Last words

[Splat!]

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm

[Bob Martin]

Splat! > wrote in message
news:3Lkvb.449584$9l5.204811@pd7tw2no...
> http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm


Don't know about the rest of you, but I find that site in particularly poor
taste.

[nooneimportant]

in agreement here

--
HPCode(1.1)-G PS++COS++POA++GOF+++*OOTP+++FF-QS DD+++HB++TR++AR++AT---*CM+++





"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Splat! > wrote in message
> news:3Lkvb.449584$9l5.204811@pd7tw2no...
> > http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm
>
>
> Don't know about the rest of you, but I find that site in particularly
poor
> taste.
>
>

[nafod40]

Bob Martin wrote:
> Splat! > wrote in message
>
>>http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm
>
>
>
> Don't know about the rest of you, but I find that site in particularly poor
> taste.

I didn't. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Statistics
are statistics, but reading the transcriptions...it's easy to be in that
cockpit right next to them.

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:01:21 -0500, nafod40 >
wrote:

>Bob Martin wrote:
>> Splat! > wrote in message
>>
>>>http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't know about the rest of you, but I find that site in particularly poor
>> taste.
>
>I didn't. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Statistics
>are statistics, but reading the transcriptions...it's easy to be in that
>cockpit right next to them.

I always get a charge from the photo of the two pilots turned around
for their photograph whith the Baron visible in the windshiled behind
them. Although the photo is contrived, it still gives me the shivers.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>>I didn't. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Statistics
>>are statistics, but reading the transcriptions...it's easy to be in that
>>cockpit right next to them.
>
>I always get a charge from the photo of the two pilots turned around
>for their photograph whith the Baron visible in the windshiled behind
>them. Although the photo is contrived, it still gives me the shivers.

>Roger Halstead
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If that gives you shivers.....
You should have been in my RV-3 on Saturday.

Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
Classic case of head in the cockpit???

A couple of weeks ago, nearly identical situation.
However, I saw that perpetrator coming early on.
Like this dude, he took no evasive action at any time.

Flying low is not for me anymore, but not much way
to avoid this crowed airspace when transitioning from
cross-country to landing or takeoff.

Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
out for you.....or even himself.

Barnyard BOb -- maximum safety is a helluva challenge

[Larry Smith]

"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
> [...]> Flying low is not for me anymore, but not much way
> to avoid this crowed airspace when transitioning from
> cross-country to landing or takeoff.

I dodge a crow every once in a while myself.
Durn fool perpetrators.

[Morgans]

> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> If that gives you shivers.....
> You should have been in my RV-3 on Saturday.
>
> Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
> to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
> He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
> Classic case of head in the cockpit???
>
> A couple of weeks ago, nearly identical situation.
> However, I saw that perpetrator coming early on.
> Like this dude, he took no evasive action at any time.
>
> Flying low is not for me anymore, but not much way
> to avoid this crowed airspace when transitioning from
> cross-country to landing or takeoff.
>
> Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
> but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
> out for you.....or even himself.
>
> Barnyard BOb -- maximum safety is a helluva challenge

It sounds like with all of the problems you have with traffic, you ought to
be considering getting some type of collision avoidance system installed.
ALL the help YOU can get sounds like it is needed..
--
Jim in NC

[Stealth Pilot]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:51:03 -0800, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> If that gives you shivers.....
>> You should have been in my RV-3 on Saturday.
>>
>> Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
>> to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
>> He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
>> Classic case of head in the cockpit???
>>
>> A couple of weeks ago, nearly identical situation.
>> However, I saw that perpetrator coming early on.
>> Like this dude, he took no evasive action at any time.
>>
>> Flying low is not for me anymore, but not much way
>> to avoid this crowed airspace when transitioning from
>> cross-country to landing or takeoff.
>>
>> Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
>> but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
>> out for you.....or even himself.
>>
>> Barnyard BOb -- maximum safety is a helluva challenge
>
>It sounds like with all of the problems you have with traffic, you ought to
>be considering getting some type of collision avoidance system installed.
>ALL the help YOU can get sounds like it is needed..

ps make sure the barrel of the thing is heated or it will jam up on
you just as you need it. :-)

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>It sounds like with all of the problems you have with traffic, you ought to
>be considering getting some type of collision avoidance system installed.
>ALL the help YOU can get sounds like it is needed..
>--
>Jim in NC
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Maybe, Santa will surprise me.


Barnyard BOb --

[Snowbird]

- Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...

> Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
> to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
> He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
> Classic case of head in the cockpit???
<....>
> Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
> but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
> out for you.....or even himself.

Bob took his 'horsie' to the shop
"These near-midairs have got to stop"
A small white plane is hard to see
Especially an RV-3
The painter was a helpful fellow
And now Serendipity's DAY GLOW YELLOW

-sdh '03

[- Barnyard BOb -]

Snowbird) wrote:
>
>> Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
>> to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
>> He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
>> Classic case of head in the cockpit???
><....>
>> Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
>> but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
>> out for you.....or even himself.
>
>Bob took his 'horsie' to the shop
>"These near-midairs have got to stop"
>A small white plane is hard to see
>Especially an RV-3
>The painter was a helpful fellow
>And now Serendipity's DAY GLOW YELLOW
>
>-sdh '03
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Your poem is quite the gas.
However, I'm still in need of....

TCAS

http://www.caasd.org/proj/tcas/


Barnyard BOb --

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"karel adams" > wrote in message >...
> "Bob Martin" > schreef in bericht
> ...
> >
> > Splat! > wrote in message
> > news:3Lkvb.449584$9l5.204811@pd7tw2no...
> > > http://www.planecrashinfo.com/lastwords.htm
> >
> >
> > Don't know about the rest of you, but I find that site in particularly
> poor
> > taste.
>
> I'm not sure.
> After all there is a clause
> "CAUTION, MAY BE DISTURBING"
> well highlighted right upon entry.
> Maybe like adult content sites
> there ought to be a
> 'click to consent'
> before really entering
>
> And also, people wanting to learn
> from other people's errors
> can learn a lot here
>
> But to serve that purpose first
> the site should be organised differently
> 1) date, aircraft, brief story
> 2) full story
> 3) analysis (possibly biased)
> 4) official reports
> 5) recordings

Each line on that page is clickable and takes you to a page with
some of the information above, and a longer transcript of the
last communications.

--

FF

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:24:01 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
wrote:

>
>
>>>I didn't. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Statistics
>>>are statistics, but reading the transcriptions...it's easy to be in that
>>>cockpit right next to them.
>>
>>I always get a charge from the photo of the two pilots turned around
>>for their photograph whith the Baron visible in the windshiled behind
>>them. Although the photo is contrived, it still gives me the shivers.
>
>>Roger Halstead
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>If that gives you shivers.....
>You should have been in my RV-3 on Saturday.
>
>Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
>to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
>He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
>Classic case of head in the cockpit???

Many, many, many...and so on...years ago in another life, far, far
away....(and I've probably told this story on here at least a dozen
times, but I don't remember any so it's all new to me)

I was landing the Piper Colt on 36 and Midland Barstow (3BS). I
probably had 5 or 6 hours in by then and could actually land the Colt
unassisted (most of the time).

At that time 18/36 was only paved south of the intersection with 06/24
which is about 900 feet. It's about as close to the express way as it
can get and still have a road run between them. Basically you are no
more than 300 feet coming over US-10 and usually no more than 200.

As we were passing over US-10 I caught a flash out the corner of my
right eye and had an image of rivets out the left window.

A Comanche was flying the express way at low altitude and passed
directly under us. He was actually past us before either of us jumped.
All I can tell is it had the maroon and white paint and the top of the
tail was really shiny. The top of the vertical stabilizer passed
between the nose gear and the main gear. I'd guess it was less than 6
inches below the bottom of the Colt's fuselage. (maybe less) Now,
figure the timing to get that tail between the gear on the Colt while
we were moving at 90 degrees to his flight path.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com


>
>A couple of weeks ago, nearly identical situation.
>However, I saw that perpetrator coming early on.
>Like this dude, he took no evasive action at any time.
>
>Flying low is not for me anymore, but not much way
>to avoid this crowed airspace when transitioning from
>cross-country to landing or takeoff.
>
>Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
>but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
>out for you.....or even himself.
>
>Barnyard BOb -- maximum safety is a helluva challenge

[Roger Halstead]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 12:09:53 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
wrote:

>
>Snowbird) wrote:
>>
>>> Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
>>> to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
>>> He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
>>> Classic case of head in the cockpit???
>><....>
>>> Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
>>> but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
>>> out for you.....or even himself.
>>
>>Bob took his 'horsie' to the shop
>>"These near-midairs have got to stop"
>>A small white plane is hard to see
>>Especially an RV-3
>>The painter was a helpful fellow
>>And now Serendipity's DAY GLOW YELLOW
>>
>>-sdh '03
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Your poem is quite the gas.
>However, I'm still in need of....

Grass?

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> TCAS
>
>http://www.caasd.org/proj/tcas/
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

[Morgans]

"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
> Snowbird) wrote:
> >
> >> Some bonehead at 2000 feet in a C-150 tried
> >> to T-bone me in the left door... if I had one.
> >> He missed vertically by 25 feet or 30 feet.
> >> Classic case of head in the cockpit???
> ><....>
> >> Everyone - not only keep your head out of the cockpit,
> >> but on a very active swivel. The other guy may not looking
> >> out for you.....or even himself.
> >
> >Bob took his 'horsie' to the shop
> >"These near-midairs have got to stop"
> >A small white plane is hard to see
> >Especially an RV-3
> >The painter was a helpful fellow
> >And now Serendipity's DAY GLOW YELLOW
> >
> >-sdh '03
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Your poem is quite the gas.
> However, I'm still in need of....
>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.....a smaller ass?
--
Jim in NC

[Zippy]

> Barnyard wrote

> Your poem is quite the gas.
> However, I'm still in need of....

A lesson in class

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 01:46:15 GMT, Zippy > wrote:

>> Barnyard wrote
>
>> Your poem is quite the gas.
>> However, I'm still in need of....
>
>A lesson in class

.... a compliant lass?

(Oh, wait a minute, that's what *I* need... :-)

Ron Wanttaja

[- Barnyard BOb -]

Zippy > wrote:

>> Barnyard wrote
>
>> Your poem is quite the gas.
>> However, I'm still in need of....
>
>A lesson in class
+++++++++++++++++

Hi dippy Zippy.

Other than dad's computer, which is more fun for you....
pulling wings off of live grasshoppers or setting cats
on fire with gasoline?


BOb - be kind to animals - U.

The more people I meet,
the more I love my dog
and George Carlin humor.

[John Ousterhout]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:11:29 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
wrote:
>
>Maybe Santa will surprise me.

Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
home.

- J.O.-

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:34:10 -0800, John Ousterhout
> wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:11:29 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
>wrote:
>>
>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.
>
>Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
>continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
>home.

He's gotta find coal somewhere....

Ron Wanttaja

[Big John]

Ron

I thought that was "Cold potatoes and switches"?

Big John

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 06:43:01 GMT, Ron Wanttaja >
wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 21:34:10 -0800, John Ousterhout
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 01:11:29 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.
>>
>>Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
>>continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
>>home.
>
>He's gotta find coal somewhere....
>
>Ron Wanttaja

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.
>>
>>Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
>>continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
>>home.
>
>He's gotta find coal somewhere....
>
>Ron Wanttaja
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ahem....
Any more of my EX-friends care to pile on???? ;o(


Barnyard BOb --

[John Stricker]

Not me Unk, You KNOW I give nice Christmas presents to my friends and
adopted Uncles. And you give them in return.

Wonder why none of those other "losers" never get anything from you?? 8-)

Your most favoritist nephew at Christmas time.....


"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.
> >>
> >>Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
> >>continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
> >>home.
> >
> >He's gotta find coal somewhere....
> >
> >Ron Wanttaja
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ahem....
> Any more of my EX-friends care to pile on???? ;o(
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

[Bart D. Hull]

Nah,

He'll just deliver Bob a RV-10 with a Soob H-6 in the nose.

Talk about irony!!!

--
Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.
- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.
>>>
>>>Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
>>>continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
>>>home.
>>
>>He's gotta find coal somewhere....
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ahem....
> Any more of my EX-friends care to pile on???? ;o(
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --
>

[- Barnyard BOb -]

- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
>>>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.

"Bart D. Hull" > wrote:

>Nah,
>
>He'll just deliver Bob a RV-10 with a Soob H-6 in the nose.
>
>Talk about irony!!!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That would not be ironic, Bart.
It would be very smart and make
perfect sense.

I have stated in the past that I possess
the right combination of qualifications to
successfully pilot and maintain an auto
conversion. Most here do not.

Wannabees with no real flight time and
kludging an engine together in the name
of saving buck$ are in it for the wrong
reasons and are accidents going some-
place to happen.

If you don't believe me, check with the
insurance companies. They wont touch
most of you with a ten foot pole for first
flight hull coverage and in many cases
any coverage of any kind.... ever.

Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight,

[Snowbird]

- Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...
> >>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.
> >>
> >>Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
> >>continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
> >>home.
> >
> >He's gotta find coal somewhere....
> >
> >Ron Wanttaja
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Ahem....
> Any more of my EX-friends care to pile on???? ;o(

Why sure Unk. I thought it was tres thoughtful of Ron
to speak of solving your winter fuel problems.

It would free up more money to spend on that new yellow
paint job. :)

Sydney

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>> Ahem....
>> Any more of my EX-friends care to pile on???? ;o(
>
>Why sure Unk. I thought it was tres thoughtful of Ron
>to speak of solving your winter fuel problems.

Given the price of unregulated natural gas, a large
quantity of gifted coal would be most welcome.

>It would free up more money to spend on that new yellow
>paint job. :)
>
>Sydney

You mean yellow bullets can be seen
when bullets of other colors cannot? <g>

Yellow has been documented to work well for ground
based vehicles, but.... CONTRAST requirements appear
to be quite different for airborne vehicles backbit by sky.

There is a yellow and black RV-3 based 100 feet from me.
It's not that easy to pick out when you're looking for it. When you
do, it's the BLACK and the MOTION that catches this searching eye.

YMMV.

Barnyard BOb --

[- Barnyard BOb -]

"John Stricker" > wrote:

>Not me Unk, You KNOW I give nice Christmas presents to my friends and
>adopted Uncles. And you give them in return.
>
>Wonder why none of those other "losers" never get anything from you?? 8-)
>
>Your most favoritist nephew at Christmas time.....
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

John,

I wouldn't go so far as to call them outright losers.
These 'left coasters' just march to a different drum
then us suave and debonair Mid-Westerners. :o)


Barnyard BOb - go KC Chiefs go

[Ben Sego]

- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
<snip>
> Yellow has been documented to work well for ground
> based vehicles, but.... CONTRAST requirements appear
> to be quite different for airborne vehicles backbit by sky.
>
<snip>
You probably meant "backlit," but if that was either intentional or a
Freudian slip, it was funny either way.

B.S.

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
><snip>
>> Yellow has been documented to work well for ground
>> based vehicles, but.... CONTRAST requirements appear
>> to be quite different for airborne vehicles backbit by sky.
>>
><snip>
>You probably meant "backlit," but if that was either intentional or a
>Freudian slip, it was funny either way.
>
>B.S.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmm.

If fate doesn't kill ya'..
it can sometimes improve things.

It was originally spelled back lit.
Dunno what happened.


Barnyard BOb --

[Snowbird]

- Barnyard BOb - > wrote in message >...

> You mean yellow bullets can be seen
> when bullets of other colors cannot? <g>

Now, now, Unk. Your horsie is indeed a speedy
steed -- but faster than a bullet he is not.

> There is a yellow and black RV-3 based 100 feet from me.
> It's not that easy to pick out when you're looking for it. When you
> do, it's the BLACK and the MOTION that catches this searching eye.

> YMMV.

What are the details? If there are two major colors the result, when
in motion, is a blend of the two. So from your eye's perspective,
it's possible your neighbor is effectively not yellow in flight. I'm
told our great big 'ol yellow/black checkerboard tail isn't that
visible in flight for just this reason. :( :(

There's a nice yellow Monocoupe at our airport and of course
Miss Chiquita nearby. I find the former much easier and quicker
to spot than the typical white-with-colored trim guys. Ditto on
a yellow C150 which was part of the fleet (um, so to speak) where
I learned to fly. I could pick him out of the pattern faster than
the white-with-color-trim rest of the flock. White Katanas are
damn near invisible.

So evidently MMDV, but I've got no fixation on yellow -- it's just
a color my experience spotting airplanes suggests might be highly
visible. If you think you've a better idea, Go For It. And let us
know what it is -- I've started planning a paint job. Not to mention,
from the goodness of my heart, I'll pen a new rhyme Just for You.

I understand your Nephew John who gives nice presents knows
a good painter. Maybe Nephew could give you a paint job for Xmas :).

Cheers,
Sydney (currently working on a ditty for Mr. Hyde...)

[John Stricker]

I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.

I think you should do it. In fact, come visit, I'll do it.

Really, I'm only thinking of your safety.

Honest.

John "no more sneak attacks from Unk" Stricker

"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Yellow has been documented to work well for ground
> >> based vehicles, but.... CONTRAST requirements appear
> >> to be quite different for airborne vehicles backbit by sky.
> >>
> ><snip>
> >You probably meant "backlit," but if that was either intentional or a
> >Freudian slip, it was funny either way.
> >
> >B.S.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Hmmm.
>
> If fate doesn't kill ya'..
> it can sometimes improve things.
>
> It was originally spelled back lit.
> Dunno what happened.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
>be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
>vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
>Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
>
>I think you should do it. In fact, come visit, I'll do it.
>
>Really, I'm only thinking of your safety.
>
>Honest.
>
>John "no more sneak attacks from Unk" Stricker
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmm.

A lovely shade of PUKE GREEN...?

...for my safety?

I'm sure.


Barnyard BOb - safety faster

[Model Flyer]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message
...
> I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible
color to
> be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the
emergency
> vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
> Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
>

In the UK the RAF did extensive tests to find the most visable colour
for their trainers, the result was Black. All of their trainers are
now painted black, this has reduced incidents because of poor
visability.
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)


> I think you should do it. In fact, come visit, I'll do it.
>
> Really, I'm only thinking of your safety.
>
> Honest.
>
> John "no more sneak attacks from Unk" Stricker
>
> "- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > >- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
> > ><snip>
> > >> Yellow has been documented to work well for ground
> > >> based vehicles, but.... CONTRAST requirements appear
> > >> to be quite different for airborne vehicles backbit by sky.
> > >>
> > ><snip>
> > >You probably meant "backlit," but if that was either intentional
or a
> > >Freudian slip, it was funny either way.
> > >
> > >B.S.
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> > Hmmm.
> >
> > If fate doesn't kill ya'..
> > it can sometimes improve things.
> >
> > It was originally spelled back lit.
> > Dunno what happened.
> >
> >
> > Barnyard BOb --
>
>

[Roger Halstead]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:29:08 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
wrote:

>
>>>>Maybe Santa will surprise me.
>>>
>>>Based on your position -- far to the wrong side of the naughty-nice
>>>continuum -- you should be surprised if Santa even shows up at your
>>>home.
>>
>>He's gotta find coal somewhere....
>>
>>Ron Wanttaja
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Ahem....
>Any more of my EX-friends care to pile on???? ;o(

Hey Bob. You can adopt me. I need a parent who can afford to help me
get the Lycombing rebuilt for the G-III.

I'm expensive and have very little ambition. But...I have nice toys.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:18:26 -0600, - Barnyard BOb - >
wrote:

>
>>I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
>>be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
>>vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
>>Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
>>
>>I think you should do it. In fact, come visit, I'll do it.
>>
>>Really, I'm only thinking of your safety.
>>
>>Honest.
>>
>>John "no more sneak attacks from Unk" Stricker
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Hmmmm.
>
>A lovely shade of PUKE GREEN...?

I want one of those paint jobs that's kinda iridescent and the color
depends on the angle between the viewer, plane, and sun. When one
goes by it goes through the whole color spectrum.

Durn paint job would probably cost more than I have invested in the
whole plane.

You'll have to fix the return add due to dumb virus checkers, not spam
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair?)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
> ...for my safety?
>
> I'm sure.
>
>
>Barnyard BOb - safety faster

[Eric Miller]

"Roger Halstead" > wrote
>
> I want one of those paint jobs that's kinda iridescent and the color
> depends on the angle between the viewer, plane, and sun. When one
> goes by it goes through the whole color spectrum.
>
> Durn paint job would probably cost more than I have invested in the
> whole plane.

Dupont Chromalusion paint... $300-700 per quart!

Eric

[Cy Galley]

Yes, But the sun seldom shines in the UK since it rains most every day.

"Model Flyer" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Stricker" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible
> color to
> > be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the
> emergency
> > vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
> > Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
> >
>
> In the UK the RAF did extensive tests to find the most visable colour
> for their trainers, the result was Black. All of their trainers are
> now painted black, this has reduced incidents because of poor
> visability.
> --
> ---
> Cheers,
> Jonathan Lowe.
> /
> don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
> I don't care if it spelt properly
> /
> Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
> :-)
>
>
> > I think you should do it. In fact, come visit, I'll do it.
> >
> > Really, I'm only thinking of your safety.
> >
> > Honest.
> >
> > John "no more sneak attacks from Unk" Stricker
> >
> > "- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > >- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
> > > ><snip>
> > > >> Yellow has been documented to work well for ground
> > > >> based vehicles, but.... CONTRAST requirements appear
> > > >> to be quite different for airborne vehicles backbit by sky.
> > > >>
> > > ><snip>
> > > >You probably meant "backlit," but if that was either intentional
> or a
> > > >Freudian slip, it was funny either way.
> > > >
> > > >B.S.
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >
> > > Hmmm.
> > >
> > > If fate doesn't kill ya'..
> > > it can sometimes improve things.
> > >
> > > It was originally spelled back lit.
> > > Dunno what happened.
> > >
> > >
> > > Barnyard BOb --
> >
> >
>
>

[- Barnyard BOb -]

>>>There is a yellow and black RV-3 based 100 feet from me.
>>> It's not that easy to pick out when you're looking for it. When you
>>> do, it's the BLACK and the MOTION that catches this searching eye.

>>> YMMV.

>>> Barnyard BOb --


>> In the UK the RAF did extensive tests to find the most visable colour
>> for their trainers, the result was Black. All of their trainers are
>> now painted black, this has reduced incidents because of poor
>> visability.
>> --
>> ---
>> Cheers,
>> Jonathan Lowe.


"Cy Galley" retorted without benefit of smiley:

>Yes, But the sun seldom shines in the UK since it rains most every day.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks for the levity and jocular response. However...

It was exactly under these conditions right here in
the USA, that I had my nearest near miss in 50 years.

The near miss wasn't a damn bit funny then.
Isn't any funnier now.

Do you have data concerning what color is
more visible than black on a UK rainy day?
If so, source(s) would be appreciated.


Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Snowbird]

"John Stricker" > wrote in message >...
> I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
> be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
> vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. <.....>
> I think you should do it. In fact, come visit, I'll do it.

See, Unk? See? I *told* you Nephew John would fix
you up for Xmas! He knows how to give presents right!

Sydney

(PS John, did you get my email reply and did Sandi get the pictures?
if not, please resend the addy which actually gets through. Tnxs)

[Cy Galley]

Most in-flight collisions happen in CAVU conditions. Yours in poor
visibility is unusual.

--
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
or

"- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >>>There is a yellow and black RV-3 based 100 feet from me.
> >>> It's not that easy to pick out when you're looking for it. When you
> >>> do, it's the BLACK and the MOTION that catches this searching eye.
>
> >>> YMMV.
>
> >>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>
> >> In the UK the RAF did extensive tests to find the most visable colour
> >> for their trainers, the result was Black. All of their trainers are
> >> now painted black, this has reduced incidents because of poor
> >> visability.
> >> --
> >> ---
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jonathan Lowe.
>
>
> "Cy Galley" retorted without benefit of smiley:
>
> >Yes, But the sun seldom shines in the UK since it rains most every day.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Thanks for the levity and jocular response. However...
>
> It was exactly under these conditions right here in
> the USA, that I had my nearest near miss in 50 years.
>
> The near miss wasn't a damn bit funny then.
> Isn't any funnier now.
>
> Do you have data concerning what color is
> more visible than black on a UK rainy day?
> If so, source(s) would be appreciated.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight

[Model Flyer]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:76ezb.407384$Fm2.415736@attbi_s04...
> Yes, But the sun seldom shines in the UK since it rains most every
day.
>

Never in nearly 55 years in the British Isles have I ever seen any
evidence to support that rediculous statement. There are indeed long
periods of rain or showers, however the no of times I've been blinded
by something that would appear to be the
sun........................:-)
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)


> "Model Flyer" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "John Stricker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I saw research some time back that showed the most highly
visible
> > color to
> > > be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of
the
> > emergency
> > > vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you
painted
> > > Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
> > >
> >
> > In the UK the RAF did extensive tests to find the most visable
colour
> > for their trainers, the result was Black. All of their trainers
are
> > now painted black, this has reduced incidents because of poor
> > visability.
> > --
> > ---
> > Cheers,
> > Jonathan Lowe.
> > /
> > don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
> > I don't care if it spelt properly
> > /
> > Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
> > :-)
> >
> >
> > > I think you should do it. In fact, come visit, I'll do it.
> > >
> > > Really, I'm only thinking of your safety.
> > >
> > > Honest.
> > >
> > > John "no more sneak attacks from Unk" Stricker
> > >
> > > "- Barnyard BOb -" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >- Barnyard BOb - wrote:
> > > > ><snip>
> > > > >> Yellow has been documented to work well for ground
> > > > >> based vehicles, but.... CONTRAST requirements appear
> > > > >> to be quite different for airborne vehicles backbit by
sky.
> > > > >>
> > > > ><snip>
> > > > >You probably meant "backlit," but if that was either
intentional
> > or a
> > > > >Freudian slip, it was funny either way.
> > > > >
> > > > >B.S.
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm.
> > > >
> > > > If fate doesn't kill ya'..
> > > > it can sometimes improve things.
> > > >
> > > > It was originally spelled back lit.
> > > > Dunno what happened.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Barnyard BOb --
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[John Ousterhout]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:58:58 -0600, "John Stricker"
> wrote:

>I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
>be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
>vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
>Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.

Hey brother John. We're all concerned for Unka Boob's Safety.
However we seem to have different opinions about which color is
safest.

I suggest we each purchase a spray can of Krylon in the color we think
is safest and at the Pinckneyville Fly-In next May we can each paint a
portion of the RV-3.

- John (I got dibs on the canopy) Ousterhout -

[RR Urban]

>>I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
>>be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
>>vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
>>Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
>
>Hey brother John. We're all concerned for Unka Boob's Safety.
>However we seem to have different opinions about which color is
>safest.
>
>I suggest we each purchase a spray can of Krylon in the color we think
>is safest and at the Pinckneyville Fly-In next May we can each paint a
>portion of the RV-3.
>
>- John (I got dibs on the canopy) Ousterhout -
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

No 'checkerboard' paint allowed.
Axe Snowbird for details.


Barnyard BOb --

[John Stricker]

Checkerboard?? I was thinking '70's psychedelic............

After all, you're the most psyche-diddly-delic, rock-a-shoobi show in the
air anyway, might as well have the paint to match.

John "everyone does it for the kids, I'm looking out for those who are kids
at heart" Stricker

"RR Urban" > wrote in message
...
>
> >>I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color
to
> >>be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the
emergency
> >>vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
> >>Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
> >
> >Hey brother John. We're all concerned for Unka Boob's Safety.
> >However we seem to have different opinions about which color is
> >safest.
> >
> >I suggest we each purchase a spray can of Krylon in the color we think
> >is safest and at the Pinckneyville Fly-In next May we can each paint a
> >portion of the RV-3.
> >
> >- John (I got dibs on the canopy) Ousterhout -
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> No 'checkerboard' paint allowed.
> Axe Snowbird for details.
>
>
> Barnyard BOb --

[StellaStar]

>++++++
>
>No 'checkerboard' paint allowed.

heh heh
I fell in love with the checkerbird at first sight...

http://www.nealhoward.net/

[RR Urban]

(StellaStar) wrote:

>>++++++
>>
>>No 'checkerboard' paint allowed.
>
>heh heh
>I fell in love with the checkerbird at first sight...
>
>http://www.nealhoward.net/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Whoa.

Who let this Ralston Purina dawg out?
http://www.scripophily.net/ralpurcom.html

I wouldn't even do this to an auto conversion
powered ho-made heli-chopter. :o)

THWACK - GAG - PITOOIE !


Barnyard BOb -
I be from Missouri....
but, 'Show Me" this dawg no mo'.

[Morgans]

"StellaStar" > wrote in message
...
> >++++++
> >
> >No 'checkerboard' paint allowed.
>
> heh heh
> I fell in love with the checkerbird at first sight...
>
> http://www.nealhoward.net/
>

Wooah!

With a paint job like that, it should be listed as a navigation aid!
--
Jim in NC

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
- Barnyard BOb - > wrote:
>
>
>>>>There is a yellow and black RV-3 based 100 feet from me.
>>>> It's not that easy to pick out when you're looking for it. When you
>>>> do, it's the BLACK and the MOTION that catches this searching eye.
>
>>>> YMMV.
>
>>>> Barnyard BOb --
>
>
>>> In the UK the RAF did extensive tests to find the most visable colour
>>> for their trainers, the result was Black. All of their trainers are
>>> now painted black, this has reduced incidents because of poor
>>> visability.
>>> --
>>> ---
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jonathan Lowe.
>
>
>"Cy Galley" retorted without benefit of smiley:
>
>>Yes, But the sun seldom shines in the UK since it rains most every day.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Thanks for the levity and jocular response. However...
>
>It was exactly under these conditions right here in
>the USA, that I had my nearest near miss in 50 years.
>
>The near miss wasn't a damn bit funny then.
>Isn't any funnier now.
>
>Do you have data concerning what color is
>more visible than black on a UK rainy day?
>If so, source(s) would be appreciated.

On the ground, it is the 'safety orange' that the old Yellow Cab Company cabs
used to be painted. The Cab Co. researched it, and then did some experimenting
before deploying it fleet-wide. That paint scheme (safety orange, with the
black front and rear quarter panels) cut their rate of being involved in
traffic accidents by more than 20%.

Aloft, the issue is *much* more complicated.

"Visibility" is a function of:
a) contrast to the background against which it is observed,
b) sensitivity of the human eyeball.
c) the -information- needed _from_ detecting the object.
i.e., things are different if you just need to detect "it's there",
vs. determining 'aspect', and speed.


For "just" spotting an object, a 'checkerboard' of highly contrasting colors,
with each square having a size _just_ bigger than the angular acuity of
the human eye at the maximum range that one can determine 'shape', is
most effective. One reason that the military used that scheme on a lot of
early trainer aircraft. And why stationary objects like water-towers (near
a flight path) and radio towers are often _still_ painted in that kind of
scheme today.


At 'long distance', against a 'lit' sky, it pretty much "doesn't matter" what
color the thing is, it will appear "dark" -- whether it's painted black
or bright white.

Color comes into play _only_ when the object is *close* enough for the
reflection off the object to approximately match the intensity of the
'background'. At that point, the higher the _contrast_ with the background,
the better. Orange is good -- unless the background happens to be an
orange sunset -- or against some fall tree colors. Shades of blue is generally
a _bad_ choice, for obvious reasons. Gray/grey is definitely un-good, if
overcast skies are considered. Greens -- not good against trees/crops, etc.
Red/maroon/purple -- can have problems against a sunset. White? forget
about being seen against snow. and some clouds. Yellow? hard to distinguish
against 'bright' backgrounds. In short, you can't win. <wry grin>

The "best" solution is to use *multiple* colors.



If I was designing a 'maximum visibility' paint scheme, *without*consideration*
of esthetic appeal, assuming that the plane spent most of it's time in
'conventional' attitude, and was _slow_enough_ for color to be meaningful
(e.g., no point in worrying about visibility for something with the flight
characteristics of the SR-71 <grin>) I'd do something like:

Underside of: wing, horiz. stab and elevators:
Black, with outer 40% being safety orange
Upper side of: wing, horiz stab and elevators:
White, with at least two wide, _diagonal_, stripes of safety orange
Vert. stab and rudder:
safety orange
Fuselage:
'Firewall forward' in safety orange
Behind that, black/white checkerboard, with edges of the 'squares'
down the middle of each side of the craft, and midline down the
top and bottom of the fuselage.

Might even consider doing 'reflective glitter' -- like the use for road signs
in the white squares on the fuselage, and the orange striping on the upper
side of the flight surfaces.

For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of chess pieces
in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the ground,
but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from a non-
trivial distance.

Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good', just be
*VISIBLE*.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
RR Urban > wrote:
>
>>>I saw research some time back that showed the most highly visible color to
>>>be that beautiful fluorescent green kind of thing that some of the emergency
>>>vehicles (fire trucks, etc.) are painted. I'll bet if you painted
>>>Serendipity that color, people would see you coming.
>>
>>Hey brother John. We're all concerned for Unka Boob's Safety.
>>However we seem to have different opinions about which color is
>>safest.
>>
>>I suggest we each purchase a spray can of Krylon in the color we think
>>is safest and at the Pinckneyville Fly-In next May we can each paint a
>>portion of the RV-3.
>>
>>- John (I got dibs on the canopy) Ousterhout -
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>No 'checkerboard' paint allowed.
>Axe Snowbird for details.

How about striped? Or polka-dot?

I got it! *PAISLEY*!!!

[Henry Bibb]

"Robert Bonomi" > wrote in message
rvers.com...

>
> The "best" solution is to use *multiple* colors.
>
My airplane (non-experimental, but don't hold that against me) is painted
white
on the top surfaces, and dark red/maroon on the underside of the fuselage.
I
figure it helps visibility, in that the light outline should be visible
against most
earth-tone surfaces (snow excepted), and the dark red should stand out
against
most sky colors.

Sort of the reverse of some early camoflage schemes that used light below,
and
dark above. I'm thinking of some WWII era Navy schemes here...

Just a thought.
Henry Bibb

[RR Urban]

(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

<Lotsa' good stuff snipped for brevity>

>For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of chess pieces
>in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the ground,
>but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from a non-
>trivial distance.
>
>Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good', just be
>*VISIBLE*.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Robert,
I could not agree more with your dissertation.

When it comes to safety orange...
Have you ever found any that has decent color retention
or am I thinking of Day-Glo Fluorescent or some such?


Barnyard BOb --

[RR Urban]

>> The "best" solution is to use *multiple* colors.
>>
>My airplane (non-experimental, but don't hold that against me) is painted
>white
>on the top surfaces, and dark red/maroon on the underside of the fuselage.
>I
>figure it helps visibility, in that the light outline should be visible
>against most
>earth-tone surfaces (snow excepted), and the dark red should stand out
>against
>most sky colors.
>
>Sort of the reverse of some early camoflage schemes that used light below,
>and
>dark above. I'm thinking of some WWII era Navy schemes here...
>
>Just a thought.
>Henry Bibb
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've never had a near miss from the top or bottom.
It's either a head on or more often... from my left side.

The frontal area of an RV 3 is very small...
like a motorcycle?

The side is a little bigger...
and moving fairly fast.
Near 200 mph most of the time.


Barnyard BOb --

[Corrie]

Your hi-vis paint scheme reminds me of something from one of my other
expensive hobbies. Back in the Middle Ages, knights' shields were
painted for IFF purposes. Since it cost money to get a limner to
accurately paint the design (called a 'device' - a 'coat of arms' was
more complicated), but monks transcribing plain text were cheaper, a
written language was developed to describe the images.

Modern Medieval recreationists (see rec.org.sca) use the same language
to describe their own personal devices. Perhaps the most famous is
this one, assigned to a fellow who goes by the moniker "Baldwin of
Erebor" (also known as Derek Foster):

"A dove displayed upon a billet chequey Or and Gules, between a pait
of cockatrices, clad in motley like a fool's. Their feathers are
dimidiated by a tree eradicated, limbed and fructed counter-company."

Links to prove I'm only half-crazy:

http://www.ravenboymusic.com/baldwin_of_erebor.htm (contains photos of
the fellow; don't know how old they are)

http://www.florilegium.org/files/PERFORMANCE-ARTS/songs2-msg.html
(ctrl-f to find the text "Copyright 1979 by Derek Foster"

http://atensubmissions.nexiliscom.com/cgi-bin/heraldry/OandA/oanda_name.cgi?p=Baldwin%20of%20Erebor

http://www2.kumc.edu/itc/staff/rknight/baldwin1.gif (a picture of the
horrid thing, drawn by Jeanne-Marie Efferding)

Corrie


(Robert Bonomi) wrote in message .com>...

> If I was designing a 'maximum visibility' paint scheme, *without*consideration*
> of esthetic appeal, assuming that the plane spent most of it's time in
> 'conventional' attitude, and was _slow_enough_ for color to be meaningful
> (e.g., no point in worrying about visibility for something with the flight
> characteristics of the SR-71 <grin>) I'd do something like:
>
> Underside of: wing, horiz. stab and elevators:
> Black, with outer 40% being safety orange
> Upper side of: wing, horiz stab and elevators:
> White, with at least two wide, _diagonal_, stripes of safety orange
> Vert. stab and rudder:
> safety orange
> Fuselage:
> 'Firewall forward' in safety orange
> Behind that, black/white checkerboard, with edges of the 'squares'
> down the middle of each side of the craft, and midline down the
> top and bottom of the fuselage.
>
> Might even consider doing 'reflective glitter' -- like the use for road signs
> in the white squares on the fuselage, and the orange striping on the upper
> side of the flight surfaces.
>
> For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of chess pieces
> in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the ground,
> but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from a non-
> trivial distance.
>
> Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good', just be
> *VISIBLE*.

[Model Flyer]

> >
> >Do you have data concerning what color is
> >more visible than black on a UK rainy day?
> >If so, source(s) would be appreciated.
>
> On the ground, it is the 'safety orange' that the old Yellow Cab
Company cabs
> used to be painted. The Cab Co. researched it, and then did some
experimenting
> before deploying it fleet-wide. That paint scheme (safety orange,
with the
> black front and rear quarter panels) cut their rate of being
involved in
> traffic accidents by more than 20%.
>

Sure it's not the disgusting color that kept people well away, who in
their right mind wants saftey orange scrape marks down the side of
their cars.:-)
--
---
Cheers,
Jonathan Lowe.
/
don't bother me with insignificiant nonsence such as spelling,
I don't care if it spelt properly
/
Sometimes I fly and sometimes I just dream about it.
:-)



> Aloft, the issue is *much* more complicated.
>
> "Visibility" is a function of:
> a) contrast to the background against which it is observed,
> b) sensitivity of the human eyeball.
> c) the -information- needed _from_ detecting the object.
> i.e., things are different if you just need to detect "it's
there",
> vs. determining 'aspect', and speed.
>
>
> For "just" spotting an object, a 'checkerboard' of highly
contrasting colors,
> with each square having a size _just_ bigger than the angular
acuity of
> the human eye at the maximum range that one can determine 'shape',
is
> most effective. One reason that the military used that scheme on
a lot of
> early trainer aircraft. And why stationary objects like
water-towers (near
> a flight path) and radio towers are often _still_ painted in that
kind of
> scheme today.
>
>
> At 'long distance', against a 'lit' sky, it pretty much "doesn't
matter" what
> color the thing is, it will appear "dark" -- whether it's painted
black
> or bright white.
>
> Color comes into play _only_ when the object is *close* enough for
the
> reflection off the object to approximately match the intensity of
the
> 'background'. At that point, the higher the _contrast_ with the
background,
> the better. Orange is good -- unless the background happens to be
an
> orange sunset -- or against some fall tree colors. Shades of blue
is generally
> a _bad_ choice, for obvious reasons. Gray/grey is definitely
un-good, if
> overcast skies are considered. Greens -- not good against
trees/crops, etc.
> Red/maroon/purple -- can have problems against a sunset. White?
forget
> about being seen against snow. and some clouds. Yellow? hard to
distinguish
> against 'bright' backgrounds. In short, you can't win. <wry
grin>
>
> The "best" solution is to use *multiple* colors.
>
>
>
> If I was designing a 'maximum visibility' paint scheme,
*without*consideration*
> of esthetic appeal, assuming that the plane spent most of it's time
in
> 'conventional' attitude, and was _slow_enough_ for color to be
meaningful
> (e.g., no point in worrying about visibility for something with the
flight
> characteristics of the SR-71 <grin>) I'd do something like:
>
> Underside of: wing, horiz. stab and elevators:
> Black, with outer 40% being safety orange
> Upper side of: wing, horiz stab and elevators:
> White, with at least two wide, _diagonal_, stripes of safety orange
> Vert. stab and rudder:
> safety orange
> Fuselage:
> 'Firewall forward' in safety orange
> Behind that, black/white checkerboard, with edges of the 'squares'
> down the middle of each side of the craft, and midline down the
> top and bottom of the fuselage.
>
> Might even consider doing 'reflective glitter' -- like the use for
road signs
> in the white squares on the fuselage, and the orange striping on
the upper
> side of the flight surfaces.
>
> For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of
chess pieces
> in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the
ground,
> but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from
a non-
> trivial distance.
>
> Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good',
just be
> *VISIBLE*.
>

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
RR Urban > wrote:
>
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
> <Lotsa' good stuff snipped for brevity>
>
>>For 'esthetic' appeal, I might add relatively -thin- outlines of chess pieces
>>in the fuselage squares. Visible at relatively close range, on the ground,
>>but not enough to break up the 'solid' color block when viewed from a non-
>>trivial distance.
>>
>>Again, though, this paint scheme *isn't* intended to 'look good', just be
>>*VISIBLE*.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Robert,
>I could not agree more with your dissertation.
>
>When it comes to safety orange...
>Have you ever found any that has decent color retention
>or am I thinking of Day-Glo Fluorescent or some such?
>
>
>Barnyard BOb --
>
>

*NOT* Day-Glo, which, by the way, is a trademarked brand. The actual
formulation of the dye may even be patented. Original application was
strictly for paper stocks -- signs, flyers, bumper-stickers, etc.
KRYLON has some spray acrylic paints that are similar in intensity,
but they do have a fading issue on prolonged exposure to sunlight.

I mean the one that was common on "Yellow Cabs", circa the 1950's. (before
Day Glo even _existed_ :) Also used on wing tips, etc. of many military,
particularly Navy, trainers.

The auto-paint version was extremely durable on the Cabs. Could hardly
tell a 15 year old panel, from one that was 3 months off the assembly-line.

I *think* Day Glo _does_ make genuine flourscent paints. Daylight-durable
ones. *EXPENSIVE* though -- like several _hundred_ dollars a gallon. And,
it requires a clear-coat on top of it.

[RR Urban]

>>Have you ever found any that has decent color retention
>>or am I thinking of Day-Glo Fluorescent or some such?
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb --
>>
>>
>
>*NOT* Day-Glo, which, by the way, is a trademarked brand. The actual
>formulation of the dye may even be patented. Original application was
>strictly for paper stocks -- signs, flyers, bumper-stickers, etc.
>KRYLON has some spray acrylic paints that are similar in intensity,
>but they do have a fading issue on prolonged exposure to sunlight.
>
>I mean the one that was common on "Yellow Cabs", circa the 1950's. (before
>Day Glo even _existed_ :) Also used on wing tips, etc. of many military,
>particularly Navy, trainers.
>
>The auto-paint version was extremely durable on the Cabs. Could hardly
>tell a 15 year old panel, from one that was 3 months off the assembly-line.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I did state "some such" as well as the trade marked "Day-Glo".
No need to get sidetracked or hung up over this minutia. <g>

FWIW...
On drab, dark and dank NYC streets with cabs inching along,
orange might be a good brand recognition thing, but from all
that I have gleaned so far...

A taxi cab environment or fire engine environment is
NOT the same as an aircraft environment. Nor are the
various lighting conditions equal. Drawing parallels without
convincing appropriate reinforcing data is pure folly.

When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?
What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?
In one scenario... the aircraft begins as a tiny black spec....
regardless of actual color, less than two miles out. In less than
18 IDEAL seconds you have a near miss or a brutal collision.


Barnyard BOb --

[Dave Hyde]

RR Urban wrote:

> When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
> research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?

I can't point you to research regarding a specific color,
but I can tell you that someone, Keith Ferris (the artist)
ISTR, has lectured on color and spotting.

> What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
> head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?

At these closure rates and times and considering you're not
always staring directly at the target in question the differences
in colors are probably minimal.

Dave 'glint' Hyde

[Scott McQueen]

In article >, RR Urban > wrote:

>
>When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
>research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?
>What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
>head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?
>In one scenario... the aircraft begins as a tiny black spec....
>regardless of actual color, less than two miles out. In less than
>18 IDEAL seconds you have a near miss or a brutal collision.
>

Why not use lights instead of paint? I would guess
that strobes on your wing tips and a pulsing Landing light
would make you far more visible than any paint scheme, even
in daylight.

[Robert Bonomi]

In article >,
RR Urban > wrote:
>
>>>Have you ever found any that has decent color retention
>>>or am I thinking of Day-Glo Fluorescent or some such?
>>>
>>>
>>>Barnyard BOb --
>>>
>>>
>>
>>*NOT* Day-Glo, which, by the way, is a trademarked brand. The actual
>>formulation of the dye may even be patented. Original application was
>>strictly for paper stocks -- signs, flyers, bumper-stickers, etc.
>>KRYLON has some spray acrylic paints that are similar in intensity,
>>but they do have a fading issue on prolonged exposure to sunlight.
>>
>>I mean the one that was common on "Yellow Cabs", circa the 1950's. (before
>>Day Glo even _existed_ :) Also used on wing tips, etc. of many military,
>>particularly Navy, trainers.
>>
>>The auto-paint version was extremely durable on the Cabs. Could hardly
>>tell a 15 year old panel, from one that was 3 months off the assembly-line.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>I did state "some such" as well as the trade marked "Day-Glo".
>No need to get sidetracked or hung up over this minutia. <g>
>
>FWIW...
>On drab, dark and dank NYC streets with cabs inching along,
>orange might be a good brand recognition thing, but from all
>that I have gleaned so far...
>
>A taxi cab environment or fire engine environment is
>NOT the same as an aircraft environment. Nor are the
>various lighting conditions equal. Drawing parallels without
>convincing appropriate reinforcing data is pure folly.
>
>When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
>research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?

Early MILITARY TRAINER AIRCRAFT used it for _exactly_ that reason.

>What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
>head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?
>
>In one scenario... the aircraft begins as a tiny black spec....

Yup. at "maximum range", color *IS* meaningless.

>regardless of actual color, less than two miles out. In less than
>18 IDEAL seconds you have a near miss or a brutal collision.

Which means that every fraction of a second of additional 'detection'
time counts. The 'tiny black spec...' constitutes "insufficient data"
as a basis to take _any_ kind of action. One has to observe it _long_
_enough_ to determine "apparent direction of travel", *and* that it is
in fact, closing on your position, before one can determine that an
avoidance manouver _will_ make the situation better.

In the first NINE seconds of that 18 IDEAL second interval, the apparent
diameter of that 'tiny black spec' has *only* increased by 2. It's
doubtful that this is enough of a change to determine that the object
_is_ closing on you. The next 4.5 seconds gives another doubling,
and in the 2.25 seconds after that it doubles again. *IF*YOU'RE*REALLY*
*OBSERVANT*, you've got about 5 seconds before the collision, when you
become 'aware' of the potential problem. More likely it's less than 3 seconds.
Human reaction time is about 3/4 of a second. Not counting any 'panic'.

Depending on how long it takes the change in controls to materially affect
the craft, you've got _real_ problems.

[RR Urban]

>>When it comes to AIRCRAFT visibility, who can point to appropriate
>>research recommending orange as an OUTSTANDING color?
>>What might its value be for exceptionally small aircraft approaching
>>head on in bright light with closure rates of nearly 400 mph?
>>In one scenario... the aircraft begins as a tiny black spec....
>>regardless of actual color, less than two miles out. In less than
>>18 IDEAL seconds you have a near miss or a brutal collision.
>>
>
>Why not use lights instead of paint? I would guess
>that strobes on your wing tips and a pulsing Landing light
>would make you far more visible than any paint scheme, even
>in daylight.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I run strobes all the time.
For whatever reason, they seems to be as invisible as the RV-3.
Next in line might be full time WIG WAG landing lights that won't
be seen in the head on situation, either.

FWIW...
All this still assumes that the oncoming pilot has his head outside
the cockpit and looking for the potential head on. While I'm
wishing... it would be super peachy if the other pilot was at the
appropriate altitude for his/her magnetic heading, too.

For far too many of the near misses encountered.....
there appears to be blatant violations of both.
In these instances, no sort of light or paint is useful.
Like it is with motorcycle riders that are legendarily unseen....
The answer appears to be that one must be vigilant and defense
against all parties concerned. Otherwise, you can be DEAD right.

P.S.
Any info on those black boxes that I would deem... TCAS lite?


Barnyard BOb -

[Rich S.]

"RR Urban" > wrote in message
...
>
> I run strobes all the time.
> For whatever reason, they seems to be as invisible as the RV-3.
> Next in line might be full time WIG WAG landing lights that won't
> be seen in the head on situation, either.

I recommend installation and constant use of a red, white and blue smoke
system like Julie Clark's, firing off anti-missile flares every ten seconds,
and playing your choice of a John Phillip Sousa composition at a similar
volume to that of a teenager's Honda Civic. May I suggest either "The
Thunderer" or "The Mystic Nobles of the Ancient Shrine"?

I am told that an aircraft configured as such may routinely traverse TFR's
with impunity.

Rich "Ba-Da-Bump" S.