Posted on 06/13/2005 8:45:15 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
Can't argue your point -- makes sense to me. I assume they filed a flight plan. Wouldn't going to that altitude disregard the flight plan? Or, wouldn't going to that altitude require authorization from flight controllers? Just wondering.
You'd think that from 41,000 feet they could glide it to anywhere.
"We had a report of a guy who was Instrument Rated and Current in a Cirrus who was on a VFR flight plan and got lost in the clouds and he PULLED THE HANDLE!!!"
ROTFL
Hmmm Lets see maybe if I step out of the cockpit for a moment and check this map...
That is what I think. If that was how high it was supposed to fly, then why did the engines stop. Something is wrong here.
My dad flew glider planes. He always felt they were safer (less mechanics to go wrong)...and they have a great glide ratio
ping
Not a completely dead stick though - if they lose the engine, the EPU will fire, giving them 7-10 minutes of electric power - that's the only connection the pilot has to the flight controls. Lose that, and you lose the aircraft.
I call it the "I GIVE UP!" handle.
PS... I've had two engine failures and two mechanicals and lived to talk about it. I've never stopped flying the airplane.
If an airplane is still in one piece, don't cheat on it. Ride the bastard down.
— Ernest K.Gann,
Time to change the owner's manual.
Pukin Dog is/was the pilot - I was the wrench twister. Worked on Eagles and Falcons primarily, Warthogs once in a while. Also worked crash recovery, and assisted with investigation a couple times.
Mmm, Icarus...used to be nice restaurant in Boston. Oh yea, and the myth thing.
Wasn't that EPU fueled with hydrazine ? I remember that was a hazard for my EOD teams trying to render safe, the gun , ordnance and seat the F16 after an accident.......There wass even some code word for such an incident when the EPU's fired. Do ya remember it ? I don't.
Good points !.......Stay safe !
Not to mention that there's probably a safety margin built into the published max altitude. 41,000 shouldn't have been a problem; max specs were probably higher.
Per http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/crj200/specs.html
12,496 meters or ~FL410 is indeed the "maximum".
I just wonder if 41,000 is the maximum because of how the aircraft is pressurized, the state-of-the-art of the rubber jungle in the cockpit (for flights aboveFL 410) OR if that really is the flame-out altitude. There is a "B" version of the CRJ2 - configured for hot or high altitude operations, but I presume they mean take off/ runway conditions related to air density.
Who knows.
Bottom line, they had the runway in sight at Jefferson and ran out of glide path. Sad.
J-3s are nice, the Citrabira/Champ are too easy imo.
I like the BC-12s, high wingloading only simplifies things. Low wingloading (with a tailwheel and a crosswind) teaches decision making skills.
Is that the aeronautical equivalent to "popping the clutch"?
"I was the wrench twister. Worked on Eagles and Falcons primarily, Warthogs once in a while"
Those A-10's are something else. Somewhere I have some pics that a friend in Iraq sent back that he got from a A&P of one Warthog that made it back shot up all to heck. They finally stopped count something around 70 various holes in the thing from flak. Kept right on flying.
You mean the engine never went out on him?
Ahhh... the T-Craft.
Not many left out there - but you are right.
I think low powered, tailwheels are the way to start.
PS.... I started in a Citabria. I practice what I preach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.