Lakenheath 8/10

[PORTPHANTOM]

The very last batch of SJs went 6 45am. Think the others went mid morning

[Jabba9999]

Cheers

[Jabba9999]

The following just departed:

88-1705, 89-506, 87-201, 88-1667, 87-183, 87-210

[Blackcat1]

Any idea why they are deploying rather than the 492nd as I read they were next due to deploy?

[AlexanderClover]

I think cause Lakenheath did the double last year it’s someone else’s turn to do the double this year. Which would mean the SJs will do it next year? That’s what I think it is anyway.

[Blackcat1]

Thanks

[AlistairMarr]

I returned from Lakenheath at 13.00ish and read off the following:198, 202, 209, 1678, 227, 170-? (in open hangar to the right side of the parked ones & probably 88-1707 but needs confirmation).

[Weazel69]

greetings Blackcat1, with no disrepect to Alexander C but I think he's probably got his figures wrong because according to my ( paperwork )
the 494thFS LN relieved the 366thFS 4thFW SJ yw whom returned homeward 04.2018, the 494th were then relieved by the 391stFS 366thFW MO tig
the 494th returned whilst the exercise involving the USN - F/A18s & F22s was on 10.2018
the 391st then returned homeward 04.2019 which leads us to where we are now so no mention of 492nd deployment

like you I asked why not the 492nd this time but got no reply/ignored which has me thinking someone is probably thinking what is this old twit on about

[Blackcat1]

Thank you Weazel69.

[EA6B Prowler]

Appears to be six in the line now - (90-0)235 being the additional one.

****I suspect this is erroneous and confusion with angle of view and based machines****

Has this "erroneous" MO serial been found out yet?

As the 366thFW have plenty candidates that could fit the bill, I could speculate on it's identity but would not wish to muddy anyone's waters

[slogen51]

I personally didn't reply to the above ( several posts up) because I have no idea what the answer is

There must be a reason but as a civilian I gave up trying to rationalize the military ages ago.

[rh226]

I returned from Lakenheath at 13.00ish and read off the following:198, 202, 209, 1678, 227, 170-? (in open hangar to the right side of the parked ones & probably 88-1707 but needs confirmation).

88-1707 is the "366 OG" aircraft.

Would be very reasonable to assume that this (or the "366 FW" one) could well be on a deployment of this size.

[busterg4]

88-1707 noted on the ramp no special marks at 1530L 11-10-19.
By my calculations this is the missing frame from the first six.