Aircraft bucket list

It's anything over 12,500, anything with a turbojet, or anything else l'administrateur decides needs one.... I'm just wondering if the Lunar Lander would fit into the third category or not :P
if it's over 12,500 on Earth, it would only be about 2100 on the Moon...and that's the only place it mattered. :)
 
if it's over 12,500 on Earth, it would only be about 2100 on the Moon...and that's the only place it mattered. :)

Good point, but this brings up a few other questions. I dont think the lunar lander had very good windows, so do you need to be IFR current? What's the airspace classification for the moon's surface below 1200'AML (that's above moon level for the novices)? They had a passenger, so were they current on landings? When logging lunar landings, do they need to be to a full stop, or can you log a bounce and go?
 
yes...class "e" uncontrolled spacespace...passenger was an authorized crewmember...need to be full stop, because you lose the gear after the first one. (lack of atmosphere)
Good point, but this brings up a few other questions. I dont think the lunar lander had very good windows, so do you need to be IFR current? What's the airspace classification for the moon's surface below 1200'AML (that's above moon level for the novices)? They had a passenger, so were they current on landings? When logging lunar landings, do they need to be to a full stop, or can you log a bounce and go?
 
yes...class "e" uncontrolled spacespace...passenger was an authorized crewmember...need to be full stop, because you lose the gear after the first one. (lack of atmosphere)

Does the FAA really have jurisdiction over the moon? I would argue that they don't, and if not, then why would you care about a type rating or currency?
 
Does the FAA really have jurisdiction over the moon? I would argue that they don't, and if not, then why would you care about a type rating or currency?

Man, you just sound like one of those anti-authority rebellious types...
 
I have an unusual obsession with the Yak-3, which to me is a underrated airplane.

Not by the guys that flew it! It doesn't really bear comparison to the much bigger and more complex US, German, and British machines...if it'd been able to get up to the altitudes they did most of their late-war fighting (on the West Front, anyway), it would have been mincemeat. But down low, man, pure genius. Lots of power, light weight, good aerodynamics, simple construction = Game Changer. And where's the visceral rush of flying around at 30,000ft? IMS, most of the Warbirds have their turbo/superchargers removed anyway.
 
Well my justification is the B-2 is at least on the same continent, and not under the control of Mother Russian where airplanes fly you!
 
the BAE146 should be a pretty badass tanker...it sounds like it may be the best option for the future...there are lots of them not being used, plenty of support still in the pipeline...they can remain pressurized and fly though all weather and get there pretty quickly with a slow ref speed and good short field capabilities....
 
Too greedy with the first one? then, Super Tucano, Cobra, L-39, Power glider
imagesCAUK2HVP.jpgtucano.jpgcobra.jpgL-39.jpgglider.jpg
 
Back
Top