![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Autocollimator" wrote in message ... Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice pretty friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you? That's a possibility, not a surety. It's also possible the manufacturer's theory was proven wrong. Why didn't that possibility occur to you? |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: av8r Date: 10/24/03 8:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: As I understand it Art is the only one in this NG that actually flew combat in WWII as aircrew.So I will take his view above all those that never flew as aircrew in WW II. As far as wallowing in the mud goes, look to yourself. Right On!!!!!!!!!!!! Cheers...Chris We must never confuse the ones who only talk the talk with those who actually walked the walk. |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Subject: Fly Boy ?????
From: "Steven P. McNicoll" Date: 10/24/03 12:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id: t "Autocollimator" wrote in message ... Of course once the crew ditched the aircraft threory became practice pretty friggin fast. Or hadn't that occured to you? That's a possibility, not a surety. It's also possible the manufacturer's theory was proven wrong. Why didn't that possibility occur to you? No a surety, not just a possibility. Have you ever gotten off the ground in a miliatry aircraft? I think not. |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Autocollimator" wrote in message ... No a surety, not just a possibility. Nonsense. If aircraft always behaved as predicted there'd be no need to test them. Have you ever gotten off the ground in a miliatry aircraft? Irrelevant. I think not. It's becoming increasingly obvious you don't think at all. |
#166
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message k.net... "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Anyway, since I started this thread with an innocent question, in recognition of the **** storm it generated, I'm going to claim author's rights to revise my question. AIR, we were talking about ditching characteristics, and I asked what the manufacturer had to say on the subject. In those days, before an aircraft hit the inventory, the only people who knew how it was going to behave were the manufacturer and his test pilots. Before they turned the aircraft over to the military for their acceptance testing, they sat down and wrote a flight manual, which contained everything the operator needed to know about how to make the bird go up and come back down in one piece. Before the first of that model actually ditched in the water somewhere, its crew should have familiarized themselves with every bit of the information in that manual, including how it was going to behave when it hit the water and recommendations on how best to make initial contact with the water. Unless the manufacturer actually ditched the aircraft whatever was written in the manual was theory. Actually, some manufacturers (and maybe all, for all I know), did do exactly that with scaled models of their new aircraft. In any case, I'd rather have some applied theory from an aeronautical engineer who designed the aircraft than guesswork from somebody who thought he knew how it would react better than the bird's designers. Since you seem committed to pooh-pooh the manufacturer's knowledge no matter what, what does the pilot who has the misfortune of having to ditch the first of that model aircraft rely on? Who tells him the best approach speed for that bird, or the best escape routes out of the aircraft after impact, or the things that he needs to do to give himself the best odds possible of surviving the experience. If not the manufacturer, who? Somebody else who hasn't gone through the drill? George Z. |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message . net... "Autocollimator" wrote in message ... No a surety, not just a possibility. Nonsense. If aircraft always behaved as predicted there'd be no need to test them. Have you ever gotten off the ground in a miliatry aircraft? Irrelevant. I think it is relevant. If you had flown for one of the military services, a lot of the things we're talking to you about would be things that you'd experienced. Maybe it never occurred to you, never having experienced it, that military flight manuals are constantly being updated as new information regarding the aircraft is received, either from the manufacturer or from the field. I flew I don't remember how many different kinds of aircraft, and I knew how to ditch every one of them, and I learned how best to do it from constant study of the flight manuals, which provided me with the most current data available I needed in order to make good decisions. I flew about 4,000 hours in my military career. I never ditched an airplane, never bailed out of one, and walked away from every landing without even a slight limp. Those are my credentials. There are guys who frequent this NG with a helluva lot more than that, and they have my attention and respect. I doubt that you're one of them. |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Actually, some manufacturers (and maybe all, for all I know), did do exactly that with scaled models of their new aircraft. That's fine, but everything does not necessarily carry over to the actual aircraft. In any case, I'd rather have some applied theory from an aeronautical engineer who designed the aircraft than guesswork from somebody who thought he knew how it would react better than the bird's designers. We're not talking about guesswork from somebody who thought he knew how it would react better than the bird's designers, we're talking about the collective experience of many actual ditchings. If you'd take applied theory from an aeronautical engineer who designed the aircraft over the collective experience of many actual ditchings, then you're an idiot. Since you seem committed to pooh-pooh the manufacturer's knowledge no matter what, what does the pilot who has the misfortune of having to ditch the first of that model aircraft rely on? If I seem that way to you then you've read things into my messages that are not there. |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi George
Did you know any of the gang with the 54th ARSq. at Goose Air Base circa 1964? Cheers...Chris |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|