Tommay85
Well-Known Member
Hell yeah more power! Can't talk about power without Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear UK.
Cockpit View of Idaho Plane Crash
- Thread starter SteveCostello
- Start date
Hell yeah more power! Can't talk about power without Jeremy Clarkson from Top Gear UK.
TwoTwoLeft
o- - - - - - -l
Ive always preferred
but that's just me.....
Cessnaflyer
Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
There were a few turboprop retrofits that worked at giving small power. Unfortunately the fuel is heavier and it flowed quite a bit more.
z987k
Well-Known Member
Westwind be18 conversion. The R-985 just isn't powerfull enough.
scooter2525
Very well Member
I went camping there two weeks ago. Neat town.
T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
I'm certain your knowledge of physics is far superior to mineAnd to reply to something I said that you feel is inaccurate with such articulation clearly demonstrates that you do! Thanks for the post that set me straight!
Well you did say "I'm a pilot"
Physics don't care what direction your body is going. Up, down, right, left. G loading is G loading. You clearly dont understand energy managment if your telling me a car crash and falling 8 feet off a ladder are simply due to the vertical or horizontal direction of the body.
So a piano falling straight down at 100MPH a bigger chance at killing me then a piano being shot at me vertically at the same speed while I'm walking down the street? Please, tell me more.
PositionAndHold
Well-Known Member
Very possible. When running 100ll, (which is all I've ever ran in it) I lean on the ground and keep the rpm's around 11-1200 and I'm based at '245msl. I still get a plug fouling every couple dozen hours. Other then that, the Franklin 165 is a terrific engine. Purrs like a swiss watch at 2550-2600 rpm. Parts still aren't that bad to find. Like any thing, you gotta know where to look.
Oh, and "book numbers" don't really exist for that airplane. Not A modern book any way. I've had four adults/full fuel on a warm day and it still did pretty good. Not great, but better than a C-172 good. That was close sea level though. It's definitely a "two person, lots of camping gear, tons of fun" kind of machine. For those that haven't had the Stinson experience, it's highly recommended.
Cheyenne
Well-Known Member
The pilot thing was a risk, I know...
yes they do. no it isnt. I understand it better than you. yes.
yes, it's due to human anatomy more than the object or speed. It's perfectly A-Okay with me if you don't belive what you read on an internet forum. But I'm right, and if I explained it to you you wouldn't believe it anyhow.
inigo88
Composite-lover
Allright... now you've got me curious. Please elaborate.
(I've heard of this before but never heard the why.)
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I'm not sure if this is what Cheyenne is referring to, but it's well established that the survivability of an air crash is related to the horizontal vs vertical movement of airframe at the crash site. This is simple to understand if you think about dissipation of energy. Skidding an airplane across the ground and through smaller trees will spread out that dissipation of energy and cause less trauma to the human body. Imagine a stall/spin, even at that same impact speed and you can see the airframe is impacting nearly vertical which causes a nearly immediate deceleration force that's fully transferred to the body and rips apart organs.
Houston
Well-Known Member
I agree with what you're saying, but I think where he is getting his information is related to the human body's ability to withstand G-force from different directions. As an example, a human will live through more G-force from the rear than from the front.
I had an EMT once tell me that there is an artery on the heart that rips loose in high G impact frontal events and that is what is often the killer. He said that is what happened to Princess Diane. I did get involved in an incident related to an aircraft accident many years ago where the pilot spun into the ground. At the hospital, they gave him a phenomenal amount of blood while trying to save him, but he died. Looking back on that event, I think that was probably what happened in his case.
amjon
Pilot and A Half (for now
Oh my gosh! At the 1 minute point it looks like the plane starts to lift off and then comes back down again. You would think the pilot would abort at that point and wait for better conditions or shed some of the weight. There was no way he was climbing out of there. Plus he was still going on the ground LONG after the runway appeared to end.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
I'm still amazed all four people survived and with pretty minimal injury, especially considering that the airplane only had lap belts and no shoulder strap conversions. Shoulder straps increase survival rates significantly in crashes like this one, but these guys would've gotten folded right over during impact.
nocturnalaviator
Family Man
I know! that's exactly what I told her but she didn't believe me until the donkey punch came then I made her a believer!
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2
averettpilot
Well-Known Member
http://www.aopa.org/training/articl..._id=120817epilot&WT.mc_sect=tts&cmp=ePlt:RdMr
Pilot gives some explanation as to what happened if anyone is interested.
Pilot gives some explanation as to what happened if anyone is interested.
RICHARD5
Well-Known Member
sigh...
A veteren pilot should know better than to blame the "vintage POH". In my '45 Stinson I was able to construct an entire W&B graph even though the 3 page AFM gave only the most aft and fwd stations.
That statement in the AOPA article is indicative of more pilot error; as indicative as high DA ops at full rich mixture.
A veteren pilot should know better than to blame the "vintage POH". In my '45 Stinson I was able to construct an entire W&B graph even though the 3 page AFM gave only the most aft and fwd stations.
That statement in the AOPA article is indicative of more pilot error; as indicative as high DA ops at full rich mixture.
z987k
Well-Known Member
"My estimation of the DA was a bit off"
You know you can calculate that. You don't have to just guess.
Also this is not a veteran pilot to be honest. 1200 hours in 40 years? 300 fixed GA? That's hardly enough to be current at any time. 2 crashes in that amount of time? Both by pilot error. He really needs to start thinking more, flying isn't forgiving enough to make that many large mistakes that often.
You know you can calculate that. You don't have to just guess.
Also this is not a veteran pilot to be honest. 1200 hours in 40 years? 300 fixed GA? That's hardly enough to be current at any time. 2 crashes in that amount of time? Both by pilot error. He really needs to start thinking more, flying isn't forgiving enough to make that many large mistakes that often.
Similar threads
