|
|
Post by tom1b on Aug 5, 2015 17:16:08 GMT
F-102 Delta Dagger in VietnamIf I wanted to judge the most difficult to fly & land, the first place I'd look is accident rates. The Air Force total accident rate is around 4.0 incidents per 100,000 hours of flight time. The F-102 Delta Dagger is/was generally considered the most dangerous to fly because the accident rate is 13.69. The U-2 Dragon Lady is under 5.0. The Army's AH-64 Apache helicopter clocks in at 16.35. The Marines' AV-8B Harrier 11.44. The Air Force's CV-22 Osprey is 13.47. Funny thing on the Osprey: The Marines version, MV-22, has an official rating of 1.47, but that is not widely accepted as accurate because they made "bookkeeping" changes and applied them retroactively.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 6, 2015 5:48:57 GMT
So was the Short Stirling.... took me until I joined up to realise it wasnt just a "Not very long" plane and that Short was an actual plane maker.?.. I know, we all get confused. (ask Loki) just like when you're talking about cars, "smart" is a brand name, not an adjective. Its still pronounced Not-so-smart. Their latest advert seams to centre around surprised drivers looking over their shoulder and seeing a back seat. And being surprised.... Erm.... If you dont know you have a back seat, should you actually be driving?... |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 6, 2015 5:55:22 GMT
F-102 Delta Dagger in VietnamIf I wanted to judge the most difficult to fly & land, the first place I'd look is accident rates. The Air Force total accident rate is around 4.0 incidents per 100,000 hours of flight time. The F-102 Delta Dagger is/was generally considered the most dangerous to fly because the accident rate is 13.69. The U-2 Dragon Lady is under 5.0. The Army's AH-64 Apache helicopter clocks in at 16.35. The Marines' AV-8B Harrier 11.44. The Air Force's CV-22 Osprey is 13.47. Funny thing on the Osprey: The Marines version, MV-22, has an official rating of 1.47, but that is not widely accepted as accurate because they made "bookkeeping" changes and applied them retroactively. Back to my Granddad who did some test=pilot=engineering(We dont know exactly what) in his RAF time, he worked on the first Anhedral wings... we know that because of what they flew at the time. Thats the wings that are angled downwards instead up slight upwards tilt. These were the days before Fly-By-Wire, and the things were inherently unstable to say the least. Yeah, sure, for manoeuvring they are very quick, but straight and level is almost impossible. Tom makes an important analogy there, which craft crashed more, surely they were/are the hardest to fly?... But then again, if its in combat, you cant exactly go by that. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 6, 2015 12:30:42 GMT
You also have to factor in the number of aircraft in service, the degree of training/experience the pilots would have, the technical skill and ease of maintaining the aircraft on the ground, the conditions they operate under and the nature of the missions the aircraft normally undergoes.
In this light it is hardly surprising that the AH-64 has such a high accident rate, its mission profile is for low level flying which gives you a far greater higher chance of hitting birds, power lines or even trees. The same (or similar) would hold for the AV-8B and CV-22 as a lot of their missions would involve low level flying.
The U2 in comparison operates at ultra-high level* where you are unlikely to hit anything, and has a MUCH higher quality/skilled pilot in the cockpit. Consider that the U2 has been around for 60 years and only 900 pilots have been qualified to fly it...which sounds like a lot until you realize that works out as 15 pilots per year.
(*Adam's 'Untitled' podcast on Tested noted that the exact altitude he got up to is actually classified. Which reinforces something I said earlier about the stated 70,000 foot ceiling of the aircraft not being the actual service ceiling of the aircraft.)
When you look at other aircraft that have high accident rates you can actually see that in most cases it is less that the aircraft was difficult to fly. And more that it was difficult to fly (or land) in the conditions it was being used in or for the quality of the pilots flying it. For example the Me-109 was often being flown by poorly trained pilots from around 1942/3 onwards and it was going to be tricky to take off due to the later versions (G onwards) being overpowered.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 6, 2015 16:29:29 GMT
You also have to factor in the number of aircraft in service, the degree of training/experience the pilots would have, the technical skill and ease of maintaining the aircraft on the ground, the conditions they operate under and the nature of the missions the aircraft normally undergoes. In this light it is hardly surprising that the AH-64 has such a high accident rate, its mission profile is for low level flying which gives you a far greater higher chance of hitting birds, power lines or even trees. The same (or similar) would hold for the AV-8B and CV-22 as a lot of their missions would involve low level flying. The U2 in comparison operates at ultra-high level* where you are unlikely to hit anything, and has a MUCH higher quality/skilled pilot in the cockpit. Consider that the U2 has been around for 60 years and only 900 pilots have been qualified to fly it...which sounds like a lot until you realize that works out as 15 pilots per year. (*Adam's 'Untitled' podcast on Tested noted that the exact altitude he got up to is actually classified. Which reinforces something I said earlier about the stated 70,000 foot ceiling of the aircraft not being the actual service ceiling of the aircraft.) When you look at other aircraft that have high accident rates you can actually see that in most cases it is less that the aircraft was difficult to fly. And more that it was difficult to fly (or land) in the conditions it was being used in or for the quality of the pilots flying it. For example the Me-109 was often being flown by poorly trained pilots from around 1942/3 onwards and it was going to be tricky to take off due to the later versions (G onwards) being overpowered. which is where my point about cars being involved in more crashed per 100,000 hours than the space shuttle comes in - for that matter, how many incidents per 100,000 hours do ultralights have? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 7, 2015 5:41:08 GMT
I have to open a new myth due to something Adam said, Oxygen, does it alter the sound of your voice.
I am asking this here, because its a continuation of that show.
So, does breathing pure oxygen "lower" your voice.
Or.
Is it because of the ultra-high atmospheric pressure thing of the Video being recorded in near-space?...
So, do low sound waves propagate better than high pitch sound waves at that height.
Or is it just down to the oxygen.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 7, 2015 6:15:32 GMT
Back to Flight and safety....
I need some kinds of records to do statistics hare and dont know where to look.
It certainly isnt made public.
New pilots against experienced...
How many accidents happen in training?..
How many "near" accidents happen with an instructor in the cockpit who has to take control to prevent an accident whilst training.
Common sense says the stats are absolutely correct that Young Drivers are the highest accident risk on the road, because of their lack of experience...
But does that copy across to the air forces around the world, where regardless of the aircraft type, the new pilots, the younger batch, have more incidents than older experienced pilots.
When a new type of aircraft gets into service, and I would love to see the stats here on the new Euro-JSF fighter plane just introduced, are there more incidents than at a later stage of that aircraft, as the old hands put it through its paces.
From what I know....
In pilot training, unlike car driving, the test is not a "basic" pass of being sort of competent "Enough"
You have to prove you can control the aircraft in may situations, and the instructors have to be sure you can handle yourself in a very hot situation before they will allow you your "wings", or whatever you get wherever you are.
I had only one experience of an eject whilst I was in service anywhere near the bases I was on, and that was a trainer, the engine had a terminal failure through Bird strike, there was nowhere to land. (Aim it at the sea and eject)
You get used to what you fly....
But.
I am experienced in all ways in almost anything with wheels on it, in the UK.
So....
It should be easy to just hop over the pond and pick up over there?.
Only a fool would believe that,For a start, your U$A wheel jockeys have a 'few feet' of hardware in FRONT of the cab I have to get used to not being able to see through?...
Then there is the wrong side of the road.
I would think a weeks worth of experience to get used to the different hardware would be a wise training period before I was let out in rush hour traffic, eh?
And I believe your suzies have a different way of connecting....
So here is a suggestion....
Take a RAF and a USAF pilot who you have checked through first to make sure they aint [*1]cheating, and send him to a USAF and RAF base, as a Student Exchange, and film them getting used to new aircraft.
They should be experienced in as many of their own countries aircraft as possible.
Or reach out and see if you can get someone from another part of the world to do this exchange.
I know we cant exactly ask Russia at this time.....
Then ask them how it differs from the aircraft they are used to.
You need to ask a pilot who has flown almost everything, asking the ones who have only been trained up to the one they fly now is sort of a very closed experience?...
*1 Aint cheating?...
My Uncle was USAF, whilst I was in the RAF, he was working on the F111, your swing-wing alternative to ours. The Tornado. Yes ours was so brilliant we still use it...
Although much updated... its not the same aircraft any more
We had thought of the TSR-2, scrapped, we considered an f-111-k. (Hence the USAF in UK)
That got too expensive, so the Tornado was born.
I think I may have as much knowledge of that as your own ground crew, as they were stationed at a base near Oxford (UK) at that time...(Thats how he met my Aunt, she was civilian police working in the area.)
We did meet "officially" at work a couple of times as USAF and RAF do work together.
I sort of know that the USAF and RAF swap pilots regularly, you haver to get one who hasnt done that yet to make it "fair"?...
The USAF used to send its top pilots here to UK for a season to be trained by our Red Sparrows.
Who are still the best display team in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 7, 2015 14:33:11 GMT
I have to open a new myth due to something Adam said, Oxygen, does it alter the sound of your voice. I am asking this here, because its a continuation of that show. So, does breathing pure oxygen "lower" your voice. Or. Is it because of the ultra-high atmospheric pressure thing of the Video being recorded in near-space?... So, do low sound waves propagate better than high pitch sound waves at that height. Or is it just down to the oxygen. if I recall my hazmat training... and I have to because my phone is in the other room and I don't feel like going to get it... Oxygen is just slightly higher density than atmospheric air. - but there may be physiological effects of the altitude as well, or even technical shifts in the recording equipment. I recall something about deep divers having helium voice during their high pressure rest breaks. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 7, 2015 14:41:03 GMT
sometimes a conventional has better visibility than a cabover. it depends on design, but consider that in a conventional, as in a car, your feet stick out in front of where the windshield goes. and how many times do I have to tell you, in the US, we drive on the right side.  |
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Aug 8, 2015 5:26:33 GMT
Still totally jealous of Adam getting to fly with the Blue Angels and now in the U2. There is also a part of me that was absolutely terrified just thinking of flying that high.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 8, 2015 7:20:49 GMT
Still totally jealous of Adam getting to fly with the Blue Angels and now in the U2. There is also a part of me that was absolutely terrified just thinking of flying that high. You get past the worried part. I have done some high altitude Radar work in the past. At some point you start with the "Will I ever get home", but then you start with the isnt it absolutely gorgeous?... If it wasnt so noisy and uncomfortable, I could stay up all day. The view out the window on a clear day is mesmerising. I had to sit away from any window to get any work done.... First day, At the end of the day I had to be ordered off duty, I wanted to go back up again. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 8, 2015 7:21:54 GMT
sometimes a conventional has better visibility than a cabover. it depends on design, but consider that in a conventional, as in a car, your feet stick out in front of where the windshield goes. and how many times do I have to tell you, in the US, we drive on the right side. Your wrong. Its the wrong side. End of argument?... (I hope not, its fun winding up those who drive on the wrong right side.) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 8, 2015 7:37:49 GMT
sometimes a conventional has better visibility than a cabover. it depends on design, but consider that in a conventional, as in a car, your feet stick out in front of where the windshield goes. and how many times do I have to tell you, in the US, we drive on the right side. Your wrong. Its the wrong side. End of argument?... (I hope not, its fun winding up those who drive on the wrong right side.) the wrong side would be the side that is not right. we drive on the right side. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 8, 2015 11:56:52 GMT
Which is, as keep telling you, the wrong side.   |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 8, 2015 13:52:54 GMT
If it was wrong, it wouldn't be right, now, would it?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Aug 9, 2015 8:19:54 GMT
Two Wrights make aircraft fly, but I bet they didnt get it right on the first attempt.
Do you call the other side of the road the wrong side when your travelling back where you wented from?
No, so then its the right side, but if its not the right to travel on, then its the wrong side, but only if you are not going back, but then if you are on the right side, its the right side to them people coming back, so that makes it both right, and if your both right, who is wrong?.
So over here we start by being on the left side, both sides are left, I left there a while back, so now, when I go back, I will be on the right road home.
I hope this makes sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2015 13:49:34 GMT
Two Wrights make aircraft fly, but I bet they didnt get it right on the first attempt. Do you call the other side of the road the wrong side when your travelling back where you wented from? No, so then its the right side, but if its not the right to travel on, then its the wrong side, but only if you are not going back, but then if you are on the right side, its the right side to them people coming back, so that makes it both right, and if your both right, who is wrong?. So over here we start by being on the left side, both sides are left, I left there a while back, so now, when I go back, I will be on the right road home. I hope this makes sense. no, if they are coming back, the side they are on is the right side for them. if two cars meet and they are both on the right side, there will be no crash. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 9, 2015 13:53:45 GMT
Let's put this argument to rest once and for all.
No matter where in the world you are, the right side for you to drive on is the opposite side of oncoming traffic.
Done.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2015 14:23:20 GMT
Let's put this argument to rest once and for all. No matter where in the world you are, the right side for you to drive on is the opposite side of oncoming traffic. Done. not in Vietnam. there, they just drive where the opening is. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 9, 2015 18:02:50 GMT
Let's put this argument to rest once and for all. No matter where in the world you are, the right side for you to drive on is the opposite side of oncoming traffic. Done. not in Vietnam. there, they just drive where the opening is. Oncoming traffic might be in one side of the road at one moment and the other side the next, but if you don't avoid it, you crash. So the rule still holds. They drive where there's no oncoming traffic. |
|
