HerkDerka Posted September 18, 2005 Posted September 18, 2005 Originally posted by Toro: When you stop responding to it and bringing it to the top of the threads.Good point.....oops. HD
Flare Posted September 18, 2005 Posted September 18, 2005 Originally posted by HerkDriver24: When will this thread die?Speed envy?
M2 Posted September 18, 2005 Posted September 18, 2005 OK, THIS should put an end to this discussion once and for all! Cheers! M2
Guest KoolKat Posted September 19, 2005 Posted September 19, 2005 In the last 6+ days, my vacation days, including the time spent traveling at 80 mph across the wasteland known as NW Texas, I have calculated my average speed of the last week, The calculation goes something like this... The Data: --------------- Total Time = 130 hours 28 Minutes = 130.467 hours Total Time Driving Pt-Pt ~= 21 hours Average Speed Pt-Pt ~= 60 mph Total # of Beer runs = 9 (@ ~10 minutes per trip) Total Time Driving to the store to get beer ~= 1.5 hours Average speed on a beer run ~= 20 mph Total time sitting on my ass drinking beer and watching TV = 107.967 hours ---------- The Solution: 21 hrs * 60 mph = 1260 miles 1.5 hrs * 20 mph = 30 miles (<-- small for beer) 107.967 hrs * 0 mph = 0 miles D = Total miles traveled = 1260 + 30 + 0 = 1290 miles T = Total Time on vacation = 130.467 hours Average speed while on vacation = D/T Avg Speed = 1290/130.467 Avg Speed = 9.89 mph _________ Apparently I am not the fastest, but I am, perhaps, having the most fun! BENDY EDIT FROM TORO: All subsequent poetic ramblings and STS posts have been removed [ 20. September 2005, 06:18: Message edited by: Toro ]
Guest ruckerstud Posted September 25, 2005 Posted September 25, 2005 148 ground in the Huey at Kirtland ( had a 30 kts tail wind)
Gas Man Posted September 25, 2005 Posted September 25, 2005 .9 in a 1958 model -135. Started to get MACH tuck and bouncing around a bit. Amazing how .84 is smooth as silk and .85 we start to feel the mice on the wings. At .9 we were only at 87% N1. There are plenty of stories out there of tankers going supersonic in level flight, we did it in the sim, but the shock wave is hell on the tail. Most likely if the stories are true, the airplane never flew again.
M2 Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Originally posted by NSFW: Awww come on, get a fender eliminator! Very nice M2.NSFW Just ordered the Graves Eliminator. I have already put a Puig screen on it and got the rear cowl last night. She's coming along... Cheers! M2
Guest Xtndr50boom Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Why the graves M2? Are you going to keep the rear turn signals on for awhile?
M2 Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 I'm in no rush to replace the rear signals, and the Graves is a nice, clean design that retains the original bodywork. A lot of guys just clamp their tags on under the pipe or behind the wheel, it's just another reason for the LEOs to pull you over. However, I do want to minimize that monstrosity that Honda put on the back of the CBR... And the Graves is cheap compared to all the other eliminators I have seen. Cheers! M2
war007afa Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by degarbage: Did slow flight in the Tweet (approx 70 kts?) into a 90 kt headwind, actually flew "backwards" with a negative GS. How did you measure GS in the Tweet? All I had was steam gauges! On the subject, any other 300+ Club-ers in here from the Tweet days? It was that or get run over by a heavy on the way into Charleston. Rudder-flutter was not experienced (but I wouldn't recommend anyone try it on a solo or anything, not that people do things on solos that they aren't supposed to). But I digress...
Champ Kind Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by war007afa: On the subject, any other 300+ Club-ers in here from the Tweet days? Wouldn't that be admitting to violating max. allowable on a public forum?
Bergman Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 Originally posted by war007afa: On the subject, any other 300+ Club-ers in here from the Tweet days? I can neither confirm nor deny that on my inital area solo, after my 7th consecutive aileron roll, I looked down an saw 320 KIAS and just a wee bit nose low. Seemed to fly just fine at that speed. :D Better lucky than good!
war007afa Posted October 13, 2005 Posted October 13, 2005 Like I was told after my 2nd flight in the old Tweet: There is nothing that you can do to that airplane that hasn't been done by someone else before you. Sort of frightening looking back on that now haha.
Guest TBear Posted February 27, 2007 Posted February 27, 2007 2.03M in a Viper at FL495.86 Ran out of airspace trying to get to 2.05M.
Toasty Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 During F22 TX there's a "High Speed AHC" ride where your only goal is to get as high and as fast as the -1 will allow and practice turns, out manuevers, etc. I saw 1.98 and 59K before I had to pull it back. Isn't that about 9k higher than allowable?
Steve Davies Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Isn't that about 9k higher than allowable? Not in the F-22. They are not subject to the standard 50k' rule.
Guest wakebrdr142 Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 GS 14 backwards in a 180RG. Indicated 185mph on 2004 Yamaha R1.
Toasty Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Not in the F-22. They are not subject to the standard 50k' rule. Just out of curiousity, why is that? I thought the 50k rule was in place due to physiological considerations, i.e. if you depressurize up there, you're toast. Is there something that makes the Raptor an exception to this?
Guest Jimmy Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Just out of curiousity, why is that? I thought the 50k rule was in place due to physiological considerations, i.e. if you depressurize up there, you're toast. Is there something that makes the Raptor an exception to this? Fairy dust.
Steve Davies Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Fairy dust. That and the fact that 'up there' is where the F-22 does its business. It's a risk vs. benefit thang...
CHS17 Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Hopefully one of the fighter guys, or TW himself, can clear this up. According to 11-202v3 a partial pressure suit would be required at that altitude. A quick scan of 11-2fa-22v3 didn't mention anything about different oxygen requirements. I'm curious to know the answer, if it can be shared on an open forum.
Steve Davies Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 Hopefully one of the fighter guys, or TW himself, can clear this up. According to 11-202v3 a partial pressure suit would be required at that altitude. A quick scan of 11-2fa-22v3 didn't mention anything about different oxygen requirements. I'm curious to know the answer, if it can be shared on an open forum. My source is "Dozer". He told me during an interview that they are permitted to exceed 50k', that they spent 'a lot of time' up in the bozosphere, and that they are not required to wear the partial pressure suit.
drewpey Posted March 3, 2007 Posted March 3, 2007 But did you ever get the old dudes up front to really push the T-43 up to .79? we asked for .82, and after they stopped laughing, they said "we'll see what we can do, but no promises". We pushed it up and hit .80, but thats all it had. We didn't fly that long though, they told us we were burning 9k an hour. I guess the old bobcat isn't as good once as it ever was. (back to actual speed stories though...sorry to hijack)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now