>>16420089

tyb

sparklin'

o7

>>16420139

>>16420158

>>16420171

you may get an answer.

careful what you ask for.

kek

>>16420193

They still saying MV-22, huh?

>>16420222

>>16420230

>>16420315

Roger. Glamis

looking at the crash photo yesterday, the general consensus for acft type was CH-53.

no main rotor impacts / strikes

tail vertical semi-stabilizer visible, but that was about it.

almost completely incinerated on impact.

would need better photos of the site.

lots of conflicting reports of that one.

o7

>>16420292

>>16420377

there was one yesterday from what looked like a news chopper, possibly.

kinda grainy but its all we had last night

give me a few.

o7

>>16420406

Starts in #20767

>>16416105 (PB)

>>16416220 (PB)

>>16416343 (PB)

Discussion in #20770

>>16417094 (PB)

>>16417109 (PB) Pic of crash

o7

>>16420447

>>16420533

kekt

>>16420542

indeed

seen a few in my day….

still trying to figure that one out

o7

>>16420523

>On the whole it looks more like a CH-53 silhouette on the ground rather than a 'T' shape I would expect with a MV-22.

aye

the lack of main rotor blades and no strike divots pinged me on first glance

>>16420733

have the dreamons returned?

>>16420758

kek

>>16420811