|
does he do anything stupid in this one?
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
 Someone flew a plane under the Riegelsville Bridge in Upper Bucks, and now the FAA is investigating
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Speaking of dumb pilots, is Jerry dead yet? Truly it’s only a matter of time. Inacio posted:does he do anything stupid in this one? Does a Bear poo poo in the woods? e: just watched it, he somehow managed to make a video where he doesn’t do anything dumb e.pilot fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Sep 17, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:
1/50 and he already has 1 Star?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 01:45
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:1/50 and he already has 1 Star?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:"I screwed up. I screwed up at least four times in a row. Don't do what I did. Learn from what I did. Don't risk what I did. I got very lucky."
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:I've messed around on the hardware, software, and interconnect on aviation navigation devices. I'm now looking around the room wondering which one of my coworkers you might be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:22
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I guess for experimental planes there’s no published crosswind limitation, so no obvious black-and-white “don’t try to fly, dummy” check. I don’t really follow this guy, did they do any envelope testing to attempt to build charts? It’s has nothing to do with being experimental, a crosswind gusting to over 30kt isn’t smart in a tailwheel, period. Most planes don’t have published max crosswind components, just suggested. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:26
|
|
|
In the video shot from back at the tarmac you can see the upwind wingtip is noticeably jacked up like a good two feet above the downwind tip, and the downwind gear is obviously compressed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 16:34
|
|
|
Also, it has a long travel suspension for backcountry landings, which made it extra-vulnerable to crosswinds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:Also, it has a long travel suspension for backcountry landings, which made it extra-vulnerable to crosswinds. Pretty much every mod he did to it made it more sensitive to crosswinds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 19:13
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Pretty much every mod he did to it made it more sensitive to crosswinds. Including the two-foot aluminum wing extenders aka "ground loop damage preventer"
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Including the two-foot aluminum wing extenders aka "ground loop damage preventer" Excuse you, they were carbon fiber. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:"I screwed up. I screwed up at least four times in a row. Don't do what I did. Learn from what I did. Don't risk what I did. I got very lucky." e.pilot posted:Excuse you, they were carbon fiber. WERE. :-) I feel like you're talking nonsense. Guy screwed up, admits to screw-up, doesn't blame anyone but himself. That's commendable. If I am taking what you're putting down properly, you've just damned anyone who does something that's not perfectly safe that a pilot chose to do. At least that's the impression i'm getting. yes, he does things that aren't strictly safe. He's flying an experimental, at that point you are the test pilot. He's also not being so conservative that he'll never actually discover the limits of the airframe, like I see a lot of experiential pilots do... (That's a long, long discussion, which I'm totally prepared to have.. I'm banned from the KR-2 mailing list for that...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
He says in the video that he was second-guessing himself several times before he decided to hit the throttle. He should have listened to his conscience and made the safer choices (pick a different runway, wait for the winds to die, don't fly). He acknowledges this in the video too. There's nothing commendable about having poor risk-analysis skills and making the wrong judgment call. Why do you think it's a good idea to "discover the limits of the airframe?" Do you think it's smart to push the limits of anything that could instantly kill you if you exceed them? Does it say anywhere in the FAR/AIM that Pilot Shall make sure he has hit the airframe g-limit and scared the poo poo out of himself on several occasions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:He says in the video that he was second-guessing himself several times before he decided to hit the throttle. He should have listened to his conscience and made the safer choices (pick a different runway, wait for the winds to die, don't fly). He acknowledges this in the video too. One thing I’ve been curious about, what does a real flight test program actually consist of? There’s clearly some tables that can easily and safely be done, say fuel consumption, best climb for weight, etc but there’s also a lot of numbers that are clearly not experimentally determined. Ie Airbus isn’t going out and finding out what Vne is by diving their shiny new A350 until the wings fall off. Between the two there’s ones that seem like they’d be kinda dangerous to determine like say V1 or Vmc
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
im gonna guess there's some math involved
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:21
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:WERE. :-) The flying cowboys consistently demonstrate hazardous attitudes and poor aeronautical decision making. Don’t get me wrong it’s great that he admitted he messed up, it’s even better than he’s still here to admit he messed up, because that could’ve been a lot worse. But if he and the rest of the flying cowboys weren’t shining examples of hazardous attitudes (macho, invulnerable, anti-authority specifically) he wouldn’t have wrecked in the first place. He’s far from the first of that crowd to bend metal doing something dumb, he’s just the highest profile one that’s wrecked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
Inacio posted:im gonna guess there's some math involved Sure, but clearly the regulatory bodies won't just accept the CFD models and I would expect a lot of stuff will be pretty linear until close to some breaking point you don't want to go to over... I know to some extent you can "break" things and recover by putting something special on the plane. Deep stall testing and variable CGs and drogue chutes for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Sure, but clearly the regulatory bodies won't just accept the CFD models and I would expect a lot of stuff will be pretty linear until close to some breaking point you don't want to go to over... found this on stackoverflow: quote:Vne is typically set to about 90% of VD, the maximum design dive speed. This difference provides a safety margin. Above VD, damage may occur due to flutter or structural failure, or controllability considerations may make the aircraft unflyable. The aircraft is not guaranteed to fall apart at VD due to additional structural and manufacturing margins. this is interesting as well: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=61831
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:One thing I’ve been curious about, what does a real flight test program actually consist of? There’s clearly some tables that can easily and safely be done, say fuel consumption, best climb for weight, etc but there’s also a lot of numbers that are clearly not experimentally determined. Ie Airbus isn’t going out and finding out what Vne is by diving their shiny new A350 until the wings fall off. Between the two there’s ones that seem like they’d be kinda dangerous to determine like say V1 or Vmc I wonder this too. I have seen a video of an F-15 doing V1 testing where they basically had it running on one engine and attempting to rotate at progressively higher speeds until it took off. And other stuff like the POH's "max demonstrated crosswind" is just the result of "this was the windiest day that our test pilot landed it" rather than any calculation having to do with rudder authority or whatever. Vmc might be doable at altitude, or on a big flat lakebed? For Vne, they stick it in that full-scale supersonic wind tunnel at Moffett and rev it up until the plane falls apart, obviously
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:39
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:The flying cowboys consistently demonstrate hazardous attitudes and poor aeronautical decision making. Don’t get me wrong it’s great that he admitted he messed up, it’s even better than he’s still here to admit he messed up, because that could’ve been a lot worse. But if he and the rest of the flying cowboys weren’t shining examples of hazardous attitudes (macho, invulnerable, anti-authority specifically) he wouldn’t have wrecked in the first place. He’s far from the first of that crowd to bend metal doing something dumb, he’s just the highest profile one that’s wrecked. Out of curiosity are the flying cowboys a specific group you're talking about, or just the generic Big Swinging Dick pilots that you run into? A while back I went to a safety seminar at the flight school that was open to the public for WINGS credit, and an instructor joked afterwards about one specific attendee: Q: How do you know there's an aerobatic pilot in the room? A: Oh, he'll tell you
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:44
|
|
|
I'm *pretty* sure that max demonstrated crosswind is related to approach speed. At least it kinda works that way for us- 152 approach 60, xwind 12 172 approach 65, xwind 15 DA40 approach 71, xwind 20 I've absolutely put a 172 on the ground in 20 knots across the runway and I wasn't close to the rudder authority limit. That said, I did bring 70KIAS over the fence, at Flaps 10.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Out of curiosity are the flying cowboys a specific group you're talking about, or just the generic Big Swinging Dick pilots that you run into? It's a specific group of youtuber (well, some of them) taildragger pilots. They initially seem like they're pretty safe and sane pilots just doing cool backcountry stuff (like it's not Jackass+airplanes level stupid). But if you watch a few videos you'll start to see some sketch decision making: attitude towards regulation, no o2 at altitude, bit cavalier picking landing spots, and IMO generally loving around too low.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:One thing I’ve been curious about, what does a real flight test program actually consist of? There’s clearly some tables that can easily and safely be done, say fuel consumption, best climb for weight, etc but there’s also a lot of numbers that are clearly not experimentally determined. Ie Airbus isn’t going out and finding out what Vne is by diving their shiny new A350 until the wings fall off. Between the two there’s ones that seem like they’d be kinda dangerous to determine like say V1 or Vmc You probably know this but they do put planes in giant rigs and do stress tests.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:08
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Out of curiosity are the flying cowboys a specific group you're talking about, or just the generic Big Swinging Dick pilots that you run into? Its an actual group in Utah. e: Mao Zedong Thot posted:It's a specific group of youtuber (well, some of them) taildragger pilots. They initially seem like they're pretty safe and sane pilots just doing cool backcountry stuff (like it's not Jackass+airplanes level stupid). But if you watch a few videos you'll start to see some sketch decision making: attitude towards regulation, no o2 at altitude, bit cavalier picking landing spots, and IMO generally loving around too low. This, and like I said draco is not their first questionable crash. e.pilot fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
So one of my brothers is off to do some dumb stuff in P8s and I took a look at his base on a whim. Does anyone know what aircraft this is? I want to say a U2 or a glider, but neither make a lot of sense at a naval air station. Bonus points for the two twin engine transports on the triangle looking thing south of the runway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Its an actual group in Utah. Typical Utah drivers. Six countries/a couple dozen states, they're the loving worst. Warbird posted:So one of my brothers is off to do some dumb stuff in P8s and I took a look at his base on a whim. Does anyone know what aircraft this is? I want to say a U2 or a glider, but neither make a lot of sense at a naval air station. Bonus points for the two twin engine transports on the triangle looking thing south of the runway. It's a Global Hawk or Triton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Warbird posted:So one of my brothers is off to do some dumb stuff in P8s and I took a look at his base on a whim. Does anyone know what aircraft this is? I want to say a U2 or a glider, but neither make a lot of sense at a naval air station. Bonus points for the two twin engine transports on the triangle looking thing south of the runway. A Triton maybe?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
Warbird posted:So one of my brothers is off to do some dumb stuff in P8s and I took a look at his base on a whim. Does anyone know what aircraft this is? I want to say a U2 or a glider, but neither make a lot of sense at a naval air station. Bonus points for the two twin engine transports on the triangle looking thing south of the runway. Guessing a Reaper/Predator/something. Wingspan checks out, a Triton would be like twice as big. And a CN-235. Mao Zedong Thot fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
How large are these things anyway? I had never figured the predator to be particularly large, but but there’s nothing stopping you from getting as wacky as you want with UASs. The Global Hawk appears to be an Air force bird, so triton seems likely. Warbird fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
Twin engine cargo plane looks like a C-160, the 4-engine is a C-17. Edit: Here's a really lovely image of how big a Global Hawk is:  That's an F-15 and an E-3 (707) for comparison. Triton is the naval variant of the Global Hawk in development...I don't know visually what the differences are so I can't tell them apart at a glance. Predators and Reapers are much smaller. Godholio fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Sep 18, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:04
|
|
|
Warbird posted:So one of my brothers is off to do some dumb stuff in P8s and I took a look at his base on a whim. Does anyone know what aircraft this is? I want to say a U2 or a glider, but neither make a lot of sense at a naval air station. Bonus points for the two twin engine transports on the triangle looking thing south of the runway. Global Hawk/RQ-4 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:11
|
|
|
Those wings angle back slightly, the one in the gmaps has them at 90 degrees.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:15
|
|
|
Warbird posted:Those wings angle back slightly, the one in the gmaps has them at 90 degrees. Pretty sure that’s just from the wings bending up slightly while in flight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:20
|
|
|
Mao Zedong Thot posted:Guessing a Reaper/Predator/something. Wingspan checks out, a Triton would be like twice as big. And a CN-235. You know what...I'm amending my answer to Reaper. Triton/GH would have roughly the same wingspan as that C-130 nearby. Predators are all retired. I have no idea why there's a Reaper there, though...that's why I started off assuming it was a Triton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:One thing I’ve been curious about, what does a real flight test program actually consist of? There’s clearly some tables that can easily and safely be done, say fuel consumption, best climb for weight, etc but there’s also a lot of numbers that are clearly not experimentally determined. Ie Airbus isn’t going out and finding out what Vne is by diving their shiny new A350 until the wings fall off. Between the two there’s ones that seem like they’d be kinda dangerous to determine like say V1 or Vmc
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
Godholio posted:You know what...I'm amending my answer to Reaper. Triton/GH would have roughly the same wingspan as that C-130 nearby. Predators are all retired. I have no idea why there's a Reaper there, though...that's why I started off assuming it was a Triton. Gmaps's measure distance feature is putting it around 64.4 ft wingspan-wise which would line up pretty will with the Reaper's 66 ft span. Allowing for distortion, error, and me not clicking good would make it seem pretty likely that this is the UAS/V in question. Plus it looks like you can see a hard point under the north wing. Do NASs overseas typically host aircraft from other branches? It wouldn't be a bad place to operate out of to keep an eye on North Africa and the Mediterranean.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 04:06
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:There's nothing commendable about having poor risk-analysis skills and making the wrong judgment call. But there is in accepting you did wrong. Making bad decisions is something EVERYONE does. Pilots included. Which leads neatly into your next paragraph. Of anything certified? No. Of a plane that there is no known edges of the flight envelope? Yes, they need to be explored at some point. Amusingly, I have a book in my washroom upstairs on how to do that safely. If you don't explore them, you don't know what you actually did. Are you opening the discussion on my trouble with a lot of kit and plans built planes? Becasue... that's a fun one... Oddly, I think we may actually come down on the same side of the risk lines. hobbesmaster posted:One thing I’ve been curious about, what does a real flight test program actually consist of? There’s clearly some tables that can easily and safely be done, say fuel consumption, best climb for weight, etc but there’s also a lot of numbers that are clearly not experimentally determined. Ie Airbus isn’t going out and finding out what Vne is by diving their shiny new A350 until the wings fall off. Between the two there’s ones that seem like they’d be kinda dangerous to determine like say V1 or Vmc You can start here: https://www.amazon.com/Flight-Testing-Homebuilt-Aircraft-Vaughan/dp/0813813085/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=homebuilt+testing&qid=1568781607&sr=8-1 Best climb isn't necessarily a safe thing to test... you can reasonably get on the wrong side of the power curve while doing that. There are several hundred post long threads on other forums about how to determine things like VNE. Vmc is "reasonably" easy to determine, you can figure out what airspeed you need to get enough lift to break the wings, or other part of the airframe, then you derate it by..... first your safety factor, then whatever the gust rating is. VnE is somewhat less easy to determine, as the range of factors that can lead to VnE are wide, and what the engineering team determines to be the limiting factor. For airliners, it's going to be mach effects. For a 172, it's going to be gust reaction and overloading the airframe due to lift. For a glider, it's likely to be flutter. Then there's the whole "well temperature, humidity, and cleanliness of the plane all add a fudge factor" e.pilot posted:The flying cowboys consistently demonstrate hazardous attitudes and poor aeronautical decision making. Don’t get me wrong it’s great that he admitted he messed up, it’s even better than he’s still here to admit he messed up, because that could’ve been a lot worse. But if he and the rest of the flying cowboys weren’t shining examples of hazardous attitudes (macho, invulnerable, anti-authority specifically) he wouldn’t have wrecked in the first place. He’s far from the first of that crowd to bend metal doing something dumb, he’s just the highest profile one that’s wrecked. Yes, they sure do. Corey Robin? The one who did an accelerated stall at a stupid low altitude.... and crushed his whole body. I think I got that right. I enjoy watching what they do. I wouldn't be caught flying with them. *shakes head*. Sagebrush posted:And other stuff like the POH's "max demonstrated crosswind" is just the result of "this was the windiest day that our test pilot landed it" rather than any calculation having to do with rudder authority or whatever. As I understand it, a remarkable amount of the kitplanes have numbers just pulled straight out of some guy with a pencils derriere. Calling them out on this... is what got me kicked out of the KR2 mailing list. "So you're just guessing, and haven't actually checked? How do you know? And you're carrying passengers?" The number of stories with people flying with a CG that would make the teenage me cringe (I had a nasty habit of setting up my gliders with crazy aft CG's...) is breathtaking. To bring this back to the cowboys, this stuff needs math. Mike Patey, did math. And did measurements. And ... well... up until the rush to get home, and beat a storm, ate up all of his general sensibility... Well, crunch. (Of that group, i trust Patey's work the most. His history with aircraft is a bit better than rotorkids...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:44 |
|
|
And he's a tall poppy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2019 06:11
|
|
