Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1962833)
Yeager is a jerk.
Armstrong was supposedly a nice guy and humble, but wanted to live a quiet life, not signing autographs all the time. Not saying the public "owns" him, but he should expect notoriety and be pleasant about it. Many people I know say he was just a cold a-hole if you weren't viewed as important to him or just wanted to shake his hand or get a signature. Big contrast to Buzz and Collins.
Originally Posted by SayAlt
(Post 1962841)
OK I'll try not to, Doc. I just hope you realize how much your super-baaaad Chuck Norris-like 182 skills are so terribly intimidating to naval aviators, much less any other professional pilots.
Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer
(Post 1963019)
When Glamorous Glennis died, he remarried.
It appears Yeager is the only person who likes her. His own kids filed a lawsuit against him, because she was blocking the estate (for herself, of course). Different Long story short: 30 years ago, my squadron invited Yeager to be a guest speaker at a dinner. He wanted $2000 plus transportation. By chance, we ran into Yeager's old squadron mate Bud Anderson. Anderson did it for the price of a steak dinner at the O-club. :cool: I had just finished reading "The Right Stuff." Yeager went from Hero to Zero. |
Returning to AOA information. More from Dick Collins from Flying/AOPA a few days ago in "Air Facts":
It truly bothers me to see angle of attack instrumentation presented as some new device that will save your butt. It is old and like other devices it gives information about something that can be easily managed without the device. I hasten to add that the importance of angle of attack management is not stressed nearly enough in training and testing. You can’t buy safety, you have to learn it. It has to become a state of mind. One more thought on angle of attack: It has been suggested that having the instrumentation enables safe flight closer to the edges of the envelope. To me, anything that pushes pilots closer to the edges of the envelope doesn’t decrease risk, it increases risk.
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1767602)
I'm not negative about AOA at all, and I understand it well. I'm just not a fanatic about proselytizing its use for all GA aircraft. It is bordering on crazytown.
I still don't see exactly how you will think it is used on a routine GA flight, or how you estimate the advantages outweigh the costs of install that others have pointed out. The last thing a pilot needs is another gauge that sits there in the green arc, as rickair and I pointed out, I already know I'm within the envelope. We are not fighter pilots on verge of accelerated stalls, nor airliners near the coffin corner.
Originally Posted by cardiomd
(Post 1763420)
I agree, if somebody is going to stall/spin then they probably should not be flying. It would just be one more gauge to ignore while yanking back on the yoke.
|
|
I don't think having an AOA gauge would allow you to "push the envelope." It merely shows you what the wing is doing. I don't think having a guage that will accurately indicate L/D max, minimum controllable airspeed, and an exact approach speed at any weight, configuration, or G-load is risky.
|
Never used an AoA indicator. Would like to have one installed just to watch & see what it does. Pitch Limit Indicators, sure appreciate having those.
|
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 1979010)
Never used an AoA indicator. Would like to have one installed just to watch & see what it does. Pitch Limit Indicators, sure appreciate having those.
Pitch is not the same as AoA (except on TO roll). |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1979444)
Pitch is not the same as AoA (except on TO roll).
Either one of those assumes the wing has an angle of incidence of zero in relation to the longitudinal axis (pitch reference) of the aircraft. If the wing was mounted on the fuselage with a positive 2 degree angle of incidence, when it rotated to 5 degrees of pitch on takeoff roll, AOA would be 7. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 1979444)
Pitch is not the same as AoA (except on TO roll).
|
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
(Post 1979529)
Lots of assumptions in play there. However, if you're going to say that, then wouldn't you have to include level flight as well?
Either one of those assumes the wing has an angle of incidence of zero in relation to the longitudinal axis (pitch reference) of the aircraft. If the wing was mounted on the fuselage with a positive 2 degree angle of incidence, when it rotated to 5 degrees of pitch on takeoff roll, AOA would be 7. The TO roll is the only time you know for certain that pitch = AoA (or AoA - AoI if applicable). In flight you can make some reasonable assumptions in certain phases, but those AF447 guys obviously had a huge delta between what they thought pitch was telling them about AoA, and what AoA was really doing. |
Originally Posted by METO Guido
(Post 1979586)
You well know contact with the PLI activates the shaker.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:30 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands