DAMN. JUST DAMN

[JW Scud]

[quote author=Colonel Sanders link=topic=9504.msg26873#msg26873 date=1551233251]
It is ludicrous to do so.  It's such a stupid idea, my son made a hilarious video about attempting to do so:



He was of course investigated by TC for that video.  They have no sense of humor.
[/quote]

Just curious how you become aware of this action. Verbally from a contact, officially through a letter from TC, other means.

[vanNostrum]

[quote author=Slick Goodlin link=topic=9504.msg26906#msg26906 date=1551324272]
[quote author=Nark link=topic=9504.msg26903#msg26903 date=1551321562]
Well, ... Which one?
[/quote]
Can’t...
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/k5uvdT4SWysSI/giphy.gif[/img]
Quite...
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/a19KhZNFBVnTG/giphy.gif[/img]

Decide.
[img]https://media.giphy.com/media/TyN0eqFz18l8c/giphy.gif[/img]
[/quote]

My vote goes to #3

[John Swallow]

[left][color=black][font=arial]"I cannot imagine a no-flap landing in the L39."[/font][/color][/left][left][/left][left][color=black][font=arial]I'm guessing that it would be a bit of a non-event.  The Tutor, T-Bird, and Sabre just added a few knots to normal approach speeds.[/font][/color][/left][left][/left][left][color=black][font=arial]Even the CF-5 which had less wing area and decidedly more weight than the C-39 just added 10 knots for the flapless condition.[/font][/color][/left][left][/left][left][color=black][font=arial]Now, the F-104 was a different kettle of fish entirely; with the flaps down, you had air blown over the aft flap to keep the boundary layer attached.  Flapless, with out that air, approach speed went up markedly.  The following from a 15-year old entry in PPRUNE about the subject:[/font][/color][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)]





[quote]No flap speed was 230 kts or 2.5 APC (AOA) whichever was higher, min touch down speed 190 kts. Very difficult thing to do.......the limit for the chute was 180 kts and the brakes were real crap
.....very good chance to engage the bliss back barrier...[/quote]



[font=arial]-------------------------[/font]


[font=arial]I never checked out in the '104 but did get a couple of front seat landings in a dual...  [/font][font=arial][/font][left][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][font=arial][color=black] If for real, you had to eject all the external loads (except tip tanks) and burn the fuel down to 3,500 lbs. Tip tanks actually helped a lot in keeping induced drag under control.[/color][/font][/color][/left][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][font=arial][/font][/color][left][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][font=arial][color=black] Normal landing speed with full flaps was 175 kts + fuel correction ~ 5 kts for each 1,000 lbs above 1,000 lbs*....usually 185-190 kts, min touch down speed 150 kts....other difficult thing to do...[/color][/font][/color][/left][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][font=arial][/font][/color][left][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][font=arial][color=black] *I'm not 100% sure though....my last flight on the 104 dates back in 1995.[/color][/font][/color][/left][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][font=arial][/font][/color][left][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][font=arial][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][/font]

[/color][/left]

[Colonel]

My father had to do a no-BLC -104 approach immediately after
takeoff - [u]heavy with fuel[/u] - they told him to get it on the ground
NOW at Cold Lake. 

Ridiculously fast approach and touchdown, far above the
rated tire and chute speed.  240 knots if memory serves.

TC Inspectors like Arlo and Rotten Ronnie might think a
no-BLC approach, heavy with fuel is no big deal, because
they're such hot sticks, but everyone else thought they were
pretty goddamned hairy.

I normally operated L39's from a 4,000 foot runway.  Paul
Kissman, senior RCAF test pilot told me I was insane to
operate from such a short runway and he would never do so.

You might think I was a wimp to divert to the nice long
RWY 32 at CYOW for a flapless landing, but I guess I'm
just not as brave as you.  You spent decades as a senior
test pilot at AETE and know more than Paul Kissman, right?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-kissmann-a520a917

Which test pilot school did you attend?  ETPS?  My friend
Kevin went to the one in France.  Did you go to Pax?  Edwards?

Lots of people like you talk a good game and are more brave
than me, and I'm cool with that.  They're dead now.

[John Swallow]

[quote]"You might think I was a wimp to divert to the nice long RWY 32 at CYOW for a flapless landing, but I guess I'm just not as brave as you.  You spent decades as a senior test pilot at AETE and know more than Paul Kissman, right? Which test pilot school did you attend?  ETPS?  My friend[/font][font=]Kevin went to the one in France.  Did you go to Pax?  Edwards? Lots of people like you talk a good game and are more brave than me, and I'm cool with that.  They're dead now."[/quote]


WTF you talkin' bout, Willis?  How did we get to Paul Kissman, landing in CYOW, and attending TP Schools?

You lost me somewhere between slagging TC and a funeral... 


WTF...?

[Rosco P Coltrane]

He thinks Canada is a small town and we all know everyone at Transport Canada. Just stop quoting him I don't get paid enough to fix that shit.

[John Swallow]

“I normally operated L39's from a 4,000 foot runway.  Paul Kissman, senior RCAF test pilot told me I was insane to operate from such a short runway and he would never do so.”

Well, given that the L-39 has a take-off roll of under 2000 feet and a landing roll of just over 2000 feet, I think you’re pussy if you can’t operate safely from a 4000 foot runway. 

However, if you’re flying a CT-133, you would have problems.  You could do JUST do it on standard days on internal fuel, but adding fuel to the tips makes a safe operation problematic…

[Colonel]

[quote]I think you’re a pussy[/quote]

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Name me another jet that approaches at 125 knots (like the L39)
and can be safely stopped in 2000 feet (without a tailhook and
a wire).

The usual TC Bullshit.

As far as taking off in 2,000 feet ... there's this thing that the L39
doesn't have - it's called an afterburner.

Feel free to call Paul Kissman up at the NRC - he's the Chief Test
Pilot there, now that my friend Rob has retired - and set him straight.

Which test pilot school did you go to, again?  And, how many L39
type ratings have you issued?

[John Swallow]

[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]The L-39 is a docile, fun, jet warbird.  [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]I’ll repeat:  the L-39 is a docile, fun, jet warbird. [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]That phrase was taken from: http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/l39pr.htm[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Except, it’s not a warbird.  It’s a trainer, FFS![/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Further, given that you’ve flown the aircraft without too much difficulty, I’m betting that any pilot on any jet squadron to which I was ever attached could have flown the L-39.  It’s a docile trainer.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]According to the above link, the aircraft stalls about 88 knots (probably low on fuel), so, 120 knots on final would be OK, but if light, reducing to 110 knots would be indicated.  Bleed airspeed to cross the button at around 100 knots and “Robert’s your mother’s brother”.  [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]The data from below indicates a ground roll of just over 2000 feet; if you’ve got any talent at all you can have the machine on the ground within the first 500 feet leaving ample room for roll out…[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Now, how many L-39 type ratings have I issued?  [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]None, obviously.[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]I’m not sure what bearing that has on your ability to fly an aircraft; the two aren’t necessarily synonymous…[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]But, if we’re back to long-cocking, I have taken many people through complete jet aerobatic, instrument, and formation training on T-33 and CF-5 aircraft.  A little more involved than “issuing someone a type rating”…  (PS  I have issued PPCs and IRs, so I know the difference…  TC, you know.)  [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Data from Jane's All The World's Aircraft 1988–89,[21] Aero Vodochody[3][/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Specifications (L-39C)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]General characteristics [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Performance [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Never exceed speed: Mach 0.80 (529 knots, 609 mph, 980 km/h)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Maximum speed: 750 km/h (405 knots, 466 mph) at 5,000 m (16,400 ft)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Range: 1,100 km (593 nmi, 683 mi) (internal fuel) [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]1,750 km, (944 nmi, 1,087 mi) (internal and external fuel)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Endurance: 2 hr 30 min (internal fuel), 3 hr 50 min (internal and external fuel)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,100 ft)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Rate of climb: 21 m/s (4,130 ft/min)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Wing loading: 250.0 kg/m² (51.3 lb/ft²)[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Thrust/weight: 0.37[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]Climb to 5,000 m (16,400 ft): 5 min[/size][/font][/color]
[color=red][font=arial][size=4][b][u]Take-off roll: 530 m (1,740 ft)[/u][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=red][font=arial][size=4][b][u]Landing roll: 650 m (2,140 ft)[/u][/b][/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]This is NOT what I would call a complicated, high-performance jet fighter; this is an uncomplicated, docile, little trainer that probably did an excellent job for which it was intended.  [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4]And knock off the TC bullshit; I left the organization nearly thirty years ago and have no idea of whom you speak.  Many of the people now in the organization weren’t even born when I pulled the plug.  So, can it…[/size][/font][/color]
[color=black][font=arial][size=4] [/size][/font][/color]

[Colonel]

[quote]Take-off roll: 530 m (1,740 ft)
Landing roll: 650 m (2,140 ft)[/quote]

Like TC BS, that's salesman BS.  Even at sea level ISA, I guarantee you
will never see those numbers.  You've never turned a tire in an L39, I issue
type ratings in them.  You have no idea what you are talking about.

If I you think I have no credibility, that's fine, I say again, call up Paul Kissman
currently Chief Test Pilot at the NRC and call him a pussy, too.  Where did you
go to test pilot school again?

In my lifetime, I have observed that people that call me a pussy are either dead
or a liar.  Which does that make you?