In the other questions about parachutes on this site, it has been stated that the aircraft would have to be flying straight and level to facilitate a jump. However, there were quite a few pilots during WWII whose planes were not flying straight and level and who still managed to escape.
Is there a difference between then and now that I am not catching?
One of the reasons why many WW2 pilots did not make it out were the G-forces and acceleration in directions other than the door when they had to get out. The bailing out survival rate appears to be correlated to the ease of exit.
If you're going to have a smooth and safe departure, you're happiest doing it during level flight when there's no interference from plane motion.
In the other questions about parachutes on this site, it has been stated that the aircraft would have to be flying straight and level to facilitate a jump. However, there were quite a few pilots during WWII whose planes were not flying straight and level and who still managed to escape. Is there a difference between then and now that I am not catching?
I have not even an idea about how I would search for that on Google, that is why I'm trying my chance here. As electrical engineer I have no clue about fluid mechanics. We all now that when water is pumped very fast into firefighters tube, it gets very rigid and tends to be straight. What is this effect called, I'm interested in doing some research about the forces applied by such a tube from its initial folded position to the final position. Thanks
and then maintain straight and level for a good 3 to 5 minutes once you got past 12,000 (so people have oxygen to breathe when they jump). And if you can descend and maintain level flight, you might as well land. But what about in a light, single engine plane (think Cessna 172 or Piper Cherokee)? Engine failures in small aircraft, for example, seem to be more common, so you have more...There was another question that asked why commercial flights don't have parachutes. The almost ubiquitous response was that the parachutes would be useless because: Most accidents with commercial
Non-precision instrument approaches generally have altitude restrictions which get lower when you get closer to the airport. I always figured these restrictions were AMSL using the current altimeter setting, not compensating for temperature. Some have heard the mnemonic that mountains are higher come wintertime, which basically means that colder weather make your altimeter read higher than you actually are (or, as most pilots prefer to think, you're lower than what your altimeter reads) Have a look at this VOR approach into Newark Most altitude restrictions are a minimum level, so
I've never seen a 727's aft stairs open, but presumably, based on an Wikipedia image and common sense, they do reach the ground when the aircraft is on the ground. Furthermore, (as I understand it), airliners land with a positive pitch, which means that assuming a level runway, the rear of the aircraft will touch down first. However, this suggests that if the aft stairs of the 727 were open during landing, they would impact the ground during landing and, given the pitch, do more than scrape the ground and cause damage to the aircraft. However, DB Cooper's jump left the aft stairs open
that the aircraft went that way. In reality, this would be more complicated. For example, the plane most probably did not go along a straight path at max speed. However, useful inferences can be made by adding other information available. For example, from the ping circles separated by one hour, we can get plausible directions the plane may have taken. Why isn't anyone pursuing this line of analysis... will have a series of circles from max distance and one circle from the ping. These intersections will give a series of possible arcs. This process can be repeated (with increasing complexity
I understand the rationale for putting seat backs straight, folding tables, fastening seatbelts etc., but I've never really understood why the window blinds matter.
In As the Pro Flies, John R. Hoyt writes (pages 41-42): Suppose we have to land in high, gusty winds. That's what happened to Pilot Z, who once landed his plane during such conditions with his flaps down. After the wheels were on the runway he relaxed, never realizing that a plane is not landed until the switches are cut. Because he still had airspeed and because full flaps lowered the take-off speed, a small gust of wind was all that he needed to begin flying again. The additional lift was enough to raise him 10 feet from the runway, and at that point he ran out of gust
Can someone explain why the aircraft would fly in an arc using the satellite as a reference point? Have I missed something?
I was flying on Porter Airlines and they had an info card about how similar the Bombardier (I still say DeHavallind) Dash 8 Q400s are to the Bombardier CSeries they have ordered are. There was a cool overlay photo to show relative sizes and shapes: Looking at that image, it got me wondering about the straight vs angled wing. Straight vs angled tails, etc. I get that a jet is faster than a turbo prop. Cseries cruise speeds are: Mach 0.78 (828 km/h, 447 kn, 514 mph) Dash8 Q400 cruise speeds are: 414 mph (667 km/h) 360 knots Those are pretty close and yet that is a pretty radical