• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Pretty good fly-by

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
lololol.

every thread and topic is now a platform for Alke to remind us that his neighborhood is killing him and destroying Ameriku.
Click to expand...

???

I would have no problem with my neighbors, not saying they wouldn't try but they'd be pretty unsuccessful. I am more worried about all the softies we need to survive.

Gratz though on finally stepping up to the plate.
 
alkemyst said:
As a coward, your reply is expected.

It's about saving more lives than your own.

I am sure in a crisis you will be one of the first to kill your neighbors for their shit.
Click to expand...

If the pilot had not ejected, the kill count would be +1. The disaster happened regardless of where the pilot was. The pilot could not have saved more lives by staying with the jet. Putting that aside, that pilot did what he was trained to do.
 
InverseOfNeo said:
If the pilot had not ejected, the kill count would be +1. The disaster happened regardless of where the pilot was. The pilot could not have saved more lives by staying with the jet. Putting that aside, that pilot did what he was trained to do.
Click to expand...

This is true. However, disaster is by fault of the pilots (yes there were two in that two seater Su-27). Regardless of the "merits" of ejecting, they allowed themselves to put the aircraft into a precarious maneuver that left the plane difficult to control. I think I remember also hearing that one of the engines stalled, forcing the aircraft into it's course port, into the crowd but it's not confirmed. Either way, dangerous maneuver, too close to the ground. Like this one involving a USAF Thunderbirds F-16 that did not have enough altitude for a Split S:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alo_XWCqNUQ
 
Last edited:
alkemyst said:
all but the last.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If you were my neighbor and had a cache of food\supplies and little or no ability to defend it, that's your mistake. Assuming I'm not friends with them, they'd be dead in the first week of civil disorder, after I sorted out the details of my own situation. Having their food to give to my dog would provide more utility than them eating it.
 
NUSNA_Moebius said:
This is true. However, disaster is by fault of the pilots (yes there were two in that two seater Su-27). Regardless of the "merits" of ejecting, they allowed themselves to put the aircraft into a precarious maneuver that left the plane difficult to control. I think I remember also hearing that one of the engines stalled, forcing the aircraft into it's course port, into the crowd but it's not confirmed. Either way, dangerous maneuver, too close to the ground. Like this one involving a USAF Thunderbirds F-16 that did not have enough altitude for a Split S:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl-18uYJeRs
Click to expand...

We aren't really talking about what caused them to be in the bad situation. When they decided to eject those choices had already been made and there was no undoing them. Them staying in the aircraft would not have undone those choices that led up to the crash.

Also, as far the accident being the fault of the pilots, that's true to an extent but not completely. At airshows the pilots are being instructed to perform things to show off the abilities of the aircraft, often involving high risk maneuvers at low altitudes and speeds which give very little ability to recover. If the pilot was told to fly the plane like they normally would you'd end up with a perfectly safe but incredibly boring airshow. High altitude, moderate speed passes without hard maneuvers don't exactly get the heart racing.
 
Bignate603 said:
We aren't really talking about what caused them to be in the bad situation. When they decided to eject those choices had already been made and there was no undoing them. Them staying in the aircraft would not have undone those choices that led up to the crash.

Also, as far the accident being the fault of the pilots, that's true to an extent but not completely. At airshows the pilots are being instructed to perform things to show off the abilities of the aircraft, often involving high risk maneuvers at low altitudes and speeds which give very little ability to recover. If the pilot was told to fly the plane like they normally would you'd end up with a perfectly safe but incredibly boring airshow. High altitude, moderate speed passes without hard maneuvers don't exactly get the heart racing.
Click to expand...

what? it's different doing it over people than over an open land/sea mass.
 
Bignate603 said:
We aren't really talking about what caused them to be in the bad situation. When they decided to eject those choices had already been made and there was no undoing them. Them staying in the aircraft would not have undone those choices that led up to the crash.

Also, as far the accident being the fault of the pilots, that's true to an extent but not completely. At airshows the pilots are being instructed to perform things to show off the abilities of the aircraft, often involving high risk maneuvers at low altitudes and speeds which give very little ability to recover. If the pilot was told to fly the plane like they normally would you'd end up with a perfectly safe but incredibly boring airshow. High altitude, moderate speed passes without hard maneuvers don't exactly get the heart racing.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling they were given instructions to do specific maneuvers, while adding in some of their own. I would think that Eastern airshows are not so formal about a plan of maneuvers for an announcer to say and what not. That earth bound barrel roll was just way too low. The pilot managed to level well before hitting the treeline but I assume there was still enough energy from the barrell roll maneuver to continue roll and yaw the plane a bit to port at such an 'angle of attack' and speed, which pulled the plane into the crowd. It's a tendency of that kind of design.

You can exciting airshows without putting the crowd in any danger.
 
Last edited:
NUSNA_Moebius said:
I have a feeling they were given instructions to do specific maneuvers, while adding in some of their own. I would think that Eastern airshows are not so formal about a plan of maneuvers for an announcer to say and what not. That earth bound barrel roll was just way too low. The pilot managed to level well before hitting the treeline but I assume there was still enough energy from the barrell roll maneuver to continue yaw the plane to port at such low speed, which pulled the plane into the crowd.

You can exciting airshows without putting the crowd in any danger.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, but that requires setting up where the crowd will be so they can see the planes without putting them in danger. The organizers of the airshow do layout where the crowd stands and where the planes do their routines. The pilot has no control over that.

That's why US airshows now are done so that the crowd is never underneath the plane during their routines. The ones I've seen have the crowd to one side of a runway, and the planes always stay off to the other side of the runway.
 
Arkaign said:
B-52 :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE3l3mEM9-4&feature=related

That's a lot of bang!
Click to expand...

Classic and prime example of unsubstantial lift vector during a slow speed banking turn. Oh, and the pilot, "Buddy" Holland was a maverick of sorts, with plenty of previous instances of risky piloting. Doesn't matter who good you may be, eventually you'll screw up, like he did, and kill three other people. He should've been grounded, but the chain of command did not do there job.

Same kind of situation is what made that C-17 in Alaska crash last year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiId0z5EKtk
 
Bignate603 said:
Sure you can, but that requires setting up where the crowd will be so they can see the planes without putting them in danger. The organizers of the airshow do layout where the crowd stands and where the planes do their routines. The pilot has no control over that.

That's why US airshows now are done so that the crowd is never underneath the plane during their routines. The ones I've seen have the crowd to one side of a runway, and the planes always stay off to the other side of the runway.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. Blue Angels flights involve over crowd flight (but not substantial maneuvering). What needs to be regulated are maneuvers specifically involving the risk of the plane pulling into the crowd if control is lost. Arguably, that means minimal radius turns too, but generally any I've seen on the internet involve them far enough from the crowd and low enough to the ground that if the plane is going to lose altitude close to the end, it's going to hit the deck well distanced from the crowd, plenty of room for the wreck to roll if need be as well. Minimal radius turns are always done on the opposite side of the runway where the crowd is not. A high speed turn above the crowds head should probably be little risk since the energy of the plane will continue to pull the craft clear of the crowd, unless you're talking a huge area for the crowd.
 
Last edited:
Bad flyby. If you have to try that hard your doing it wrong. That is exactly the wrong way to do it. Look up Reno Air Races flybys and you will see how its done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top