Well Crunch if he was upgraded to captain on the convair in 2013 that is news to me, because in that year I was visiting with a long time Conair pilot and he said they would never put him in the left seat.....oh and there were several of us in that face to face conversation.
So where did you get that info that he was PIC on the Convair fire bombing?
I find it funny...
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Strega wrote: I know,, its a crazy concept to people like Mr Crunch...
Personally I'd like to hear more Strega about the time you almost killed yourself. I've never come close to that.
And don't refer me to an old post. Tell the whole story, here, if you have the guts, and lets all have a good time holding your feet to the fire.
Forget BPF. I want to hear full details about your little story.
-
CpnCrunch
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:46 pm
Chuck Ellsworth wrote: Well Crunch if he was upgraded to captain on the convair in 2013 that is news to me, because in that year I was visiting with a long time Conair pilot and he said they would never put him in the left seat.....oh and there were several of us in that face to face conversation.
So where did you get that info that he was PIC on the Convair fire bombing?
google his name and the company. Click on second result (from www.fs.fed.us).
-
Chuck Ellsworth
The only info I can get from the US forest service pilot list shows him as a Convair type rated pilot but not included in approved for initial attack.
I may be reading it wrong though.
Lets put this behind us the easy way.
P.M. B.P.F. on Avcanada and ask him if he did air attack as the Captain on any multi engine airplane.
I was only going from what a Conair pilot told us....
...and of course knowing B.P.F. it never occurred to me to think the info was false.
And invite B.P.F over here as a contributing poster.
I may be reading it wrong though.
Lets put this behind us the easy way.
P.M. B.P.F. on Avcanada and ask him if he did air attack as the Captain on any multi engine airplane.
I was only going from what a Conair pilot told us....
...and of course knowing B.P.F. it never occurred to me to think the info was false.
And invite B.P.F over here as a contributing poster.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
Rookie Pilot, there are a few of us who almost killed ourself, in fact some of have come close more than once.
It is all about how much you fly and in what conditions.
My closest brush with death was so close I can not believe I survived.
Oh, and I did learn from it.
It is all about how much you fly and in what conditions.
My closest brush with death was so close I can not believe I survived.
Oh, and I did learn from it.
-
Rookie Pilot
- Posts: 404
- Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:44 am
Chuck Ellsworth wrote: Rookie Pilot, there are a few of us who almost killed ourself, in fact some of have come close more than once.
It is all about how much you fly and in what conditions.
My closest brush with death was so close I can not believe I survived.
Oh, and I did learn from it.
Chuck,
I respect this. However this was from my understanding inverted flight. Why not hear about it.
-
CpnCrunch
- Posts: 149
- Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2015 10:46 pm
HPC wrote:
I'm all for learning from others stories, but doing a reasonably quick search through Strega's posts I can't find anything about him being in an inverted emergency situation. Are you able to quote? I searched user Strega, here and there, using "inverted".
Search for the phrase "inverted steep turn". Not much info though.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
Today's discussion topic:
Reverse 1/2 cuban-eight from the surface.
This maneuver is considered so dangerous by some
(eg contest) aerobatic pilots, that they think it should
never be attempted (see IAC mailing list archives).
I do it all the time. If you understand a little physics
it's no big deal. If you don't understand a little physics
you are going to die, like the Shoreham Hunter pilot
and the unfortunate people on the ground underneath
him.
Here's how you fly a safe reverse 1/2 cuban-8 from
the surface:
You apply the entry (bottom) and top gates. The
entry gate tells you if the maneuver is possible. The
top gate tells you if you are going to die or not.
I like to see 180 mph at the surface and full power
(entry gate). Pull briskly to 45 up, look left for pitch
angle, glance at both wingtips to ensure no bank.
Can't see shit forward. Count two thousand, then:
1/2 roll inverted, look up to level the wings, look
left for the 45 upline. Count four thousand.
Now, time for the top gate, which is defined as at
least 1000 AGL and less than 80 mph. The former
is more critical than the latter. The latter determines
how much G you are going to pull in the remaining
5/8 inside loop to the surface.
Through 1000 AGL (altimeter catches up), ASI down
to 80 mph, then we gently let the nose drop - we
do NOT haul back on the stick - and now we are
going to do a low-altitude split-S.
Because we have 1000 AGL, we are going to live.
Full power, despite what TC tells you, for minimum
altitude loss.
Gently back on the stick to the vertical downline,
then as the speed builds, at least +4 (or +5 or +6)
G to level at the surface.
Ask any TC Inspector to demonstrate it for you.
I have safely done thousands of them, over the
decades, both solo and formation, mostly at the
surface. I get scared of heights when I have to
do acro up high, which is actually a mostly IFR
exercise because there is no ground reference
like at the surface. Might be a horizon, maybe
not. After a while you won't care, though the
newbies make a HUGE deal about hazy days.
What puzzles me is the complete lack of
interest 99.999% of pilots have in applied
newtonian physics, which they are the practioners
of. This lack of knowledge curiously does not
diminish the strengths of their opinions on
the subject. A meta-lesson there.
I struggle to find a pilot that can write the
lift equation on the board, or sketch the Cl
and Cd curve for his airfoil.
Gratuitous off-topic moment: picked some
fruit off the trees in the back yard today.
Here is a picture of the lemon:
Elderly iPad and mandarin orange for scale.
The lemon looks like something from a Woody
Allen movie.
Reverse 1/2 cuban-eight from the surface.
This maneuver is considered so dangerous by some
(eg contest) aerobatic pilots, that they think it should
never be attempted (see IAC mailing list archives).
I do it all the time. If you understand a little physics
it's no big deal. If you don't understand a little physics
you are going to die, like the Shoreham Hunter pilot
and the unfortunate people on the ground underneath
him.
Here's how you fly a safe reverse 1/2 cuban-8 from
the surface:
You apply the entry (bottom) and top gates. The
entry gate tells you if the maneuver is possible. The
top gate tells you if you are going to die or not.
I like to see 180 mph at the surface and full power
(entry gate). Pull briskly to 45 up, look left for pitch
angle, glance at both wingtips to ensure no bank.
Can't see shit forward. Count two thousand, then:
1/2 roll inverted, look up to level the wings, look
left for the 45 upline. Count four thousand.
Now, time for the top gate, which is defined as at
least 1000 AGL and less than 80 mph. The former
is more critical than the latter. The latter determines
how much G you are going to pull in the remaining
5/8 inside loop to the surface.
Through 1000 AGL (altimeter catches up), ASI down
to 80 mph, then we gently let the nose drop - we
do NOT haul back on the stick - and now we are
going to do a low-altitude split-S.
Because we have 1000 AGL, we are going to live.
Full power, despite what TC tells you, for minimum
altitude loss.
Gently back on the stick to the vertical downline,
then as the speed builds, at least +4 (or +5 or +6)
G to level at the surface.
Ask any TC Inspector to demonstrate it for you.
I have safely done thousands of them, over the
decades, both solo and formation, mostly at the
surface. I get scared of heights when I have to
do acro up high, which is actually a mostly IFR
exercise because there is no ground reference
like at the surface. Might be a horizon, maybe
not. After a while you won't care, though the
newbies make a HUGE deal about hazy days.
What puzzles me is the complete lack of
interest 99.999% of pilots have in applied
newtonian physics, which they are the practioners
of. This lack of knowledge curiously does not
diminish the strengths of their opinions on
the subject. A meta-lesson there.
I struggle to find a pilot that can write the
lift equation on the board, or sketch the Cl
and Cd curve for his airfoil.
Gratuitous off-topic moment: picked some
fruit off the trees in the back yard today.
Here is a picture of the lemon:
Elderly iPad and mandarin orange for scale.
The lemon looks like something from a Woody
Allen movie.
-
mmm...bacon
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 2:19 am
Isnt the shoreham guy still alive? he was 2 months ago http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviatio ... -Hill.html
He might wish he was dead?
He might wish he was dead?
