FYI: Dec 12 MythBusters: Airplane Hour

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Ross wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Ross wrote in
:

F. Baum wrote:

On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:


What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any
person with some level experience with a cockpit display can
control an airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the
experience to describe the cockpit and give useful instruction in
how to manually fly with the autopilot or where the switches are
located, or how to use the radio to even start the "rescue."

Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off on
how to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?

Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to
land the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor (Mainly
to see how the instructor would do this). These portions of the
show were amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) . The
stuff they did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten
awhay with some of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for its
"Infotaiment" value but I remain unconvinced that someone could
actually be talked down in an airliner. I think it has been tried
a time or two in GA after the pilot became incapacitated.
FB
I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
full motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me
through a landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the airplane.
However, without someone familiar with the aircraft the
intimidation of the lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc
would overwhelm anyone.


And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!

Bertie

Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!

My first time was in the back of a Nash.


Now you are dating yourself.

Well, could be worse, coulda been a hupmobile or a stanley steamer.

Bertie

The Steamer would have been nice. If you could make the boiler big
enough and light enough, I wonder how fast the damn thing could have
REALLY gone :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Ross wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Ross wrote in
:

F. Baum wrote:

On Dec 13, 12:06 am, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:


What they showed with landing the NASA simulator is that any
person with some level experience with a cockpit display can
control an airliner. Most FAA controllers would not have the
experience to describe the cockpit and give useful instruction
in
how to manually fly with the autopilot or where the switches
are
located, or how to use the radio to even start the "rescue."

Maybe they should have an in-flight movie before each take-off
on
how to fly the airplane, do you think TSA would allow that?

Jim, I caught just the parts of the show where J and A tried to
land the plane with some coaching from the sim instructor
(Mainly
to see how the instructor would do this). These portions of the
show were amazingly brief (Possibly for security reasons ?) .
The
stuff they did show was scary and I doubt they could have gotten
awhay with some of it in a real plane. I do watch the show for
its
"Infotaiment" value but I remain unconvinced that someone could
actually be talked down in an airliner. I think it has been
tried
a time or two in GA after the pilot became incapacitated.
FB
I had the opportunity to "fly" a American Airlines F-100 in their
full motion simulator with an instructor. He was able to talk me
through a landing at O'Hare Airport without crashing the
airplane.
However, without someone familiar with the aircraft the
intimidation of the lights, buttons, dials, radios, switches, etc
would overwhelm anyone.


And that's only a little fartbox of a jet!

Bertie

Yea, but it was fun for me since it was my first time!

My first time was in the back of a Nash.


Now you are dating yourself.

Well, could be worse, coulda been a hupmobile or a stanley steamer.

Bertie

The Steamer would have been nice. If you could make the boiler big
enough and light enough, I wonder how fast the damn thing could have
REALLY gone :-))



They went pretty fast! Steamers held the land speed records in the early
days. I think Serpollets were doing well into triple digits in 1907 or
so. I think Some stanleys were raced as well . I nearly bought a White
Steamer years ago. Sorry I ddn;t now! what a nifty car that was!

Bertie

Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly,
in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars,
the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899..



Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph. Interestingly,
in the very early days, land speed records were dominated by electric cars,
the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in 1899..



Bertie



Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at 127
indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
1899..



Bertie



Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!


They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car
at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not
what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a
mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to
change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission
brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire
and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars
handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on
them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that
damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was
fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were
usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on
corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though...

the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they
could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very
first auto fatality.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
1899..



Bertie



Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!


They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911 car
at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was not
what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the side of a
mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't dare try to
change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a transmission
brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they were all on fire
and almost completely useless by the time I reached the bottom. The cars
handled better than you might imagine, though. There were no shocks on
them, but the leaf springs were very long and very supple and that
damped out the ride better than you might imagine. The steering was
fairly good on many of them as well. Tires were skinny, but they were
usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger cars so didn;t deform much on
corners, so that was usually OK. the brakes, though...

the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood) they
could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the very
first auto fatality.

Bertie

Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500
Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear
suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a "vibration"
in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as scary as I've
ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride those things at
Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it happen and watch
them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense I guess.
I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100 feet
didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY :-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
1899..



Bertie



Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!


They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911
car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was
not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the
side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't
dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a
transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they
were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached
the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though.
There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and
very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might
imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires
were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger
cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the
brakes, though...

the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood)
they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the
very first auto fatality.

Bertie

Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500
Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear
suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a
"vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as
scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride
those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it
happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense
I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100
feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY
:-)))

Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a bike
and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users. All it
takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at the wrong
time!
I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In fact,
i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the airplane is
moving along anyway.. )


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Looked it up. The Stanleys set a record in 1906 of 127 mph.
Interestingly, in the very early days, land speed records were
dominated by electric cars, the fastest of which was 65.79 mph in
1899..



Bertie



Can you imagine what it must have felt like for those early guys at
127 indicated on that frame and chassis? Those guys had guts!!

They don't call it the heroic age for nothing. I have driven a 1911
car at about 70 and that was actually not too bad at all. Braking was
not what you could call the best . I once drove this car dwon the
side of a mountain with the wrong gear selected at the top and didn't
dare try to change once i had ealised I was going too fast. It had a
transmission brake as well as the tiny rear wheel brakes, but they
were all on fire and almost completely useless by the time I reached
the bottom. The cars handled better than you might imagine, though.
There were no shocks on them, but the leaf springs were very long and
very supple and that damped out the ride better than you might
imagine. The steering was fairly good on many of them as well. Tires
were skinny, but they were usually about 45 psi or moe on the larger
cars so didn;t deform much on corners, so that was usually OK. the
brakes, though...

the other big concern was that if you had artillery wheels (wood)
they could collapse under side loads. IIRC this was th ecause of the
very first auto fatality.

Bertie

Sounds exciting. Best I've ever done on land was a souped up 500
Kawasaki racing cycle. I got it through the gears balanced on the rear
suspension then took it out to well over 100 and developed a
"vibration" in the front forks. I'll tell you the truth, it was as
scary as I've ever been in or on a machine :-) How those guys ride
those things at Daytona, fall off and survive is beyond me. You see it
happen and watch them get up and back on a bike. More nerve than sense
I guess. I really shouldn't talk. Putting a fighter on her back at 100
feet didn't scare me a bit.....but I wouldn't want to do it TODAY
:-)))

Yeah, it's all what you're comfortble with. I've been over 100 on a bike
and it felt fine, but the terrifying aspect is other road users. All it
takes is some asshole in an SUV to be at the wrong place at the wrong
time!
I can;t even imagine doing aerobatics below 500 feet nowadays.. In fact,
i doubt I'd do them below 1500 when I get going again. (the airplane is
moving along anyway.. )


Bertie
That's good. Stay up there out of the marbles. It's a lot better on your
health for sure. If I had it to do over again I'd take it up higher
myself as the average air show fan wouldn't know the difference anyway.

--
Dudley Henriques