Page 2 of 2

Re: “Now THAT’S an airplane!”

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:45 am
by Slick Goodlin
Spoiler alert: the MU-2 is just an airplane.  So long as you don’t have a bad case of cranial-rectal inversion you’d probably be bored flying it.  Folks you meet who don’t know any better will assume the Mitsubishi pilot to be either a superhero, adrenaline junkie, or insane but if it was that hard to fly it never would have been certified... thrice.

Re: “Now THAT’S an airplane!”

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:49 am
by Colonel
[quote]_____ is just an airplane[/quote]

Exactly.  The POH for the S-B in the "Landing" section
says, "The Pitts ground handling qualities are [i]typical of
the tailwheel type[/i], and [b]entirely normal[/b] in this respect"

Simply put, the Pitts does what you tell it to do.  So does
the F-104, for that matter.

I understand this is a problem for some pilots.  Others
rather enjoy this characteristic.

PS  For those unfamiliar, the MU-2 was designed by a group
of engineers that had never seen an airplane before (we think)
and the result is ugly, fast, unbelievably loud, dangerous and
weirder than batshit.  Try refueling one, sometime.

In other words, wonderful.  It had such a bad safety records
from donkey pilots mishandling it that the FAA reviewed it,
and created an SFAR for pilot training.

In other words, it wasn't the airplane that was the problem, it
was the pilots.

The Piper Malibu went through a similar review after a spate of
accidents, after which the FAA concluded that doctors should
turn on the pitot heat in cloud (more or less).

Same with the Robbie.  Frank told the FAA that young instructors
don't know shit, and send them to him for training.  And, they did.

Re: “Now THAT’S an airplane!”

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 6:00 am
by Colonel
If Hunter Thompson had a turbo-prop, it sure as hell wouldn't
be a fucking King Air, or even a Cheyenne.

No, if Hunter Thompson had a turbo-prop, it would be an MU-2
painted bright red.

[img width=500 height=400]https://www.cycleworld.com/sites/cyclew ... k=NflDy8aS[/img]

Re: “Now THAT’S an airplane!”

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:52 pm
by Liquid Charlie
Ironically I bumped into a clip, by pure accident last night. While in the video it is obvious that there was a wing separation the announcer claimed a fuel cap came off, hit the pilot and [b][color=rgb(106, 106, 106)][font=arial][size=small]Incapacitated the pilot while he was on final approach to land. It seemed like actual footage and news report so was that an excuse and cover up in the day?[/size][/font][/color][/b]

Re: “Now THAT’S an airplane!”

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2018 11:45 pm
by Colonel
Nobody knew much about flutter, before WWII.

Even today, 99% of pilots don't have a clue about it.

Killed the guy in the hangar next to me.  We tried to
give him a nice funeral.

[img][/img]

Now, cheer up.  Here's Eric's dog Dennis at the airport yesterday:

[img width=399 height=500][/img]

Rub my tummy Rub my tummy Rub my tummy