Turn audio on and listen to the heavy breathing :o)

<http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/>

Big John

Nice Job!!!!

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Turn audio on and listen to the heavy breathing :o)
>
> <http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/>
>
> Big John

R. Gardner wrote:
> Nice Job!!!!
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Turn audio on and listen to the heavy breathing :o)
>>
>><http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/>


Looks like ~240 is best glide and then about 150 on touchdown? Wow.
Impressive!

-c

On Jul 31, 7:04*pm, gatt > wrote:
> R. Gardner wrote:
> > Nice Job!!!!
>
> > "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>Turn audio on and listen to the heavy breathing :o)
>
> >><http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/>
>
> Looks like ~240 is best glide and then about 150 on touchdown? *Wow.
> Impressive!
>
> -c

What a nice piece of flying.

On Jul 31, 8:18*pm, wrote:
> On Jul 31, 7:04*pm, gatt > wrote:
>
> > R. Gardner wrote:
> > > Nice Job!!!!
>
> > > "Big John" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > >>Turn audio on and listen to the heavy breathing :o)
>
> > >><http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/>
>
> > Looks like ~240 is best glide and then about 150 on touchdown? *Wow.
> > Impressive!
>
> > -c
>
> What a nice piece of flying.

several people agreed with you:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_199705/ai_n8771125

Big John wrote:
>Turn audio on and listen to the heavy breathing :o)
>
><http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/SUPERGT/3384/>
>
>Big John

naaaaah not a big deal...

I do it all the time.
Although, my glide ratio is 50:1 @ ~60kts.

Big up on that cat.
Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an F-16? : - @

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1

Kloudy wrote:
>Big up on that cat.
>Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an F-16? : - @


Just ask the mighty interwebs.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JCA/is_12_12/ai_n6100350

1:1?
jeezuz..might as well strap yourelf to a washing machine.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1

Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
> Kloudy wrote:
>> Big up on that cat.
>> Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an F-16? : - @
>
>
> Just ask the mighty interwebs.
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JCA/is_12_12/ai_n6100350
>
> 1:1?
> jeezuz..might as well strap yourelf to a washing machine.
>

At least it makes the math easy.

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
> Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>> Kloudy wrote:
>>> Big up on that cat. Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an
>>> F-16? : - @
>>
>>
>> Just ask the mighty interwebs.
>>
>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JCA/is_12_12/ai_n6100350
>>
>> 1:1? jeezuz..might as well strap yourelf to a washing machine.
>>
>
> At least it makes the math easy.

There is something funny here. He said he started out at 24,000 feet,
but then later says he established the 1:1 glide 12-15 nm from the
field. A 1:1 glide ratio at 12 nm out would mean he was 12 nm high, or
about 72,000 feet. That 1:1 has to be something other than a
traditional glide ratio.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>> Big up on that cat. Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an
>>>> F-16? : - @
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>
>> At least it makes the math easy.
> That 1:1 has to be something other than a
>traditional glide ratio.
>
>Matt

'xactly. didn't make sense to me either.

Oh well.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1

Matt

You can hear very clear he was reported at 7 miles and 9K which in
round figures is 3.5 to 1 needed to make field. Since he made it he at
least made that glide ratio. If he was high when close to field he may
have dumped it and picked up a 1 to 1 to burn off excess altitude???

Bottom line. Excellent job and he made it and saved the Governmet $50
Mil +/-.

Big John

************************************************** ******************
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:31:58 -0400, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
>> Kloudy via AviationKB.com wrote:
>>> Kloudy wrote:
>>>> Big up on that cat. Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an
>>>> F-16? : - @
>>>
>>>
>>> Just ask the mighty interwebs.
>>>
>>> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JCA/is_12_12/ai_n6100350
>>>
>>> 1:1? jeezuz..might as well strap yourelf to a washing machine.
>>>
>>
>> At least it makes the math easy.
>
>There is something funny here. He said he started out at 24,000 feet,
>but then later says he established the 1:1 glide 12-15 nm from the
>field. A 1:1 glide ratio at 12 nm out would mean he was 12 nm high, or
>about 72,000 feet. That 1:1 has to be something other than a
>traditional glide ratio.
>
>Matt

"Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in message
news:8809a1f297c34@uwe...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>> Big up on that cat. Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an
>>>>> F-16? : - @
>>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>>
>>> At least it makes the math easy.
>> That 1:1 has to be something other than a
>>traditional glide ratio.
>>
>>Matt
>
> 'xactly. didn't make sense to me either.
>
> Oh well.
>
> --
> Message posted via AviationKB.com
> http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1
>


What I get from that article is not that the F-16 will only glide at 1:1,
but that the pilot "established a 1:1 glide ratio and dropped the nose to
capture my computed FO airspeed" at some point(s) along the approach as may
be required/suggested in the F-16 user's manual in the event of a flameout.

BS, TP

On Aug 2, 8:57*am, "muff528" > wrote:
> "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in messagenews:8809a1f297c34@uwe...
>
>
>
> > Matt Whiting wrote:
> >>>>> Big up on that cat. Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an
> >>>>> F-16? *: - @
> >>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> >>> At least it makes the math easy.
> >> *That 1:1 has to be something other than a
> >>traditional glide ratio.
>
> >>Matt
>
> > 'xactly. didn't make sense to me either.
>
> > Oh well.
>
> > --
> > Message posted via AviationKB.com
> >http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1
>
> What I get from that article is not that the F-16 will only glide at 1:1,
> but that the pilot "established a 1:1 glide ratio and dropped the nose to
> capture my computed FO airspeed" at some point(s) along the approach as may
> be required/suggested in the F-16 user's manual in the event of a flameout.

"Big John" > wrote in message ...
>
> Matt
>
> You can hear very clear he was reported at 7 miles and 9K which in
> round figures is 3.5 to 1 needed to make field. Since he made it he at
> least made that glide ratio. If he was high when close to field he may
> have dumped it and picked up a 1 to 1 to burn off excess altitude???
>
> Bottom line. Excellent job and he made it and saved the Governmet $50
> Mil +/-.
>
> Big John
>

I guess he is lucky he did not drop the tanks on top of someone...

It was a good job but relatively easy with chase, etc...

On Aug 2, 9:26*am, wrote:
> On Aug 2, 8:57*am, "muff528" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Kloudy via AviationKB.com" <u33403@uwe> wrote in messagenews:8809a1f297c34@uwe...
>
> > > Matt Whiting wrote:
> > >>>>> Big up on that cat. Dang, I wonder what the measured glide is on an
> > >>>>> F-16? *: - @
> > >>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> > >>> At least it makes the math easy.
> > >> *That 1:1 has to be something other than a
> > >>traditional glide ratio.
>
> > >>Matt
>
> > > 'xactly. didn't make sense to me either.
>
> > > Oh well.
>
> > > --
> > > Message posted via AviationKB.com
> > >http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200808/1
>
> > What I get from that article is not that the F-16 will only glide at 1:1,
> > but that the pilot "established a 1:1 glide ratio and dropped the nose to
> > capture my computed FO airspeed" at some point(s) along the approach as may
> > be required/suggested in the F-16 user's manual in the event of a flameout.
>
> > BS, TP
>
> Just looking at how clean that airplane is without the external tanks,
> it must have at least a 10 to 1 glide ratio. The shuttle with it's
> little wings is not that good, but far from 1 to 1

For what it's worth, at subsonic speeds the shuttle is 4.5 to 1. Not
quite a brick, but close!

On Aug 2, 10:10*am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Big John" > wrote in messagenews:7ko7945tt77e0spq0cjj47t7udhcdr2p3d@4ax .com...
>
> > Matt
>
> > You can hear very clear he was reported at 7 miles and 9K which in
> > round figures is 3.5 to 1 needed to make field. Since he made it he at
> > least made that glide ratio. If he was high when close to field he may
> > have dumped it and picked up a 1 to 1 to burn off excess altitude???
>
> > Bottom line. Excellent job and he made it and saved the Governmet $50
> > Mil +/-.
>
> > Big John
>
> I guess he is lucky he did not drop the tanks on top of someone...
>
> It was a good job but relatively easy with chase, etc...

To say it was relatively easy is one thing, but even if these guys
train for it, a glider doing 250 knots would be a handful. His peers
say he did an excellent job and in my world peer review is pretty much
the defining criteria for measuring performance. The award he got said
it was the best demonstration of airmanship for the year, and he flies
with others who are known to be pretty good.

> wrote in message ...
On Aug 2, 10:10 am, "Blueskies" > wrote:
> "Big John" > wrote in messagenews:7ko7945tt77e0spq0cjj47t7udhcdr2p3d@4ax .com...
>
> > Matt
>
> > You can hear very clear he was reported at 7 miles and 9K which in
> > round figures is 3.5 to 1 needed to make field. Since he made it he at
> > least made that glide ratio. If he was high when close to field he may
> > have dumped it and picked up a 1 to 1 to burn off excess altitude???
>
> > Bottom line. Excellent job and he made it and saved the Governmet $50
> > Mil +/-.
>
> > Big John
>
> I guess he is lucky he did not drop the tanks on top of someone...
>
> It was a good job but relatively easy with chase, etc...

To say it was relatively easy is one thing, but even if these guys
train for it, a glider doing 250 knots would be a handful. His peers
say he did an excellent job and in my world peer review is pretty much
the defining criteria for measuring performance. The award he got said
it was the best demonstration of airmanship for the year, and he flies
with others who are known to be pretty good.


What powers up the hydraulics during an engine out? The whole trick to flying is controlling how quickly you stop ;-)

"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>
> What powers up the hydraulics during an engine out?

Towards the end of the clip, there was mention of a hydrazine powered APU.

Vaughn

Any currrent or 'X F-16 jocks that could tell us how the bird is
controlled with engine out? If a hydrazine powered APU how many
minutes will it run? I also heard the hydrazine coment and asking for
fire trucks to handle.

Big John
************************************************** ******

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:48:20 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote:

>
>"Blueskies" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What powers up the hydraulics during an engine out?
>
> Towards the end of the clip, there was mention of a hydrazine powered APU.
>
>Vaughn
>
>