Flying

sixer9682 said:
Holy shit. That vid was almost as bad as the music :(
Click to expand...

Allow me to re-direct you to the "perks" of the business.


Here you go:

10354741_10204235417988276_7957257625249182761_n.jpg


better? :)
 
When I read "dead stick" I was thinking it'd be without touching the flight stick or something... I was curious how he'd pull that off with the engine and rudder only lulz. You probably could if you "lock" the stick into some kind of center/slightly position though, although I'm guessing the landing might be a bit rough...

But anyway, this is just with the engine off? I mean, it takes some skill, but is that really that impressive?
 
HeatSurge said:
When I read "dead stick" I was thinking it'd be without touching the flight stick or something... I was curious how he'd pull that off with the engine and rudder only lulz. You probably could if you "lock" the stick into some kind of center/slightly position though, although I'm guessing the landing might be a bit rough...

But anyway, this is just with the engine off? I mean, it takes some skill, but is that really that impressive?
Click to expand...
The term "dead stick" comes from years ago when the engine on an aircraft with a wood prop would stop in flight, the engine would be out, the prop was a "dead stick". The (almost any) aircraft is still completely controllable in this state, it's just a glider. (I've had 8 dead sticks, I should know:eek:) Now a dead stick takeoff is another matter altogether. In his full CD you can see that mountain he uses to take off of is about 50 or 60 degrees of incline. Then there's the factor of putting it down exactly where you want without an engine. So the short answer is yes ANY dead stick landing is impressive, but a dead stick takeoff is completely off the chain.
 
One day. I have dreams of owning and refurbishing a WW2 fighter aircraft, unfortunately I don't come from old money. Realistically, I want to earn my rotary and fixed-wing licenses once I finish this degree.
 
HeatSurge said:
But anyway, this is just with the engine off? I mean, it takes some skill, but is that really that impressive?
Click to expand...
CrackyMcSlapnuts said:
The (almost any) aircraft is still completely controllable in this state, it's just a glider.
Click to expand...

I am no pilot but I would like to add to this. You have to remember heat that a stall is much more dangerous without thrust at low altitudes. If you have no thrust to assist in regaining airflow to the wings and restore the aircraft to stable flight then your alternative requires additional altitude to work the problem. Mistakes become statistically deadlier at that point and impressive would be the word.

All aircraft are designed in a balance with their powerplant in mind. A glider is designed with gliding in mind. High performance jets are not. Most propeller driven aircraft will glide quite well due to a large wing surface area. But I wouldn't want to dead stick an F-14 with the wings retracted. I took aviation and aerospace design in high school as a required career completer. One of the things they warned us was to not use a jet as our physical model for what would be a propeller driven model.
 
I think the music made the video a lot better.

I wish they would have said where each of those places was.
 
It is somewhat impressive, but there are people that fly gliders all the time for fun. I guess it's different when it's a full-size airplane with an engine since it's clunkier and heavier to fly than a lightweight glider made specifically for that purpose, but still.

I agree the take-off looked pretty reckless/crazy...
 
You would be surprised how many fixed wing pilots have never practiced an emergency landing after they get their license. Or have been flying a particular make & model for hundreds of hours and have never practiced "stalls" with it. I've met a lot of them. When you ask them how will your plane do in an emergency and they haven't a clue. Sometimes they live thru it and sometimes you read about them. I had a friend that built a Europa and he had a bad habit of getting behind it in the landing pattern and horsing the plane around. His plane also had a pretty abrupt stall and departure. He was flying into the Oshkosh airshow about ten years ago with his wife, heavy with baggage and fuel, pulled the base to final turn too tight and spun it in inverted from around 700 feet. Cliff had been afraid to practice stalls with the aircraft and probably didn't recognize the signs of a departure because he had never seen what the signs were. I've glided the same type of aircraft 22 miles from 12,500' and managed to hit a 3,100' X 75' runway. I also knew that 12,500' with the prop feathered, would give me about 25 miles glide and 25 minutes of time at 65mph before I touched down. I knew this because I had practiced it.
Hell, the space shuttle was the WORST glider in the world with a low altitude glide ratio of about 4:1, about the same as a manhole cover and it hit the runway every time.
 
Lol the UH60 has a glide ratio of about 2:1 with a low inertia rotor.system that will kill you super fuckING fast if you don't watch the RPM
 
Isn't an engine-off (glider) landing a requirement to get a pilot license (in the US or everywhere)? I thought it was...

Same as a helicopter autorotation landing?

Kinda scary if it isn't. I would've thought loss of power would be one of the most common emergency maneuvers you practice for -_- . I'll be thinking twice if someone invites me... not that there's any danger of that happening but who knows lol.
 
HeatSurge said:
Isn't an engine-off (glider) landing a requirement to get a pilot license (in the US or everywhere)? I thought it was...

Same as a helicopter autorotation landing?

Kinda scary if it isn't. I would've thought loss of power would be one of the most common emergency maneuvers you practice for -_- . I'll be thinking twice if someone invites me... not that there's any danger of that happening but who knows lol.
Click to expand...
It depends on your instructor. You will have to demonstrate one for the examination but it's up to your instructor how far you take the "approaches" during training. You typically never demonstrate one and actually shut the engine down, just at idle. Some instructors see that you made the picked out landing spot and tell you go around while you're still at 500 feet, others like my first instructor make you fly it to ground effect.

My primary instructor who was born in 1916, flew bombers in both WWII and Korea, and was a tough SOB to train with. If you took your hand off the throttle for a second he would wipe it to idle and say, "where you putting it?". I couldn't scratch my nose without demonstrating an emergency approach. Spins & spin recovery? We weren't supposed to do them in the schools 152's but I got taught them anyway. ;) I firmly believe Peter's hardcore approach to training has saved my ass many times, but never so much as in 1998. I had an engine failure in a Cessna 172 at night. The survivability of night emergency landings as a percentage is in the low single digits. Later on I went and looked Peter up and told him what had happened and thanked him for being so tough with me during training. He had a "satisfied" look on his face, although he did say it wasn't a real emergency until you had dead guys on board, at least one engine out and holes you could pass your leg thru in the aircraft.

US flight training is actually woefully inadequate with regards to stalls and spins. It's not even part of private pilot training and IMHO that's stupid. Yet stalls/spins still kill pilots every year.

The difference with rotary versus fixed wing engine-out landings is, fixed wing might get you somewhere other than directly below you, but you'll have to land with forward speed and need an open area. Rotary wing will put you almost straight down but you can land with little or no forward speed.
 
CrackyMcSlapnuts said:
US flight training is actually woefully inadequate with regards to stalls and spins. It's not even part of private pilot training and IMHO that's stupid. Yet stalls/spins still kill pilots every year.

The difference with rotary versus fixed wing engine-out landings is, fixed wing might get you somewhere other than directly below you, but you'll have to land with forward speed and need an open area. Rotary wing will put you almost straight down but you can land with little or no forward speed.
Click to expand...

I thought flight training - even for private licenses - was WAY more rigorous than that -_- . I mean, a lot of even really young people could probably pretty much fly an operational plane nowadays due to sims, etc. . Helicopter maybe a bit more difficult :p . I thought what you did in training was mostly dealing with difficult situations, i.e. 100% flying by instruments, no instruments with no visibility, stalls, spins, engine failure, different parts of the airplane failure, etc. I'm really surprised more people don't die all the time from those things... What are you supposed to do, train on your own for that shit? o_0

Then again, they don't really train you for tire blowouts, multiple tire blowouts, spins, accidental loss of traction due to various reasons, brake failures, etc. before they give you a license to drive a car either... so I guess it makes sense on some broken level xD .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top