DAMN. JUST DAMN
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
[b][font=arial black]"Like TC BS, that's salesman BS"[/font][/b]
[b][font=arial black]Now you're disputing published figures... The info was from Jane's.[/font][/b]
[font=arial black][b]Christamighty: back in the day, anybody halfway competent could bring a low-fuel T-33 across the button at 95 knots; that in an aircraft with less wing area than an L-39 and whose empty weight is 800 pounds heavier. [/b][/font]
[font=arial black][b]It may come down to time on type: exactly how much time do you have on the L-39? [/b][b]50 hours? 100? 500? 1000?[/b][/font]
[font=arial black][/font]
[font=arial black][b]Further, to the thinly veiled putdown:[/b][/font]
[font=arial black][b]"You've never turned a tire in an L39, I issue type ratings in them."[/b][/font]
[font=arial black][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][/color][/font]
[font=arial black][b]FIGJAM [/b][/font]
[font=arial black][/font][left][font=arial black][b][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][/color][/b][/font][/left][font=arial black][b][color=rgb(91, 91, 91)][/color][/b][/font]
[b][color=#001000][/color][/b]
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
You call me a pussy, I will not disagree.
You're either a blowhard or dead - which is it?
Call up Paul Kissman, ex-RCAF AETE and Chief Test Pilot at the
NRC and call him a pussy too, ok?
And finally, which test pilot school did you attend? Because you're
clearly a much hotter stick - like all the other TC Inspectors.
Do you have any idea how stupid you look? You've never turned
a tire in an L39. I issue type ratings in them, and you say that I
haven't a clue how to fly them.
No wonder TC hired you. Tower C is full of people like you.
You're either a blowhard or dead - which is it?
Call up Paul Kissman, ex-RCAF AETE and Chief Test Pilot at the
NRC and call him a pussy too, ok?
And finally, which test pilot school did you attend? Because you're
clearly a much hotter stick - like all the other TC Inspectors.
Do you have any idea how stupid you look? You've never turned
a tire in an L39. I issue type ratings in them, and you say that I
haven't a clue how to fly them.
No wonder TC hired you. Tower C is full of people like you.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
"I issue type ratings in them and you say I don't have a clue how to fly them."
Keerist! The two aren't mutually inclusive. You should know that. F'rinstance, these guys to whom you issue the ratings can fly the airplane, but... Experts? Not yet.
I just asked you many hours on type you possess.
Well?
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
I have infinitely more time on the L39 than you do - that is an arithmetical fact -
yet I have zero credibility with the Big Bellies. Typical Tower C blowhard.
Listen. Phone Paul Kissman at the NRC, and share some of your wisdom.
[quote]L-39 is docile[/quote]
The difference between you and I, is that [u]I have respect for things that can kill[/u].
Mike Mangold issued my L29 Viper type rating, and this
is what happened to him shortly afterwards in an L39:
[img width=500 height=300]https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12 ... 140406.jpg[/img]
He and his passenger are quite dead. Now, you probably
think Mike Mangold is a Pussyâ„¢ compared to a TC Inspector,
but he was a USAF F-4 "Wild Weasel" pilot, Air Force Fighter
Weapons School Outstanding Graduate, won the Red Bull Air
Race Championship when that actually meant something, and
raced modified jets at Reno, which used to kill people every
year before they banned it. Flew Boeings for AA.
Like a nuclear RCAF F-104 pilot, I'm sure you think Mike
Mangold was a shitty stick and a Pussyâ„¢ compared to a
TC Inspector, but he's quite dead now, in an L39 crash.
You are such an ignorant TC blowhard.
You know nothing of what you speak.
Funny story about Mike Mangold. He may have been a Pussyâ„¢
compared to a TC Inspector, but he was also a CFI and an avid
parachutist and a heluva lot of fun.
He would routinely wear a parachute when he was instructing -
he told his students, who didn't know any better, that he felt more
comfortable wearing one. Uh, ok.
Then one day, overhead the airport, without any warning he would
open his door and jump out, leaving the student to land the aircraft
solo. Had more style than the normal way of sending a student solo,
that's for sure.
Mike may have been a Pussyâ„¢ compared to a blowhard, big belly
TC Inspector that knows it all, but I am proud that he was a friend of
mine. One of him is worth 10,000 of you Tower C blowhards.
yet I have zero credibility with the Big Bellies. Typical Tower C blowhard.
Listen. Phone Paul Kissman at the NRC, and share some of your wisdom.
[quote]L-39 is docile[/quote]
The difference between you and I, is that [u]I have respect for things that can kill[/u].
Mike Mangold issued my L29 Viper type rating, and this
is what happened to him shortly afterwards in an L39:
[img width=500 height=300]https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12 ... 140406.jpg[/img]
He and his passenger are quite dead. Now, you probably
think Mike Mangold is a Pussyâ„¢ compared to a TC Inspector,
but he was a USAF F-4 "Wild Weasel" pilot, Air Force Fighter
Weapons School Outstanding Graduate, won the Red Bull Air
Race Championship when that actually meant something, and
raced modified jets at Reno, which used to kill people every
year before they banned it. Flew Boeings for AA.
Like a nuclear RCAF F-104 pilot, I'm sure you think Mike
Mangold was a shitty stick and a Pussyâ„¢ compared to a
TC Inspector, but he's quite dead now, in an L39 crash.
You are such an ignorant TC blowhard.
You know nothing of what you speak.
Funny story about Mike Mangold. He may have been a Pussyâ„¢
compared to a TC Inspector, but he was also a CFI and an avid
parachutist and a heluva lot of fun.
He would routinely wear a parachute when he was instructing -
he told his students, who didn't know any better, that he felt more
comfortable wearing one. Uh, ok.
Then one day, overhead the airport, without any warning he would
open his door and jump out, leaving the student to land the aircraft
solo. Had more style than the normal way of sending a student solo,
that's for sure.
Mike may have been a Pussyâ„¢ compared to a blowhard, big belly
TC Inspector that knows it all, but I am proud that he was a friend of
mine. One of him is worth 10,000 of you Tower C blowhards.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
[i]"I have infinitely more time on the L-39 than you do..."[/i]
Immaterial, but I'm guessing low time.
Full disclosure: I have no L-39 time. Nor did I graduate from a Test Pilot School. I have done post-production test flying on several types but that is in no way comparable to pre-production flight testing. That's dangerous shit...
However, you asking me how many hours I have on the Albatros is like me demanding you how many hours you have on the T-33, the F-86, or the CF-5; it is not in any way germane to the argument. Especially if you had vast experience on other, higher performing aircraft. Because that's the basis for my comments: years of flying similar and higher performance aircraft.
About phoning Paul K in Ottawa: from what you said, I'm not sure that he would have good words on your behalf given that he said you were insane to operate an L-39 from such a short runway; it something that he would never do. But you continued to do it. (See below)
PS
I downloaded the pilot’s manual for the L-39.
It indicates an accelerate/stop of 3750 feet (hence, I’m guessing, Paul K’s comment about you operating out of 4000 feet) and a max crosswind of 15 knots. Although the stall is listed as very benign, the aircraft is limited to two turns in a spin before recovery. (It looks like the spin is rough and erratic)
Light-weight stall speed is listed as 90 knots.
Recommended speeds are 120 knots final, 110 across the button, and touchdown at 95-100 knots. Which, according to the manual, will give you around the 2000 foot landing roll.
This is a very simple aircraft; nothing complicated.
Anybody with any jet experience at all should be able to fly this aircraft after a suitable checkout. Indeed, for a type check, all the JetWarbird Training Center requires is 1000 TT and 500 PIC. Anybody with a couple thousand hours jet would have a grand time there.
Source of the info on the L-39
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/cze ... atros.html
Immaterial, but I'm guessing low time.
Full disclosure: I have no L-39 time. Nor did I graduate from a Test Pilot School. I have done post-production test flying on several types but that is in no way comparable to pre-production flight testing. That's dangerous shit...
However, you asking me how many hours I have on the Albatros is like me demanding you how many hours you have on the T-33, the F-86, or the CF-5; it is not in any way germane to the argument. Especially if you had vast experience on other, higher performing aircraft. Because that's the basis for my comments: years of flying similar and higher performance aircraft.
About phoning Paul K in Ottawa: from what you said, I'm not sure that he would have good words on your behalf given that he said you were insane to operate an L-39 from such a short runway; it something that he would never do. But you continued to do it. (See below)
PS
I downloaded the pilot’s manual for the L-39.
It indicates an accelerate/stop of 3750 feet (hence, I’m guessing, Paul K’s comment about you operating out of 4000 feet) and a max crosswind of 15 knots. Although the stall is listed as very benign, the aircraft is limited to two turns in a spin before recovery. (It looks like the spin is rough and erratic)
Light-weight stall speed is listed as 90 knots.
Recommended speeds are 120 knots final, 110 across the button, and touchdown at 95-100 knots. Which, according to the manual, will give you around the 2000 foot landing roll.
This is a very simple aircraft; nothing complicated.
Anybody with any jet experience at all should be able to fly this aircraft after a suitable checkout. Indeed, for a type check, all the JetWarbird Training Center requires is 1000 TT and 500 PIC. Anybody with a couple thousand hours jet would have a grand time there.
Source of the info on the L-39
http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/cze ... atros.html
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Do us a favor: put your money where your enormous mouth is, jump in an L39
and try to take off from, then land on a 2,000 foot runway.
Make sure you get the phone number for the TSB first, and give it to your next
of kin.
You're such a bullshitter. I really doubt you have any jet time at all. Next, you're
going to be telling me that you used to fly the T-bird and Sabre and F-5 from
2,000 foot runways, too. What a load of shit.
[img width=500 height=248][/img]
This from Larry in Sante Fe NM:
[quote]Salganek talked an L-39 student and instructor unfamiliar with Santa Fe’s elevation out of taking off (from an [u]8,000 foot runway![/u])[/quote]
Do you even know what density altitude is?
[quote]Lockheed T–33 Shooting Star
Specifications (sea level ISA)
Takeoff distance over 50-ft obstacle | 5,600 ft
Landing distance over 50-ft obstacle | 4,650 ft[/quote]
You are so full of shit. You remind me of the time I was at the Vintage
Wings hangar at Gatineau. I was crawling around underneath the hybrid
5.5 Sabre, and I was horrified to see that someone had squared off the
main tires. The maintenance guys explained to me that someone had
panicked, trying to land a Sabre on the 6,000 foot runway at Gatineau,
and had locked up the mains, destroying the very expensive tires, then
walked off, fat dumb and happy like you, in his fucking flight suit.
Gatineau of course had fresh pavement - of course - so it was nice and
sticky. We would do formation landings in the L39's there - it was so nice
for us, having the extra runway length and width. For us, 6000 feet was
an incredible treat to operate from.
PS I remember friends telling me what an under-powered piece of shit
the F-5 was. It really, really liked the runway, and would barely stagger
into the air after an extremely long takeoff run. What a piece of shit, it was.
and try to take off from, then land on a 2,000 foot runway.
Make sure you get the phone number for the TSB first, and give it to your next
of kin.
You're such a bullshitter. I really doubt you have any jet time at all. Next, you're
going to be telling me that you used to fly the T-bird and Sabre and F-5 from
2,000 foot runways, too. What a load of shit.
[img width=500 height=248][/img]
This from Larry in Sante Fe NM:
[quote]Salganek talked an L-39 student and instructor unfamiliar with Santa Fe’s elevation out of taking off (from an [u]8,000 foot runway![/u])[/quote]
Do you even know what density altitude is?
[quote]Lockheed T–33 Shooting Star
Specifications (sea level ISA)
Takeoff distance over 50-ft obstacle | 5,600 ft
Landing distance over 50-ft obstacle | 4,650 ft[/quote]
You are so full of shit. You remind me of the time I was at the Vintage
Wings hangar at Gatineau. I was crawling around underneath the hybrid
5.5 Sabre, and I was horrified to see that someone had squared off the
main tires. The maintenance guys explained to me that someone had
panicked, trying to land a Sabre on the 6,000 foot runway at Gatineau,
and had locked up the mains, destroying the very expensive tires, then
walked off, fat dumb and happy like you, in his fucking flight suit.
Gatineau of course had fresh pavement - of course - so it was nice and
sticky. We would do formation landings in the L39's there - it was so nice
for us, having the extra runway length and width. For us, 6000 feet was
an incredible treat to operate from.
PS I remember friends telling me what an under-powered piece of shit
the F-5 was. It really, really liked the runway, and would barely stagger
into the air after an extremely long takeoff run. What a piece of shit, it was.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
Andrew, Andrew, Andrew.
There you go again... Deflecting.
I did not say that I would or could operate from a 2000 foot runway. You contributed that.
I pointed out that the accelerate/stop distance was listed as just under 4000 feet. I further indicated that the listed landing roll was just over 2000 feet.
I further noted that Paul K's comment may have arisen from your operation off a four thousand foot runway leaving little room for error.
Further:
You keep noting an approach speed of 120 knots. (Actually, you quoted 125 at one point).
[b]At what altitude to you cross the threshold and at what speed?[/b]
Now, about the CT-133; at light fuel weights, it is quite easy to cross the button at 95 knots and touch down in the first five hundred feet. From the sounds of it, the braking system on the Silver Star is much superior to the Albatros, so it would be quite easy to stop within a four thousand foot runway. Anybody that crosses the runway button at 50 feet isn't really trying for a short field landing.
About my understanding of density altitude: don't be obtuse. All figures quoted reflect book values for STP or close to it.
About the F-5: don't know dick about the F-5. All my time was on the CF-5. Lovely aircraft. On the Sabre, you could cruise at .9 or climb. Not both. First trip in the "Aklavik Arrow", climbing at .9! Died and gone to heaven. One of the differences between the F-5 and the CF-5 was that the latter had nose-hike to shorten the take-off roll. Never used.
And if you think the CF-5 liked the runway, you should have watched the RF-84F take to the skies. A wag once noted that if somebody built a runway around the equator, Republic would build an aircraft that couldn't take-off on it...
There you go again... Deflecting.
I did not say that I would or could operate from a 2000 foot runway. You contributed that.
I pointed out that the accelerate/stop distance was listed as just under 4000 feet. I further indicated that the listed landing roll was just over 2000 feet.
I further noted that Paul K's comment may have arisen from your operation off a four thousand foot runway leaving little room for error.
Further:
You keep noting an approach speed of 120 knots. (Actually, you quoted 125 at one point).
[b]At what altitude to you cross the threshold and at what speed?[/b]
Now, about the CT-133; at light fuel weights, it is quite easy to cross the button at 95 knots and touch down in the first five hundred feet. From the sounds of it, the braking system on the Silver Star is much superior to the Albatros, so it would be quite easy to stop within a four thousand foot runway. Anybody that crosses the runway button at 50 feet isn't really trying for a short field landing.
About my understanding of density altitude: don't be obtuse. All figures quoted reflect book values for STP or close to it.
About the F-5: don't know dick about the F-5. All my time was on the CF-5. Lovely aircraft. On the Sabre, you could cruise at .9 or climb. Not both. First trip in the "Aklavik Arrow", climbing at .9! Died and gone to heaven. One of the differences between the F-5 and the CF-5 was that the latter had nose-hike to shorten the take-off roll. Never used.
And if you think the CF-5 liked the runway, you should have watched the RF-84F take to the skies. A wag once noted that if somebody built a runway around the equator, Republic would build an aircraft that couldn't take-off on it...
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]I further indicated that the listed landing roll was just over 2000 feet[/quote]
which is complete bullshit. You're the guy who flat-spots the tires, right?
How many brake changes have you done yourself - and paid for - on jets?
For that matter, how many 4000 foot runways did you take off from in a T-bird?
Did you read the part where LarryS said that 8,000 wasn't enough
runway at his home airport, for a L39 takeoff on a hot day? And you
keep spouting blowhard nonsense about 2,000 foot runways.
Back in the real world, some twit wrecks a T-33 short of a 10,000 foot runway
at Hamilton, Ontario. Big difference between reality and your nostalgic bullshit.
The guy that wrecked the T-33, attempting to land in good wx on a dry paved
10,000 foot runway - he's a Pussyâ„¢ compared to you too?
which is complete bullshit. You're the guy who flat-spots the tires, right?
How many brake changes have you done yourself - and paid for - on jets?
For that matter, how many 4000 foot runways did you take off from in a T-bird?
Did you read the part where LarryS said that 8,000 wasn't enough
runway at his home airport, for a L39 takeoff on a hot day? And you
keep spouting blowhard nonsense about 2,000 foot runways.
Back in the real world, some twit wrecks a T-33 short of a 10,000 foot runway
at Hamilton, Ontario. Big difference between reality and your nostalgic bullshit.
The guy that wrecked the T-33, attempting to land in good wx on a dry paved
10,000 foot runway - he's a Pussyâ„¢ compared to you too?
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
Again with the deflecting; try to stay on topic.
We're talking about STP days. You keep strewing red herrings like high altitudes, hot days, aircraft without afterburners, 2000 foot runways... I'll type this slowly: the 2000 feet was in reference to the take-off and landing distances; not what length runway from which to operate.
Discussing something with you is like herding kittens or trying to corral quicksilver.
Regarding how many 4000 foot runways have I ever operated from? Answer: none. Never had to. But I would have not had a qualm about doing so, because there was a chart to which I could refer. One of those things to which you so disparagingly referred in your Cessna 172 rant.
I've attached it for your perusal.
As you can see (and using same conditions as the example) full tips, no wind, no slope would give a TO distance of 4000 feet. Not good. However, only put a 100 gallons in each tip and the situation becomes doable. (493 was the standard training load) You'd get around 3200 feet for take-off and a line speed to check acceleration. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying you should routinely operate a T-Bird from a 4000 foot runway; just that it could be done. By an average pilot. Without flatting the tires or spinning in on the base turn.)
To me, the continual disparagement of performance charts is a tell.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
You never paid for your own hardware, and you never had to fix it
when you broke it, so sure, you could beat the hell out of it and who
gives a fuck?
The guys flying vintage hardware today have a considerably different
attitude than you do.
What would I know. I'm just a Pussyâ„¢
You're so smart. You must be rich. Why not buy up your own squadron
of vintage jets and show us all how they [i]really[/i] should be flown?
Let me know the first time you have to do your own comp wash because
the blades are dirty and corroded from sitting for so long. Or take off with
low RPM. Your stupid fucking charts go out the window when that happens,
Princess.
Only a complete fucking idiot bets his life that a 60 year old antique is going
to make book numbers.
You remind me so much of Bryan Jensen. He told me I didn't know what I
was talking about, too.
when you broke it, so sure, you could beat the hell out of it and who
gives a fuck?
The guys flying vintage hardware today have a considerably different
attitude than you do.
What would I know. I'm just a Pussyâ„¢
You're so smart. You must be rich. Why not buy up your own squadron
of vintage jets and show us all how they [i]really[/i] should be flown?
Let me know the first time you have to do your own comp wash because
the blades are dirty and corroded from sitting for so long. Or take off with
low RPM. Your stupid fucking charts go out the window when that happens,
Princess.
Only a complete fucking idiot bets his life that a 60 year old antique is going
to make book numbers.
You remind me so much of Bryan Jensen. He told me I didn't know what I
was talking about, too.
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 0 Replies
- 3638 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 4 Replies
- 2289 Views
-
Last post by Liquid_Charlie
-
- 4 Replies
- 2808 Views
-
Last post by JW Scud
