88/89 on 18.1. and 10358 and 10366 on 19.3.
We think that the delivery on 28.1. did not take place. Confirmed delivery on 10.2. were unidentified Retro78/79 from KFFO to Spang. These should have been 10360 and 10388 both noted in the meantime.
Time will tell!
Regards Groundcontrol
- phantom_phixer
- Scramble Junior
- Posts: 110
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 12:49
- Type of spotter: F2
- Subscriber Scramble: phantom_phixer
- Location: LGTG
-
- Scramble Junior
- Posts: 219
- Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 00:59
10358 & 10366 were not delivered on 19.3 because USAFE pictured them on 18.3, see http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39766" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;groundcontrol wrote:Hi all,
we do not think that Spang received 8 new F-16 until today but only six!
Confirmed deliverys are 10361 and 10349 as RETRO88/89 on 18.1. and 10358 and 10366 on 19.3.
We think that the delivery on 28.1. did not take place. Confirmed delivery on 10.2. were unidentified Retro78/79 from KFFO to Spang. These should have been 10360 and 10388 both noted in the meantime.
Time will tell!
Regards Groundcontrol
-
- Scramble Rookie
- Posts: 68
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 12:08
- Subscriber Scramble: groundcontrol
- Location: Germany
- Eric van Lisdonk
- Scramble Master
- Posts: 2566
- Joined: 19 Mar 2004, 23:33
- Subscriber Scramble: Eric van Lisdonk
- Location: Ramstein and Gilze-Rijen Air Base
Log: Spangdahlem 20-03-2008
Hi,
Noted yesterday the following on this base on our way to and from RS:
68-0226 C-5A 105AW/NY ANG
70-0447 C-5A 445AW/AFRC
89-1192 C-17A 437AW
02-1105 C-17A 62AW
03-3124 C-17A 437AW
05-5147/HH C-17A 15AW/HI ANG
Cheers,
Eggie,
Eric
Noted yesterday the following on this base on our way to and from RS:
68-0226 C-5A 105AW/NY ANG
70-0447 C-5A 445AW/AFRC
89-1192 C-17A 437AW
02-1105 C-17A 62AW
03-3124 C-17A 437AW
05-5147/HH C-17A 15AW/HI ANG
Cheers,
Eggie,
Eric
Patrick Moonen wrote:10358 & 10366 were not delivered on 19.3 because USAFE pictured them on 18.3, see http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39766" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;groundcontrol wrote:Hi all,
we do not think that Spang received 8 new F-16 until today but only six!
Confirmed deliverys are 10361 and 10349 as RETRO88/89 on 18.1. and 10358 and 10366 on 19.3.
We think that the delivery on 28.1. did not take place. Confirmed delivery on 10.2. were unidentified Retro78/79 from KFFO to Spang. These should have been 10360 and 10388 both noted in the meantime.
Time will tell!
Regards Groundcontrol
Patrick Moonen is right! Johnny (aka USAFE) posted his shots in his topic http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39766" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 19 Mar 2008 02:05. That´s a clear time proof that he took these arrival shots already on March 18, 2008! And please note the travel pod (also called cargo pod), clearly visible on station 7 of both aircraft. In this case, "Flugzeugforum" must be simply wrong with their date of shot!groundcontrol wrote:Well, "Flugzeugforum" shows 10366 landing at ETAD with long range fuel tanks at 19.3.
Regards,
Groundcontrol
In case of 91-0361 and 91-0349 which arrived at Spang as Retro 88/89 on January 18, 2008, Johnny also mentioned travel pods. And these pods are a clear sign for deployments/redeployments or transfer flights to other bases like in this cases.
Anybody who can/will post a hot-link to the related pictures on "Flugzeugforum"? I will not spend my time to search their website.
In the F-16 Aircraft Database on http://www.f-16.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, there are the following new assignments of ex 522nd FS Vipers:
91-0361 Block 50D 23rd FS
91-0349 Block 50C 22nd FS
Hope that helps.
- phantom_phixer
- Scramble Junior
- Posts: 110
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 12:49
- Type of spotter: F2
- Subscriber Scramble: phantom_phixer
- Location: LGTG
From what I've heard and from the official HAI press releases all USAFE Vipers will eventually visit Tanagra. Here's what I have noted down as currently (March 21st, 2008) in:Maurizio wrote: ...
Kostas, do you have a list of SP/AV Vipers actually there for mods?
87-0355 F-16C AV
88-0413 F-16C AV
88-0435 F-16C AV
88-0443 F-16C AV
88-0444 F-16C AV
88-0525 F-16C AV
89-2009 F-16C AV
89-2046 F-16C AV
89-2057 F-16C AV
89-2102 F-16C AV
89-2137 F-16C AV
90-0709 F-16C AV
90-0796 F-16D AV
91-0407 F-16C SP
91-0481 F-16D SP
Go easy on me, I usually don't do numbers
Kostas
Spangdahlem 22-03
Hi all,
noted on Spang today were:
C-17A 89-1192 437th AW
C-17A 99-0063 62nd AW Rch9063
C-17A 03-3124 437th AW
C-17A 05-5147/HH 517th AS
C-5A 70-0447 445th AW AFRC
Except 99-0063 the rest was also noted on 21-03 at 0100lt
also present at that time was C-5A 68-0226 105th AW NY ANG
Hope ite helps,
Grtz
Arjan de Graaff
Elmar Keetman
noted on Spang today were:
C-17A 89-1192 437th AW
C-17A 99-0063 62nd AW Rch9063
C-17A 03-3124 437th AW
C-17A 05-5147/HH 517th AS
C-5A 70-0447 445th AW AFRC
Except 99-0063 the rest was also noted on 21-03 at 0100lt
also present at that time was C-5A 68-0226 105th AW NY ANG
Hope ite helps,
Grtz
Arjan de Graaff
Elmar Keetman
Today, I found the following USAF photos, "brand-new" released on the public website of the 455th AEW, Bagram AB, Afghanistan:
http://www.bagram.afnews.af.mil/shared/ ... 8L-638.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bagram.afnews.af.mil/shared/ ... 8L-642.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original Caption:
BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan -- 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron Crash Team Airmen attach a lifting harness to an A-10 Warthog here March 11. The Airmen were participating in the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing’s first major accident response exercise here. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Demetrius Lester)
That´s A-10 81-0983/SP, deployed with the 81st EFS. Anybody who can explain the confusing "81-1983" on the intake cover?
http://www.bagram.afnews.af.mil/shared/ ... 8L-638.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.bagram.afnews.af.mil/shared/ ... 8L-642.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Original Caption:
BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan -- 455th Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron Crash Team Airmen attach a lifting harness to an A-10 Warthog here March 11. The Airmen were participating in the 455th Air Expeditionary Wing’s first major accident response exercise here. (U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Demetrius Lester)
That´s A-10 81-0983/SP, deployed with the 81st EFS. Anybody who can explain the confusing "81-1983" on the intake cover?