Fly Boy ?????

ubject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Gord Beaman" )
Date: 10/24/03 1:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Gord Beaman"

I've done hundreds of ditching drills where we needed to get an
18 man crew out on the hangar floor carrying their proper items.
We could usually do it but remember that you're doing the testing
in a nice warm lighted hangar, not the middle of the North
Atlantic in a winter gale after the trauma of a night ditching...
--

-Gord.
.

I am not talking about drills in a hanger. I am yalking about one a day in
Tampa Bay. And lives lost and lessons learned the hard way.
.
Arthur Kramer

Well of course you are Art...you say that you have 30 seconds
before the a/c sinks, that it's proven by tank testing. I'm
merely pointing out that that's not carved in stone, that it
depends on a lot of parameters. Which of course you know.

I do object to your handling of that post, you intimate that
while I talk of 'ditching drills' you talk of 'lives lost and
lessons learned'. What the hell does that mean?

Neither one of us has ditched therefore you are no more of an
expert than I am despite how you tried to make it sound.

So then you're just a 'wannabe' because 'you haven't been there
nor done that' as you're so fond of saying.

See how silly that sounds?
--

-Gord.


Not silly at all. I was spocifically talking about the large number of
ditchings in Tampa Bay, the lives lost and the lessons learned by those
experiences. All that was incorporated into our B-26 ditching procedures and
saved many lives in years and missions to come. There is no substitute for
actual practical experience although I am sure your hanger drills were quite
useful as well.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Les Matheson wrote:
Remember the AC-130H that ditched off Kenya in 1993?

Existing procedure was to ditch, until after the accident investigation it
was found (duh!!) that the AC-130 with all the holes in the fuselage didn't
act like a trash hauler C-130 when it hit the water.

Emergency procedures for all AC-130 models was changed to eliminate
ditching, except if no other means of egress was possible. Bailout became
preferred method of emergency egress in the air.


All C-130s now have bailout as preferred over ditching, IIRC. The
AC-130 and HC-130 that ditched did so in less than ideal circumstances,
(loss of all power at night in the HC-130; structural and wing fire,
inability to maintain aircraft control and altitude in the AC)
in a manner under which little control was possible. In aircraft
with little or no control available, you don't typically ditch,
you crash.

Mike

(ArtKramr) wrote:

There is no substitute for actual practical experience although
I am sure your hanger drills were quite useful as well.

Arthur Kramer

How very kind of you to say so sir. I'm so grateful that I could
just poop.
--

-Gord.

Gord Beaman wrote:
How very kind of you to say so sir. I'm so grateful that I could
just poop.


I have access to some stuff that could probably help you with that. Think
"thermonuclear device". The results aren't all that different. G



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

av8r wrote:

Now that was funny. Hope you got good A.O.P.A. rates. I've never sat
in(or on?) a trike before, let alone fly one.

Hiya Chris,

Forgive me for being somewhat hesitant to respond since this
is so far off the original topic, but after seeing all the other
off-topic, political crap on this NG I figured what the heck, why not?
Besides, at least it has *something* to do with military aviation
because as I mentioned previously, ultralight trikes have roots
firmly planted in military aviation history dating back to NASA's
Paresev, a late 50's-early 60's research aircraft based on the
Rogallo wing:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/hglide/Aus.htm

Anyway, if you're interested in trikes Chris, there was a decent
article about trikes in the July, 2003 issue of "Flying" magazine by
Lane Wallace. (Incidently, the triker whom she flew with happened
to be one of your fellow Canadians from Ontario.) After her
introductory flight in a trike, Wallace came to understand why so
many trikers are, "complex GA aircraft pilots, airline pilots and
military aviators." In other words, not unlike a fighter, you don't
merely "fly" a trike, you strap it on and work the controls as an
extension of your own body. And I mean that in the most truest, most
literal sense possible as your arms, legs, hands and feet are integral
components of the machine itself.

Unlike a conventional airplane that you can turn on the autopilot
then sit back and simply let the airplane fly itself, in a trike
that's not possible because you ARE the airplane. Your
arms serve as the pushrods, cables, pulleys, servos and hydraulic
actuators controlling the aircraft about all three pitch, yaw and roll
axes. Since both arms are busy, you must use your right foot to
control the throttle and your left foot to control the brakes similar
to how you manipulate the accelerator and brake pedals when driving
your car. This enables you to use your upper body muscles for
crankin' and bankin' in the sky while you simultaneously and
instantaneously manipulate the throttle using your right foot. It's
truly a total-body type of experience and students are often surprised
to find out how much fun it is despite how sore their muscles are
after their first few lessons.

They are not very common in this part of Ontario. Maybe it's something
to do with the 60 below zero temperatures and howling whiteouts. Say,
I reckon they don't get much snow down your way do they. For the longest
time, I thumbed my nose at ultralights and particularly microlights. I've had
a 180 degree turn of opinion.

I've flown a lot of types (I'm checked out on 9) of aircraft including
stick time on the old Canadair CP-107 Argus, but being strapped on to a
Challenger ultralight is incredible. You have interchangeable wings
(short and long) and you can fly it on wheels, skis of floats. It'll
land on a dime and give you back a nickel's change. Have you worked out
an hourly operating rate yet on your trike. I betcha it's only a few
bucks an hour at best. Are the insurance premiums very high

The Challenger ultralight is an entirely different animal. Trikes are
a seperate breed unto themselves and handle completely unlike
anything else. Everything is BACKWARDS in trike -- you push forward
to go up and pull back to go down, push left to go right and push
right to go left. Control reversals near the ground is the reason
why so many pilots, regardless of skill or experience level, have
seriously injured or killed themselves in trikes.

With regards to the Challenger ultralight, up there in Tundra Land
I can certainly understand why you would prefer something like a
Challenger with its fully-enclosed cockpit. But the Challenger is a
relatively old design dating back to the early 80's. As an A&P
mechanic, there are many aspects of its somewhat stodgy design
that, IMO, could use a quite bit of upgrading. For example:

* The inverted engine makes it more prone to flooding (more difficult
to start) and fouling the spark plugs.

* It uses an old-style belt-driven redrive instead of the more
advanced and maintenence-free all metal type gearbox.

* The design itself doesn't allow for a more powerful engine to be
installed due to a serious lack of clearance between the pusher
propeller and the airframe.

* The airframe has cheesy pop-rivets all over the place and the
landing gear is exceptionally weak, esp. compared to the beefy,
triangulated landing gear and super strong suspension systems
found on most trikes.

* The thing seems to have been designed by dwarves and most guys
over 6-ft. tall need a shoehorn to climb in and out of the cockpit.

* They remind me of Aeronca Champs with that ugly two-tone orange
fish-gill paint job on the belly.

As Lane Wallace mentioned in her "Flying" mag article, most trikers
who fly the higher performing, certified and premium brands of trikes
(like my Pegasus 912 experimental trike) are generally highly
experienced aviators from professional pilot backgrounds. Some
of us regard the Challenger and other conventional ultralights as
basically entry level junk for wannabes (present company excluded,
of course! ) Either that, or close-minded "old farts" who lost their
medicals, or girly girls and other assorted pussys [insert smiley face
here] who lack the significant amount of upper-body strength and motor
skills required to safely operate a trike in adverse weather
conditions. Compared to others types of A/C, very few females are
into triking (Ms. Wallace loved her ride, but admitted that she
doesn't plan to trade in her Grumman Cheetah for a trike anytime
soon!) and those females who do take up the sport tend to fly only
when the winds are calm.

The bottom line is that if I had to fly a Challenger or similiar type
ultralight with conventional controls with an enclosed cockpit, then
you might as well put me back in a GA airplane.

It is a beautiful sport and remember, ya' have to LEAVE the vehicle
to experience the environment!

'Happy Flying'

Back 'atcha

Cheers...Chris

Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: Mike Marron
Date: 10/25/03 12:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time

orgive me for being somewhat hesitant to respond since this
is so far off the original topic, but after seeing all the other
off-topic, political crap on this NG I figured what the heck, why not?
Besides, at least it has *something* to do with military aviation

Yes it does. But do YOU have anything to do with military aviation?

(Autocollimator) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Forgive me for being somewhat hesitant to respond since this
is so far off the original topic, but after seeing all the other
off-topic, political crap on this NG I figured what the heck, why not?
Besides, at least it has *something* to do with military aviation

Yes it does. But do YOU have anything to do with military aviation?

Make ya' a deal anonomator....

I will answer your question if you come out from hiding behind your
Halloween mask and tell us what your real name is.

Deal?

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

I don't imagine that you've ever heard of specific unit using certain
aircraft conducting certain kinds of field tests on their equipment.


I have.



I could give you examples of what I am talking about, but it would
only serve to continue your ongoing arguing about the subject.


I could give you examples of the same.



You disparage information from the manufacturer,


I've done nothing at all like that.



but you now are questioning the existence of pireps where you just
finished saying that they were the only reliable information available to
the aircrews. It would help if you made up your mind which source of
information for pilots you wish to endorse.


I have been consistent throughout.



Now you're putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.


Those are the words of your message.



I'm trying to get across to you that the body of knowledge has input
from more than one source.


It'll work better if I play the teacher and you play the student. What I'm
trying to get across to you is that if the manufacturer says the airplane
will behave in a certain way, and field experience proves it behaves in a
different way, then the manufacturer was wrong.



Well, if you say so, but I don't see too many people here agreeing with
you.


One rarely sees many responses of simple agreement in these forums.

It appears you still haven't realized that your messages on this subject
have largely supported my position at the expense of your own.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

It'll work better if I play the teacher and you play the student.

With an arrogant attitude like that, it'll never work at all, much less better.
You don't know it all, although I'm sure that thought never occurred to you.
You put words in my mouth which do not reflect my views, merely your erroneous
interpretation or understanding of what they are. We are quite obviously not on
the same page, and I see little point in wasting my time pursuing the matter any
further.

As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed and it's time to move on.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

It'll work better if I play the teacher and you play the student.

With an arrogant attitude like that, it'll never work at all, much less better.
You don't know it all, although I'm sure that thought never occurred to you.
You put words in my mouth which do not reflect my views, merely your erroneous
interpretation or understanding of what they are. We are quite obviously not on
the same page, and I see little point in wasting my time pursuing the matter any
further.

Smart move, George. McNicoll fancies himself as a "teacher?"
What a JOKE! McNicoll can't teach fer **** (he can't transmit
knowledge that he doesn't have!) and I'll bet he can't fly fer ****
either. Ya' just can't win with the guy. If you agree with him you are
wrong, and if you don't agree you are even more wrong. And as
you say, when he finds himself on the losing end of one of his
pointless arguments, he simply snips away the gist of your message
and puts words in your mouth. Finally, when all else fails, he'll trot
out one of his annoying trademark tarveresque one-liners such as:
"irrelevant."TM.