Get Rid Of Warbirds At Oshkosh

Blueskies.,

Didn't see the 'cirrus killer' shots?


Yep. As I said: a "proof of concept" in Cessna's own words.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Canal builder wrote:
wrote:


Totalitarian states do not permit experimental aviation.

Not true. The German Nazi regime of the 1930s loved experimental aviation
(and experimental rocketry), they even gave financial support. A lot of the
amateur designers and pilots then went on to play a big part in the Second
World War. The contemporary British government tried everything it could to
stop amateurs getting into the air.

As a result, surviving the Battle of Britain (1940) was as much a matter of
luck as judgment. Later on we had to put up with bombs mysteriously falling
out of the sky (the V2 long range rocket). If the war in Europe had gone on
much longer the first man in space would have been a German piloting a
two-stage missile to New York.

BTW this difference in attitude between British and German governments
continues to this day. This explains why German radio hams are putting
together a Mars lander, and we can't fly a suitably-equipped Lancair in IFR.

Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
operate private aircraft in its airspace.

"John" wrote in message
s.com...

Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
operate private aircraft in its airspace.


All governments vary in what they permit and when, and they change over time
and circumstances. Unless you wish this forum to become another venue for
discussing politics I suggest you take this elsewhere.

Dave wrote:
"John" wrote in message
s.com...

Name one . . . . one totalitarian state that today encourages general
aviation, that will allow its citizens to build or purchase and then
operate private aircraft in its airspace.


All governments vary in what they permit and when, and they change over time
and circumstances. Unless you wish this forum to become another venue for
discussing politics I suggest you take this elsewhere.

Sorry Dave, you are entirely right. THE last thing I intended to do
was bring politics into this discussion group. There is a reason I
don't fly when I am tired, perhaps I should expand to prohibition to
posting :)

My apologies to the group

John

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 22:21:31 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Safer -- you have plenty of "smash" when you overfly the threshold,
bleed it off in the break, keep within gliding distance of the runway.
In a straghtin, you are gear and flaps down, too far to make tâ„¢e runway
if the engine quits.

There is absolutely no reason a straight-in cannot be flown with just as
much "gliding safety" margin as an overhead break. Fly the approach just as
one would fly the overhead break, start the descent once the runway is close
enough for a power-off approach. No big deal.

Also, you do NOT have a good view of other traffic,
as you are concentrating on the runway threshold.

If you cannot maintain enough concentration to keep yourself on final, on
glideslope, while still watching for traffic that may affect your approach,
you have absolutely no business fooling around with the more complicated
overhead break.

Personally, I have no trouble at all keeping track of traffic in the pattern
while flying a straight-in approach.

Flying straight-in, there's no need to even get to the downwind.

And it lets you conflict with other traffic.

No more so than an overhead break would.

It is safer to land the flight separately, with Lead clearing as Two
lands, etc. A two to three second break serves well.

So what? There's no reason that sequence can't be done with a straight-in,
or any other type of pattern.

Pete, it appears that you have a prejudice against anything but
Spamcans. Get over it!

That last statement is completely out of the blue. I have absolutely no
prejudice against any particular type of airplane, and your misbelief that I
do is entirely irrelevant to the question of the overhead break.

Pete

If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins. Others
may tend to disagree (like me for instance). That's just the way the
world works sometimes.... 8^)

Bela P. Havasreti

"John" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sorry Dave, you are entirely right. THE last thing I intended to do
was bring politics into this discussion group. There is a reason I
don't fly when I am tired, perhaps I should expand to prohibition to
posting :)

My apologies to the group


No need for apologies to me at least John, I've made the same error more
time than I can count.

Bob Martin wrote:
Peter Duniho wrote:
"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
[...]
Warbirds, you are not welcome at Oshkosh.

We've all got our pet peeves when it comes to other pilots. Around
here, where we don't see warbirds on a regular basis during daily
flying, it's the RV "squadron" who do high-speed, low passes down
Lake Sammamish, or the Mustang replica pilot who does his "overhead
break" to a landing at the airport, or any number of other pilots
doing stupid pilot tricks.


How is an overhead break a "stupid pilot trick?"

Just FYI: For those still learning about piloting (like myself) who like to
see illustrations of these things, or those who would like to read a
summary of the origin and history of the "overhead break," this site seems
to be handy:

http://www.virtualtigers.com/htm/obreak.htm

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

Well, for better or worse, flying straight-in, it's the other traffic that
has to sequence for you. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing
(it's one of the reasonable arguments against flying a straight-in), but
it's not a complication that exists for a straight-in approach.


So a "reasonable argument" against flying a straight-in is it forces other
traffic to yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final?

"Bela P. Havasreti" wrote in message
...
If a straight-in works for you (and you prefer it over an overhead
approach), great. Some folks may prefer to do an overhead approach
(and for the record, they're not typically done "on the deck", but
rather at pattern altitude).

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT done at
pattern altitude.

You think overhead approaches aren't as safe as straight-ins.

You aren't paying attention. The ones I'm complaining about are NOT as safe
as straight-ins.

Pete

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
k.net...
So a "reasonable argument" against flying a straight-in is it forces other
traffic to yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final?

No. A straight-in approach does not in and of itself force other traffic to
yield the right-of-way to an aircraft on final. The FARs do that.

What a straight-in does is *possibly* inconvenience traffic already in the
pattern by requiring them to adjust their flight path in the pattern to
accomodate the aircraft flying the straight-in, as a result of the
afore-mentioned FAR requirement.

The way the argument goes, it's a "they were there first" situation (where
"they" are the airplanes who have to deviate, who were "in the pattern
first"). I'm not personally motivated strongly by the argument, both
because aviation isn't always about who was "there first", and because
depending on how one looks at it, the airplane on final was "there first"
(on final first, that is). But I acknowledge it as a reasonable
philosophical position, even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

I understand that you don't have a concept of a "reasonable philosophical
position", and so you may not comprehend any of the above. I simply provide
it here in case anyone else is interested in an elaboration of my point.

Pete