Platystemon posted:

Control Volume posted:

Ive been out of the pilot scene since college, but this interesting video popped up about a guy who bought an extremely cheap homebuilt whose propeller fell off. Good perspective on risk from someone who had an "oh poo poo, that could have been much worse" moment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5y7ZeIcSo8

Boat Stuck posted:

This is yet another example of why I'll never trust helicopters

If the propeller falls off your home built airplane, it merely becomes a glider. With average luck and average skills, you have a decent chance of walking away.

If the blades fall off your helicopter, it becomes a rock and you need a miracle to walk away

ImplicitAssembler posted:

And what if the wing falls off your airplane?

ImplicitAssembler posted:

And what if the wing falls off your airplane?

Safety Dance posted:

If it's a biplane, you've got a spare.

Wikipedia posted:

Test flights were made both as a monoplane and as a biplane, with the shorter upper wing being chosen.[4] In order to avoid the potential hazards to people on the ground of dropping the wing, wing jettisoning tests were carried out from Squires Gate Airport, Blackpool, with the upper wing being successfully dropped over the Irish Sea on 16 July 1941.[5] The test proved successful, with no great change in trim and a few hundred feet in altitude being lost when the upper wing was jettisoned.[9]

The Bi-mono was subject to further testing by the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment at Boscombe Down from October 1941. The A&AEE found that the maximum speed of the biplane configuration was slower than the stalling speed of the monoplane configuration. Its landing characteristics were likened to a kangaroo.[10]

Powered Descent posted:

There was at least one piece of aeronautical lunacy that would do exactly that, by design: it was a biplane on takeoff, then once at altitude it would jettison the top wing, to reduce drag. (Apparently they tested it and it actually kind of worked, or at least it didn't kill them.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillson_Bi-mono

quote:

the maximum speed of the biplane configuration was slower than the stalling speed of the monoplane configuration

the milk machine posted:

this is my favorite bit:

love to have a "stall immediately" button on my airplane

Saukkis posted:

Doesn't that concept work the wrong way. When I'm taking it's not an issue if the runway is too short, I would just decide not to take off. Or if I'm desperate maybe I would use a towcar as a help.

But when I'm coming in for landing I would absolutely want the runway to be long enough.

How much better a tricycle plane is at braking than acceleration?

Platystemon posted:

JATO before JATO

Wombot posted:

It was meant to be a fighter. Getting an aircraft into the air (where it can fight other aircraft or V-bombs) is more important than getting the aircraft on the ground afterwards. Such extreme short-field takeoff performance meant they could be deployed far forward, from fields and country roads - no runway required. Once they're done, they would fly or glide back to a dedicated airfield (or suitable farm field).

Same line of thinking that lead to people strapping single-use booster rockets onto jet interceptors a decade later.

Wombot posted:

According to the Wikipedia article, the wing was only jettisoned over water - I don't think recovery was intended, like drop-tanks today, and it was wood/fabric so not the most exotic materials.

To be clear, only one was ever made! It wasn't flown more than a handful of times! It was a prototype to test an idea of how to increase takeoff performance as aircraft weights were rising faster than engine performance was being developed. The British government did not ask for a prototype, the company just built it themselves to see what would happen.

EasilyConfused posted:

Per that article, they also modified a Hurricane to use the disposable wing, which I wish we had pictures of.

BalloonFish posted:

Ironic, since the Hurricane is, at heart, a monoplane version of the Fury biplane.

Saukkis posted:

How much better a tricycle plane is at braking than acceleration?

Elviscat posted:

WATO.

Wing Assisted Take Off

Theris posted:

There's a ton of variables involved but generally landing distances are a good bit shorter than take off. Landing speeds are slower than take off speeds - the plane is lighter and can use more flaps since the drag is helpful rather than a hindrance - and brakes are (usually) more "powerful" than engines.

Airliner brakes in particular are incredibly powerful; very similar to F1 cars with "packs" of multiple discs and full circle friction surfaces. Most airliners can land in around 1/2 to 2/3rds their takeoff distance under normal operation, shorter than that if they're willing to make the passengers a bit uncomfy, and in a spectacularly short distance if they treat the brakes as disposable and maybe get ARFF involved.

In the bi-mono's case, landing speeds would have been higher since it was missing ~half its takeoff lift, plus conventional gear means it can't brake as hard as a tricycle, so it probably did need a lot more runway for landing than takeoff.

BalloonFish posted:

I am always impressed by this video of the B747-8 doing certification brake tests:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_g6UswiRCF0

They load it up to maximum weight, machine down the brakes to the minimum allowed amount of friction material, do a hot/high takeoff with the highest ground speeds and reject just before V1 without using reverse thrust. And although the brakes end up smoking and flaming, it stops in a remarkably short distance.

quote:

Jones told the flight attendants that he was "testing them," according to the affidavit. When the aircraft landed at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, Jones allowed law enforcement to search his luggage, where agents found "multiple notebooks with writings describing how to operate an aircraft, including take-off, in-air, and landing techniques," according to the affidavit. His wallet also contained a student pilot's license, the affidavit said.

quote:

According to Arab News, PIA has already conducted investigations into the missing persons, publicly announcing their termination of employment.

They’ve also enforced that flight attendants travelling to these regions must be above the age of fifty years old in order to reduce the number of young air hostesses serving on Europe and Canada flights.

Phanatic posted:

Apparently Pakistani flight attendants have been going missing in Toronto. The most recently one left her uniform and a thank-you note in her room.

https://nowtoronto.com/news/tenth-flight-attendant-to-go-missing-in-toronto-leaves-thank-you-note-and-uniform-in-hotel/

Hadlock posted:

Delta chat bot: so your seats are 25AB, 26EF, 22DE
Me: can we move the 22DE to be a window seat? I'm traveling with a toddler
Chat bot: 22DE is a window seat, sir
Me: uhh
Annoyed chat bot: the A220-100 is ABC DE five abreast


Does the A220 slot in between the EJet and the 737 I guess? I've been in regional jets but it was either 2-2 or 2-1

Platystemon posted:

Ask the chat bot about their bereavement policy.