|
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/18/2015 9:31 AM, Abit Loco wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:19:58 -0500, KC wrote: On 2/17/2015 12:16 PM, Abit Loco wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:08:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:31 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 12:25:26 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: The big difference between simulators/real airplanes and RC airplanes - in sims or real planes, the nose of the plane is in front of you. With an RC plane, at least part of the time, the nose is pointed at you. That means the left and right controls are reversed. This, I believe, is what causes the most problems, at least for me. Another related difference is that pilots in a real plane has a seat of the pants, first person view. Not so with RC. Something that helps newbies to RC is that when the airplane is flying towards you and the controls are reversed, your can turn your body so the transmitter is faced the same way as the plane, but look back over your shoulder at the plane. That way the stick moves to the right, the plane moves to the right. It's a crutch, but with some more stick time it'll come naturally. I don't think there's much at all in common comparing RC flying and flying a real airplane. Speed scale is totally different. Turns and maneuvers are not anything close to being realistic to flying an airplane. I see it as a fun hobby for many but to compare it to actually flying an airplane it isn't even close. Many of the airplanes flown at our field fly in excess of 100mph - and that's measured by radar. One of our guys has one of these: http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...ini-radar-gun/ They measure real speed, not scale speed. Since I've never flown a real airplane, I can't argue your 'turns and maneuvers' statement. I know that if I bank my airplane using the ailerons and don't give it some up elevator, it will head for the dirt. Perhaps you could tell us what the big differences are. I'm thinking the biggest difference is that my crash isn't going to kill anyone. Oh, and my pre-flight checklist is shorter! Has anybody mentioned the seat of the pants feeling? I mean, that must help you fly in some respect feeling the plane under you? Yup, that was mentioned. That feeling does not occur when flying an RC aircraft, although some asshole puckering often does. That's the part that facinates me... I have always worked out eyes closed to the point where do very tight things sometimes I catch myself with my eyes closed... it's a thing.. Anyway, I have always wondered how much input you get from your "pants" and which of the input you can trust in that environment... |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:13:06 -0500, KC wrote:
On 2/18/2015 4:05 PM, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:37:57 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:07:12 -0500, wrote: All the work needs to be done by a licensed mechanic and parts make boat parts look like peanuts. === Every single part has to be certified and traceable back to its place and date of manufacture. You can't buy 'em out behind the shed from someone's trunk at a 'plane show' in Virginia? Well, ****. Guess I'll have to do without. There are a lot of very airworthy and proven "experimental" aircraft out there. Are they held to the same standard as registered aircraft? There is a huge rc club down by our practice track. I have seen everything from gas and electric rc planes to manned single seat eggbeaters and several kinds of ultra light paragliders, etc take off and fly around there. === I'm not an expert on the regulations but I do know that experimental aircraft are not held to the same standards. Whether they are truly airworthy or not could be debated. I believe that John Denver died flying an experimental aircraft, and a former neighbor of mine almost killed himself crashing an ultra light last year. Another former neighbor was left crippled for life after crashing a home built (experimental) plane. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/18/2015 3:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/18/2015 9:19 AM, KC wrote: On 2/17/2015 12:16 PM, Abit Loco wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:08:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:31 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 12:25:26 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: The big difference between simulators/real airplanes and RC airplanes - in sims or real planes, the nose of the plane is in front of you. With an RC plane, at least part of the time, the nose is pointed at you. That means the left and right controls are reversed. This, I believe, is what causes the most problems, at least for me. Another related difference is that pilots in a real plane has a seat of the pants, first person view. Not so with RC. Something that helps newbies to RC is that when the airplane is flying towards you and the controls are reversed, your can turn your body so the transmitter is faced the same way as the plane, but look back over your shoulder at the plane. That way the stick moves to the right, the plane moves to the right. It's a crutch, but with some more stick time it'll come naturally. I don't think there's much at all in common comparing RC flying and flying a real airplane. Speed scale is totally different. Turns and maneuvers are not anything close to being realistic to flying an airplane. I see it as a fun hobby for many but to compare it to actually flying an airplane it isn't even close. Many of the airplanes flown at our field fly in excess of 100mph - and that's measured by radar. One of our guys has one of these: http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...ini-radar-gun/ They measure real speed, not scale speed. Since I've never flown a real airplane, I can't argue your 'turns and maneuvers' statement. I know that if I bank my airplane using the ailerons and don't give it some up elevator, it will head for the dirt. Perhaps you could tell us what the big differences are. I'm thinking the biggest difference is that my crash isn't going to kill anyone. Oh, and my pre-flight checklist is shorter! Has anybody mentioned the seat of the pants feeling? I mean, that must help you fly in some respect feeling the plane under you? "Seat of the pants" flying is something that a person with a natural pilot aptitude develops. I never have. At one point in the flight instruction period my CFI commented that engineering types often have a tough time developing a "feel" for the airplane. We tend to be too analytical and fly "by the books". He was right. I took me longer than normal to feel totally comfortable flying. I think it might correlate somewhat to riding a bike in bad conditions like crooked ruts or bad bump areas... we look way ahead and feel the bike go though.. sound about right? One of the hardest things to do is going through a long 60 foot long rut, 4 inches wide and 18 inches deep with crossruts and lots of squiggles and loosen up on the bars so you are really just marking their positition rather than steering the bike... I am very good at it because for some stupid reason I trust my bike and literally go through with my fingertips on the grips.. when I crash though, it's bad... |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:22:02 -0500, KC wrote:
If you want I will say something about countersteering and you both can come after me.... but the two of you need to knock it off. === Funny you should mention countersteering. One of my new boat toys over the past year is an electric bicycle. Remembering the spirited (and sometimes contentious) discussions about countersteering, I did a few experiments on the bike. Nudging the handle bars a tad to the left did induce a lean to the left which of course is essential for a left turn. Vice versa of course nudging to the right. I think this is something that we normally do without really thinking about it, sort of the same way that we don't usually think about balancing. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/18/2015 8:24 PM, KC wrote:
On 2/18/2015 9:31 AM, Abit Loco wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:19:58 -0500, KC wrote: On 2/17/2015 12:16 PM, Abit Loco wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:08:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:31 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 12:25:26 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: The big difference between simulators/real airplanes and RC airplanes - in sims or real planes, the nose of the plane is in front of you. With an RC plane, at least part of the time, the nose is pointed at you. That means the left and right controls are reversed. This, I believe, is what causes the most problems, at least for me. Another related difference is that pilots in a real plane has a seat of the pants, first person view. Not so with RC. Something that helps newbies to RC is that when the airplane is flying towards you and the controls are reversed, your can turn your body so the transmitter is faced the same way as the plane, but look back over your shoulder at the plane. That way the stick moves to the right, the plane moves to the right. It's a crutch, but with some more stick time it'll come naturally. I don't think there's much at all in common comparing RC flying and flying a real airplane. Speed scale is totally different. Turns and maneuvers are not anything close to being realistic to flying an airplane. I see it as a fun hobby for many but to compare it to actually flying an airplane it isn't even close. Many of the airplanes flown at our field fly in excess of 100mph - and that's measured by radar. One of our guys has one of these: http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...ini-radar-gun/ They measure real speed, not scale speed. Since I've never flown a real airplane, I can't argue your 'turns and maneuvers' statement. I know that if I bank my airplane using the ailerons and don't give it some up elevator, it will head for the dirt. Perhaps you could tell us what the big differences are. I'm thinking the biggest difference is that my crash isn't going to kill anyone. Oh, and my pre-flight checklist is shorter! Has anybody mentioned the seat of the pants feeling? I mean, that must help you fly in some respect feeling the plane under you? Yup, that was mentioned. That feeling does not occur when flying an RC aircraft, although some asshole puckering often does. That's the part that facinates me... I have always worked out eyes closed to the point where do very tight things sometimes I catch myself with my eyes closed... it's a thing.. Anyway, I have always wondered how much input you get from your "pants" and which of the input you can trust in that environment... If you were flying an airplane straight and level and then were blindfolded so you couldn't see the instruments or have any ground reference, you would fairly quickly find yourself in some kind of unusual attitude. You might have the airplane climbing, banking, descending or even with the wings perpendicular to the ground. You wouldn't know it or detect it by any "seat of the pants" input. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/18/2015 8:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:22:02 -0500, KC wrote: If you want I will say something about countersteering and you both can come after me.... but the two of you need to knock it off. === Funny you should mention countersteering. One of my new boat toys over the past year is an electric bicycle. Remembering the spirited (and sometimes contentious) discussions about countersteering, I did a few experiments on the bike. Nudging the handle bars a tad to the left did induce a lean to the left which of course is essential for a left turn. Vice versa of course nudging to the right. I think this is something that we normally do without really thinking about it, sort of the same way that we don't usually think about balancing. In order to avoid any confusion I think you should clarify your statement. When you say "nudge the handle bars (plural) a tad to the left" is the right handle bar pushed forward slightly with the left handle bar pulled back an equal amount? If so, that's not counter steering but would be appropriate at very slow speeds. If, in fact, the opposite is true, meaning the *left* handle bar is nudged forward slightly with the right handle bar pulled back an equal amount and you make a *left* turn ... that is counter steering. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:55:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/18/2015 8:24 PM, KC wrote: On 2/18/2015 9:31 AM, Abit Loco wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:19:58 -0500, KC wrote: On 2/17/2015 12:16 PM, Abit Loco wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:08:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:31 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 12:25:26 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: The big difference between simulators/real airplanes and RC airplanes - in sims or real planes, the nose of the plane is in front of you. With an RC plane, at least part of the time, the nose is pointed at you. That means the left and right controls are reversed. This, I believe, is what causes the most problems, at least for me. Another related difference is that pilots in a real plane has a seat of the pants, first person view. Not so with RC. Something that helps newbies to RC is that when the airplane is flying towards you and the controls are reversed, your can turn your body so the transmitter is faced the same way as the plane, but look back over your shoulder at the plane. That way the stick moves to the right, the plane moves to the right. It's a crutch, but with some more stick time it'll come naturally. I don't think there's much at all in common comparing RC flying and flying a real airplane. Speed scale is totally different. Turns and maneuvers are not anything close to being realistic to flying an airplane. I see it as a fun hobby for many but to compare it to actually flying an airplane it isn't even close. Many of the airplanes flown at our field fly in excess of 100mph - and that's measured by radar. One of our guys has one of these: http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...ini-radar-gun/ They measure real speed, not scale speed. Since I've never flown a real airplane, I can't argue your 'turns and maneuvers' statement. I know that if I bank my airplane using the ailerons and don't give it some up elevator, it will head for the dirt. Perhaps you could tell us what the big differences are. I'm thinking the biggest difference is that my crash isn't going to kill anyone. Oh, and my pre-flight checklist is shorter! Has anybody mentioned the seat of the pants feeling? I mean, that must help you fly in some respect feeling the plane under you? Yup, that was mentioned. That feeling does not occur when flying an RC aircraft, although some asshole puckering often does. That's the part that facinates me... I have always worked out eyes closed to the point where do very tight things sometimes I catch myself with my eyes closed... it's a thing.. Anyway, I have always wondered how much input you get from your "pants" and which of the input you can trust in that environment... If you were flying an airplane straight and level and then were blindfolded so you couldn't see the instruments or have any ground reference, you would fairly quickly find yourself in some kind of unusual attitude. You might have the airplane climbing, banking, descending or even with the wings perpendicular to the ground. You wouldn't know it or detect it by any "seat of the pants" input. === When I was taking lessons in a Cessna 172 the instructor used to tell me that the plane would fly itself if you took your hands off of everything. I think that assumes tthat you're already trimmed for straight and level flight. I tried it a few times and it seemed to work. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/18/2015 9:07 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:55:53 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/18/2015 8:24 PM, KC wrote: On 2/18/2015 9:31 AM, Abit Loco wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:19:58 -0500, KC wrote: On 2/17/2015 12:16 PM, Abit Loco wrote: On Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:08:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/16/2015 6:31 PM, wrote: On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 12:25:26 PM UTC-5, John H. wrote: The big difference between simulators/real airplanes and RC airplanes - in sims or real planes, the nose of the plane is in front of you. With an RC plane, at least part of the time, the nose is pointed at you. That means the left and right controls are reversed. This, I believe, is what causes the most problems, at least for me. Another related difference is that pilots in a real plane has a seat of the pants, first person view. Not so with RC. Something that helps newbies to RC is that when the airplane is flying towards you and the controls are reversed, your can turn your body so the transmitter is faced the same way as the plane, but look back over your shoulder at the plane. That way the stick moves to the right, the plane moves to the right. It's a crutch, but with some more stick time it'll come naturally. I don't think there's much at all in common comparing RC flying and flying a real airplane. Speed scale is totally different. Turns and maneuvers are not anything close to being realistic to flying an airplane. I see it as a fun hobby for many but to compare it to actually flying an airplane it isn't even close. Many of the airplanes flown at our field fly in excess of 100mph - and that's measured by radar. One of our guys has one of these: http://www.modelairplanenews.com/blo...ini-radar-gun/ They measure real speed, not scale speed. Since I've never flown a real airplane, I can't argue your 'turns and maneuvers' statement. I know that if I bank my airplane using the ailerons and don't give it some up elevator, it will head for the dirt. Perhaps you could tell us what the big differences are. I'm thinking the biggest difference is that my crash isn't going to kill anyone. Oh, and my pre-flight checklist is shorter! Has anybody mentioned the seat of the pants feeling? I mean, that must help you fly in some respect feeling the plane under you? Yup, that was mentioned. That feeling does not occur when flying an RC aircraft, although some asshole puckering often does. That's the part that facinates me... I have always worked out eyes closed to the point where do very tight things sometimes I catch myself with my eyes closed... it's a thing.. Anyway, I have always wondered how much input you get from your "pants" and which of the input you can trust in that environment... If you were flying an airplane straight and level and then were blindfolded so you couldn't see the instruments or have any ground reference, you would fairly quickly find yourself in some kind of unusual attitude. You might have the airplane climbing, banking, descending or even with the wings perpendicular to the ground. You wouldn't know it or detect it by any "seat of the pants" input. === When I was taking lessons in a Cessna 172 the instructor used to tell me that the plane would fly itself if you took your hands off of everything. I think that assumes tthat you're already trimmed for straight and level flight. I tried it a few times and it seemed to work. That's true, especially in a Cessna. I wasn't referring to taking your hands off the yoke or feet off the rudder however. I was referring to flying the airplane based on no instrument or visual references. You would input what your "sense" tells you but your sense would be all screwed up due to no feedback. The term "seat of the pants" in flying doesn't refer to physical input data. It refers to flying naturally without having to think about every step you are taking. I was never very good at it. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:15:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: The term "seat of the pants" in flying doesn't refer to physical input data. It refers to flying naturally without having to think about every step you are taking. I was never very good at it. === I understand your point but I always thought "seat of the pants" flying referred mostly to banking the plane at the right angle for the turn radius, i.e., banking it so that you don't slide in your seat one way or the other. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:05:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: If, in fact, the opposite is true, meaning the *left* handle bar is nudged forward slightly with the right handle bar pulled back an equal amount and you make a *left* turn ... that is counter steering. === That is what I meant by "nudging the left handlebar". Since the handlebar is one continuous unit, it necessarily follows that the right side would move back although I wasn't conciously pulling it that way. My boat bike tends to be a bit top heavy so the motion on the handlebar is very slight. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/18/2015 10:47 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:05:41 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: If, in fact, the opposite is true, meaning the *left* handle bar is nudged forward slightly with the right handle bar pulled back an equal amount and you make a *left* turn ... that is counter steering. === That is what I meant by "nudging the left handlebar". Since the handlebar is one continuous unit, it necessarily follows that the right side would move back although I wasn't conciously pulling it that way. My boat bike tends to be a bit top heavy so the motion on the handlebar is very slight. Same as on a motorcycle. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/19/2015 1:46 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:29:39 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:13:06 -0500, KC wrote: On 2/18/2015 4:05 PM, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:37:57 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:07:12 -0500, wrote: All the work needs to be done by a licensed mechanic and parts make boat parts look like peanuts. === Every single part has to be certified and traceable back to its place and date of manufacture. You can't buy 'em out behind the shed from someone's trunk at a 'plane show' in Virginia? Well, ****. Guess I'll have to do without. There are a lot of very airworthy and proven "experimental" aircraft out there. Are they held to the same standard as registered aircraft? There is a huge rc club down by our practice track. I have seen everything from gas and electric rc planes to manned single seat eggbeaters and several kinds of ultra light paragliders, etc take off and fly around there. === I'm not an expert on the regulations but I do know that experimental aircraft are not held to the same standards. Whether they are truly airworthy or not could be debated. I believe that John Denver died flying an experimental aircraft, and a former neighbor of mine almost killed himself crashing an ultra light last year. Another former neighbor was left crippled for life after crashing a home built (experimental) plane. I knew a Gyrocopter guy at IBM. He had a leg that will never be the same from crashing on the Garden State Tpk. Another IBM guy was paralysed from the neck down from an ultralight crash. The 3d guy is a friend of my neighbor and he is still successfully flying untralights. The last time I saw him it was the parachute and motor on your back thing. He was talking about a pontoon "plane". They all say there was virtually no effective regulation. You build these things from kits, They said they got a cursory inspection from the FAA guy, he watches you fly around a little and if you don't crash, you are licensed. It may be a little more complicated than they described but not much. If it's a single person or single seat ultralight no license is required at all. No registration, no flight worthiness certification, no inspection. Nothing. Just build it and fly it. No training, certificate or medical required of the pilot. The ultralight must meet the FAA definition of an ultralight however (less than about 250 lbs, fuel capacity, etc.) and they can only be flown during daylight hours. Maybe local laws in your area are different but the FAA requires no inspection or license. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:42:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:15:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The term "seat of the pants" in flying doesn't refer to physical input data. It refers to flying naturally without having to think about every step you are taking. I was never very good at it. === I understand your point but I always thought "seat of the pants" flying referred mostly to banking the plane at the right angle for the turn radius, i.e., banking it so that you don't slide in your seat one way or the other. I would think that the butt's reaction to banking an airplane would be the same as the reaction to banking a motorcycle. The force is directly into the seat, so no sliding occurs. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:53:27 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/18/2015 8:58 AM, Abit Loco wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:41:57 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:10:34 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: This is really funny stuff...thanks, Luddite. :) And remember, driving that RC boat in a swimming pool is just like driving a real boat through a ferocious inlet. I mean, what's the difference? === What the heck would you know about driving a *real* boat through a ferocious inlet? Really. With regard to Dick's suggestion about taking a flying lesson, I highly recommend it. Introductory lessons are usually priced at reasonable rates and it will give you a taste of the real deal. You'll find it quite interesting. My first lesson was in a Piper J3 tail dragger with no doors or windows and controlled with a "stick". It was about as basic as you can get short of an ultra light. I'd like to find someone who would take me and a couple grandkids up in one of those piper style airplanes. Any flight school would be happy to accommodate you. In my check out flight in the Piper Warrior my younger son and son-in-law were in the back seat. Missed this. Thank you. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:38:02 -0500, Stick Left-Steer Left
wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:42:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:15:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The term "seat of the pants" in flying doesn't refer to physical input data. It refers to flying naturally without having to think about every step you are taking. I was never very good at it. === I understand your point but I always thought "seat of the pants" flying referred mostly to banking the plane at the right angle for the turn radius, i.e., banking it so that you don't slide in your seat one way or the other. I would think that the butt's reaction to banking an airplane would be the same as the reaction to banking a motorcycle. The force is directly into the seat, so no sliding occurs. === Thats the ideal situation, zero lateral G forces. Apparently that happens automagically on a motorcycle just like it seems to on a fast moving boat. On an airplane it's entirely possible to be banked at the wrong angle for the rate of turn. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:27:55 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:38:02 -0500, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:42:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:15:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The term "seat of the pants" in flying doesn't refer to physical input data. It refers to flying naturally without having to think about every step you are taking. I was never very good at it. === I understand your point but I always thought "seat of the pants" flying referred mostly to banking the plane at the right angle for the turn radius, i.e., banking it so that you don't slide in your seat one way or the other. I would think that the butt's reaction to banking an airplane would be the same as the reaction to banking a motorcycle. The force is directly into the seat, so no sliding occurs. === Thats the ideal situation, zero lateral G forces. Apparently that happens automagically on a motorcycle just like it seems to on a fast moving boat. On an airplane it's entirely possible to be banked at the wrong angle for the rate of turn. Yup, you're right. I suppose a hard rudder with no banking would have you sliding in the seat. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/19/2015 8:57 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:27:55 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:38:02 -0500, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 22:42:36 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:15:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The term "seat of the pants" in flying doesn't refer to physical input data. It refers to flying naturally without having to think about every step you are taking. I was never very good at it. === I understand your point but I always thought "seat of the pants" flying referred mostly to banking the plane at the right angle for the turn radius, i.e., banking it so that you don't slide in your seat one way or the other. I would think that the butt's reaction to banking an airplane would be the same as the reaction to banking a motorcycle. The force is directly into the seat, so no sliding occurs. === Thats the ideal situation, zero lateral G forces. Apparently that happens automagically on a motorcycle just like it seems to on a fast moving boat. On an airplane it's entirely possible to be banked at the wrong angle for the rate of turn. Yup, you're right. I suppose a hard rudder with no banking would have you sliding in the seat. I think I've mentioned this before but here's a personal example of "seat of the pants" flying: Plymouth airport has two runways, one running South/North, the other East/West. they cross each other in the middle. I was returning from a scenic flight and was in the downwind leg of the active runway. I turned base, then final, announcing my positions and intentions on the radio. As I lined up in the final I noticed a larger, twin engined airplane also in his final but lined up for the inactive runway. Plymouth is not a controlled airport but there are usually people there watching what is going on and monitoring activity. They called out to the larger plane at about the same time that I saw him. The larger plane had not announced his intentions or position previously that I know of. He was advised he was on final to an inactive runway and traffic was landing (me) on the active. No response. They then called me and asked me to hold "short" upon landing. I briefly thought of aborting and pulling up but realized the other guy might do the same thing and we'd hit 100 feet above the runways instead of on them. I executed a beautiful slow speed, full flaps landing, literally stalling the Cessna just over the numbers. It literally fell the last foot to the ground and probably rolled no more than 30 feet. Even I was impressed. Received a "thank you, good job" from the guy in the tower. The guy in the other plane received a request to meet the airport manager after parking. That's "seat of the pants" flying. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:13:06 -0500, KC wrote: On 2/18/2015 4:05 PM, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:37:57 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:07:12 -0500, wrote: All the work needs to be done by a licensed mechanic and parts make boat parts look like peanuts. === Every single part has to be certified and traceable back to its place and date of manufacture. You can't buy 'em out behind the shed from someone's trunk at a 'plane show' in Virginia? Well, ****. Guess I'll have to do without. There are a lot of very airworthy and proven "experimental" aircraft out there. Are they held to the same standard as registered aircraft? There is a huge rc club down by our practice track. I have seen everything from gas and electric rc planes to manned single seat eggbeaters and several kinds of ultra light paragliders, etc take off and fly around there. === I'm not an expert on the regulations but I do know that experimental aircraft are not held to the same standards. Whether they are truly airworthy or not could be debated. I believe that John Denver died flying an experimental aircraft, and a former neighbor of mine almost killed himself crashing an ultra light last year. Another former neighbor was left crippled for life after crashing a home built (experimental) plane. John Denver forgot to check the fuel level. We were just down Pacific Grove and were reminded that Denver crashed near there. Was a memorial bench in the Monarch Butterfly grove. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:44:12 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: BTW ... in response to someone else's comment ... I pursued and got my ticket years before I had much extra $$ to spend. It was a dream I had since I was a little kid and I am very glad to have accomplished it even though it turns out it was not something I wanted to stay heavily involved in. I know several pilots and they all say it is a rich man's hobby. Just keeping one of those little "Buddy Holly" planes up to FAA specs is like owning a second home. All the work needs to be done by a licensed mechanic and parts make boat parts look like peanuts. All the work has to be inspected by a licensed person. Inspected, not done. I have a friend who is in partners with 2 others, and he is not rich. But cheaper to rent. As they say, if it flys, floats or fornicates it is cheaper to rent. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:09:31 -0600, Califbill wrote:
Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 20:13:06 -0500, KC wrote: On 2/18/2015 4:05 PM, Stick Left-Steer Left wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:37:57 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 15:07:12 -0500, wrote: All the work needs to be done by a licensed mechanic and parts make boat parts look like peanuts. === Every single part has to be certified and traceable back to its place and date of manufacture. You can't buy 'em out behind the shed from someone's trunk at a 'plane show' in Virginia? Well, ****. Guess I'll have to do without. There are a lot of very airworthy and proven "experimental" aircraft out there. Are they held to the same standard as registered aircraft? There is a huge rc club down by our practice track. I have seen everything from gas and electric rc planes to manned single seat eggbeaters and several kinds of ultra light paragliders, etc take off and fly around there. === I'm not an expert on the regulations but I do know that experimental aircraft are not held to the same standards. Whether they are truly airworthy or not could be debated. I believe that John Denver died flying an experimental aircraft, and a former neighbor of mine almost killed himself crashing an ultra light last year. Another former neighbor was left crippled for life after crashing a home built (experimental) plane. John Denver forgot to check the fuel level. We were just down Pacific Grove and were reminded that Denver crashed near there. Was a memorial bench in the Monarch Butterfly grove. I reckon I'll stick to flying with my feet on the ground. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
|
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:09:31 -0600, Califbill
wrote: As they say, if it flys, floats or fornicates it is cheaper to rent. === Probably so but it's nice to engage in those activities without entering into a business deal every time. :-) |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
|
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
|
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:18:03 -0500, wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 22:53:44 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:33:18 -0500, wrote: I got the offer several times to go on a sight seeing ride but we never got around to it. It wasn't really that high on my bucket list. === There's nothing like it on a nice day. The views of the water and beaches are just spectacular. It was a guy at work I did not want to owe a favor, if you get my drift ;-) === I'll bet that if we went over to Page sometime we could find someone who'd take us up. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:33:18 -0500, wrote: I got the offer several times to go on a sight seeing ride but we never got around to it. It wasn't really that high on my bucket list. === There's nothing like it on a nice day. The views of the water and beaches are just spectacular. One of my great airplane rides was on a Douglas C-117 back in about 1966. From Ogden, UT to the airbase in Novato, Ca. Is a DC-3 variant and we had to stay below 10,000 feet and it cruised at maybe 200 knots. Beautiful summer day. Could watch the skiers in the CAlif foothill lakes, and we were maybe at 1000' AGL over Donner pass. We followed I-80 the whole way. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:04:40 -0600, Califbill wrote:
Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:33:18 -0500, wrote: I got the offer several times to go on a sight seeing ride but we never got around to it. It wasn't really that high on my bucket list. === There's nothing like it on a nice day. The views of the water and beaches are just spectacular. One of my great airplane rides was on a Douglas C-117 back in about 1966. From Ogden, UT to the airbase in Novato, Ca. Is a DC-3 variant and we had to stay below 10,000 feet and it cruised at maybe 200 knots. Beautiful summer day. Could watch the skiers in the CAlif foothill lakes, and we were maybe at 1000' AGL over Donner pass. We followed I-80 the whole way. We flew home from Puerto Rico, in 1954, in a C-124. Great flight. I was ten years old and got to ride in the cockpit almost the whole way back. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emaster_II.jpg -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:04:40 -0600, Califbill wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:33:18 -0500, wrote: I got the offer several times to go on a sight seeing ride but we never got around to it. It wasn't really that high on my bucket list. === There's nothing like it on a nice day. The views of the water and beaches are just spectacular. One of my great airplane rides was on a Douglas C-117 back in about 1966. From Ogden, UT to the airbase in Novato, Ca. Is a DC-3 variant and we had to stay below 10,000 feet and it cruised at maybe 200 knots. Beautiful summer day. Could watch the skiers in the CAlif foothill lakes, and we were maybe at 1000' AGL over Donner pass. We followed I-80 the whole way. We flew home from Puerto Rico, in 1954, in a C-124. Great flight. I was ten years old and got to ride in the cockpit almost the whole way back. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emaster_II.jpg When I first went to Travis AFB in 1965 our mobile communications squadron unit shared a building I with the parachute riggers in the back and storage of those big Rotary engines for the 124's. When I was at Hamilton, there were still some 124's flying with the reserves and ang. That MATs plane was probably out of Travis. That is the Marin end of the Golden Gate Bridge. Going out toward Lands End there were coastal gun emplacements in WW2. I fish salmon just north of there during the summer. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On 2/21/15 11:46 AM, Califbill wrote:
John H. wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:04:40 -0600, Califbill wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:33:18 -0500, wrote: I got the offer several times to go on a sight seeing ride but we never got around to it. It wasn't really that high on my bucket list. === There's nothing like it on a nice day. The views of the water and beaches are just spectacular. One of my great airplane rides was on a Douglas C-117 back in about 1966. From Ogden, UT to the airbase in Novato, Ca. Is a DC-3 variant and we had to stay below 10,000 feet and it cruised at maybe 200 knots. Beautiful summer day. Could watch the skiers in the CAlif foothill lakes, and we were maybe at 1000' AGL over Donner pass. We followed I-80 the whole way. We flew home from Puerto Rico, in 1954, in a C-124. Great flight. I was ten years old and got to ride in the cockpit almost the whole way back. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emaster_II.jpg When I first went to Travis AFB in 1965 our mobile communications squadron unit shared a building I with the parachute riggers in the back and storage of those big Rotary engines for the 124's. When I was at Hamilton, there were still some 124's flying with the reserves and ang. That MATs plane was probably out of Travis. That is the Marin end of the Golden Gate Bridge. Going out toward Lands End there were coastal gun emplacements in WW2. I fish salmon just north of there during the summer. Back in the day when I was a reporter/feature writer for the KC Star, I drew the assignment of going out to the AF Academy to write a series of articles on KC-MO-KS students. The Star was very friendly with the military establishment in those days. I was flown out in a two seat jet trainer, a T30-something or other, and it was a cool and what thought was a pretty fast flight. That plane was not available a week later, so the AF flew me back on a DC-3. That was fun, too, but it took a lot longer. Both planes were very noisy, and the DC-3 had lots of rattles. :) -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/21/15 11:46 AM, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:04:40 -0600, Califbill wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:33:18 -0500, wrote: I got the offer several times to go on a sight seeing ride but we never got around to it. It wasn't really that high on my bucket list. === There's nothing like it on a nice day. The views of the water and beaches are just spectacular. One of my great airplane rides was on a Douglas C-117 back in about 1966. From Ogden, UT to the airbase in Novato, Ca. Is a DC-3 variant and we had to stay below 10,000 feet and it cruised at maybe 200 knots. Beautiful summer day. Could watch the skiers in the CAlif foothill lakes, and we were maybe at 1000' AGL over Donner pass. We followed I-80 the whole way. We flew home from Puerto Rico, in 1954, in a C-124. Great flight. I was ten years old and got to ride in the cockpit almost the whole way back. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emaster_II.jpg When I first went to Travis AFB in 1965 our mobile communications squadron unit shared a building I with the parachute riggers in the back and storage of those big Rotary engines for the 124's. When I was at Hamilton, there were still some 124's flying with the reserves and ang. That MATs plane was probably out of Travis. That is the Marin end of the Golden Gate Bridge. Going out toward Lands End there were coastal gun emplacements in WW2. I fish salmon just north of there during the summer. Back in the day when I was a reporter/feature writer for the KC Star, I drew the assignment of going out to the AF Academy to write a series of articles on KC-MO-KS students. The Star was very friendly with the military establishment in those days. I was flown out in a two seat jet trainer, a T30-something or other, and it was a cool and what thought was a pretty fast flight. That plane was not available a week later, so the AF flew me back on a DC-3. That was fun, too, but it took a lot longer. Both planes were very noisy, and the DC-3 had lots of rattles. :) When I went to basic, from Dallas to San Antonio, I rode a Trans Texas Airways DC-3. With the cutest stewardess, I ever saw. Fuselage shook left to right, and front to back, and the wings shook up and down. But kept flying. They were the original Puff gun ships. |
Navy Carrier Pilots - Overpaid?
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:00:18 -0600, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/21/15 11:46 AM, Califbill wrote: John H. wrote: On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 22:04:40 -0600, Califbill wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Thu, 19 Feb 2015 20:33:18 -0500, wrote: I got the offer several times to go on a sight seeing ride but we never got around to it. It wasn't really that high on my bucket list. === There's nothing like it on a nice day. The views of the water and beaches are just spectacular. One of my great airplane rides was on a Douglas C-117 back in about 1966. From Ogden, UT to the airbase in Novato, Ca. Is a DC-3 variant and we had to stay below 10,000 feet and it cruised at maybe 200 knots. Beautiful summer day. Could watch the skiers in the CAlif foothill lakes, and we were maybe at 1000' AGL over Donner pass. We followed I-80 the whole way. We flew home from Puerto Rico, in 1954, in a C-124. Great flight. I was ten years old and got to ride in the cockpit almost the whole way back. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...emaster_II.jpg When I first went to Travis AFB in 1965 our mobile communications squadron unit shared a building I with the parachute riggers in the back and storage of those big Rotary engines for the 124's. When I was at Hamilton, there were still some 124's flying with the reserves and ang. That MATs plane was probably out of Travis. That is the Marin end of the Golden Gate Bridge. Going out toward Lands End there were coastal gun emplacements in WW2. I fish salmon just north of there during the summer. Back in the day when I was a reporter/feature writer for the KC Star, I drew the assignment of going out to the AF Academy to write a series of articles on KC-MO-KS students. The Star was very friendly with the military establishment in those days. I was flown out in a two seat jet trainer, a T30-something or other, and it was a cool and what thought was a pretty fast flight. That plane was not available a week later, so the AF flew me back on a DC-3. That was fun, too, but it took a lot longer. Both planes were very noisy, and the DC-3 had lots of rattles. :) When I went to basic, from Dallas to San Antonio, I rode a Trans Texas Airways DC-3. With the cutest stewardess, I ever saw. Fuselage shook left to right, and front to back, and the wings shook up and down. But kept flying. They were the original Puff gun ships. Might've been the same plane I flew from into Lawton, OK (Ft. Sill), way back when! -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com