Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: First real flight
On 30 Oct 2003 14:01:22 +, Matthew Law [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Given the difficulty of getting in and out of a 152 on the ground it's probably impossible at our circuit height of 800ft to survive a bailout. A larger aircraft at 1000ft and reasonable speed, say 100kts, would be quite survivable. The key is the airspeed. You'd get a far faster deployment at 100kts than from stall speed. Unfortunatley, most emergency aircrew parachutes I've seen are pitifully old or badly maintained. Modern square reserve parachutes of the type used by skydivers are very fast to open and very, very reliable if the mandatory inspection and repack cycle is adhered to. I use one of these too: http://www.cypres2.com just in case ;-) ..no risk this fires before you're clear of the airframe? -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: First real flight
Matthew Law writes: I agree :-) In a C152 with one aboard it certainly gets a little bumpy around the circuit even nauseous sometimes. The worst turbulence I've been in so far was just beneath a bank of fluffy cumulus clouds. I thought the airframe was going to fail and for the first time since I started flying I wished I had my parachute on! I know that's a joke, but I wonder what the odds of successfuly exiting a falling 152 would be -- assume that you're already well below circuit altitude by the time your brain has processed the failure. You'd probably be better to stick with the plane unless the structural failure were total (i.e. a lost wing rather than just a bent one). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: First real flight
Frederic Bouvier writes: I am trying to avoid to fly on the afternoon in summer. It even happened that my head hit the top of the canopy. I wouldn't imagine what could happen if I'd forgot to fasten my seat belt. Been there -- I bruised my head on the roof of my Warrior during a practice instrument approach one afternoon. When I'm flying VFR, I can stay high and then come in on a fairly steep approach path, limiting my time in the worst of the turbulence; IFR, I'm stuck at the ridiculously low step-downs and approach slopes designed for big airliners. In real-life, the kind of low IFR that I can fly in safely tends to be fog, which means calm air, so the real problem is flying under the foggles on VFR days. I noticed that it is more difficult to maintain straight and level with low powered planes (100hp) than with more powerful planes. My Warrior is more stable in turbulence than a 172 at the same weight and hp -- I think it's because the wing loading is higher (hence, the slightly higher stall speed as well). I often have to maintain the stick frankly on the left ( with no trim ) to avoid the plane to tilt. And with a heat bubble hitting only one wing on occasion, you are assured to get sensations. In a Cherokee (and most or all other low-wings), you have no choice but to burn fuel from one tank at once -- I always start with the left tank when I'm flying alone. Since the fuel is further out on the roll arm than you are, a little fuel can make a big difference for balance. I don't know how you feel about not using the BOTH setting in a Cessna, but for a long cross-country, it might be worth thinking about (just make sure you set a timer so that you don't forget to switch tanks). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: First real flight
Given the difficulty of getting in and out of a 152 on the ground it's probably impossible at our circuit height of 800ft to survive a bailout. A larger aircraft at 1000ft and reasonable speed, say 100kts, would be quite survivable. The key is the airspeed. You'd get a far faster deployment at 100kts than from stall speed. Unfortunatley, most emergency aircrew parachutes I've seen are pitifully old or badly maintained. Modern square reserve parachutes of the type used by skydivers are very fast to open and very, very reliable if the mandatory inspection and repack cycle is adhered to. I use one of these too: http://www.cypres2.com just in case ;-) Regards, Matt. On Thu, 2003-10-30 at 12:39, David Megginson wrote: I know that's a joke, but I wonder what the odds of successfuly exiting a falling 152 would be -- assume that you're already well below circuit altitude by the time your brain has processed the failure. You'd probably be better to stick with the plane unless the structural failure were total (i.e. a lost wing rather than just a bent one). All the best, David ___ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
