kgruber
Final Approach
I doubt it. Maybe with the optional JATO bottles.
Max Climb Limit
- Thread starter Captain
- Start date
I doubt it. Maybe with the optional JATO bottles.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,256
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
JATO. Now that's a kick in the pants! Did it in 96. Unfortunately no longer used by Fat Albert.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 29,907
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Commercial? What is it?
BillTIZ
Final Approach
Watched a local flight school C-172 in the traffic pattern last Saturday. It was a good thing for him there was no FAA (FSDO Ops Inspector) at the airport that day. Non towered remote airport.
The C-172 had been dong routine T&Gs, but on his last circuit he came in at cruise speed to about 10ft AGL and flew the length of the runway. At the departure end he pitched up near vertical (from my vantage point near the approach end) and then rolled, similar to a crop duster reversing direction. At almost 90 degrees of bank the nose tracked back towards the horizon and he rolled wings level to continue the climb on the crosswind. This must have been a high G pull to a near zero G stall turn with nose high recovery.
I called on the radio, "that is not a normal traffic pattern maneuver, be glad the DPE is not here today". Silence on the radio.
My next call should have been to the flight school at its home airport. I will not hesitate if I see that maneuver again with that aircraft.
The C-172 had been dong routine T&Gs, but on his last circuit he came in at cruise speed to about 10ft AGL and flew the length of the runway. At the departure end he pitched up near vertical (from my vantage point near the approach end) and then rolled, similar to a crop duster reversing direction. At almost 90 degrees of bank the nose tracked back towards the horizon and he rolled wings level to continue the climb on the crosswind. This must have been a high G pull to a near zero G stall turn with nose high recovery.
I called on the radio, "that is not a normal traffic pattern maneuver, be glad the DPE is not here today". Silence on the radio.
My next call should have been to the flight school at its home airport. I will not hesitate if I see that maneuver again with that aircraft.
Captain
Final Approach
Just what we need, more pilots busting pilots. Who did he harm?
Wrong. It might help to read the responses in this thread before continuing to circulate incorrect information.
Not wrong. Nothing C'RON (or anybody else) has posted contradicts what I said. The reg even he posted still says ATTITUDE (though I admit I was incorrect about it being a specific degrees). As I already stated, the envisioned fighter jet vertical climbs certainly also entail a acrobatic ATTITUDE, but it remains that a sustained vertical flight path is NOT a "abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration."
It's not hard to have an non acrobatic vertical climb out. You just need a plane with a relatively slow stall speed and a good headwind.
If you are going to shout WRONG you should at least indicate why you believe so. Your post contributes nothing.
But you're still talking as if there's some delineation between "abnormal" (aerobatic) and "normal" (non-aerobatic) attitudes. There is NO such thing. It's all subjective and interpretation. Lots of regs are that way. A 350 hp MX-S will have at least a 45 degree attitude on a Vx climbout. Is that aerobatic or "abnormal"? Not for that airplane. It would be for a 152. The FAA's definition of aerobatics is BS anyway. "Abrupt change in an aircraft's attitude"? Well, sure hope you don't use full aileron to roll into a 45 degree banked turn in a Cherokee below 1500' AGL...because that would be "aerobatics", right?
Last edited:
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,888
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,256
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
I don't see how the ATO would have a problem with this from a traffic standpoint. It's at MOJAVE, inside a MOA and not around any high trafficked airspace. I can see the local population not wanting to be subjected to multiple sonic booms each day so someone can go on a joyride though.
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,888
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
While XCOR is doing the vehicle development at Mojave, they do not plan to operate the vehicle commercially. They're going to wet-lease it to operators, who are looking at flying out of a number of places around the world -- most of which are in destinations with challenging airspace issues.
As for the sonic boom, it likely won't be audible on the ground under most atmospheric conditions, and when it is the overpressure will be very small.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,256
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
How's the noise on launch?
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,888
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
We are currently trying to work out the launch noise assessment methodology with FAA now. It doesn't fit into any of the models they like to use. We have some calculated Lmax figures, but no useful real world measurements yet. The basic problem is that the rocket engine produces lower frequency sound that attenuates differently over distance than does typical jet noise.
Can I just stick with "quieter than an F-4"?
comanchepilot
En-Route
"Dog 06 requests unrestricted climb."
"Dog 06 cleared unrestricted climb to 10,000 . . . contact departure out of 1700, advise intentions."
"Dog 06 cleared unrestricted climb to 10,000 . . . contact departure out of 1700, advise intentions."