Off The Wall Questions!!!!!!!!!!!!

[COLIN LAMB]

Hey, I was the kid that aksed questions in school that made the teacher
wonder if they were in the right class so here goes:

1. If I built a large domed building, could I fly my helicopter inside
without a helicopter license? I know there is some debate about needing a
pilot license if you do not carry passengers - but in our state, at least,
you do need a pilot license to fly.

2. Someone told me that if you dragged a rope behind an airplane and it
touched the ground at all times, you are not actually flying according to
the FAA. Unfortunately, I could not find this statement in the FAR. I
guess this might be answered by the question of needing a license to pilot a
tethered balloon (with passengers)?

3. If I am in a glider connected to an airplane by a rope, and the pilot ot
the airplane controls where I go, and I never detach, why would I need a
glider license?

4. How high does Class A airspace extend?

Hey, it is Friday. The first question popped up this afternoon during a
practice autorotation. All the way back from the airport, the questions
kept coming.

Colin

[Bret Ludwig]

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> Hey, I was the kid that aksed questions in school that made the teacher
> wonder if they were in the right class so here goes:
>
> 1. If I built a large domed building, could I fly my helicopter inside
> without a helicopter license? I know there is some debate about needing a
> pilot license if you do not carry passengers - but in our state, at least,
> you do need a pilot license to fly.

As a practical matter, yes.

>
> 2. Someone told me that if you dragged a rope behind an airplane and it
> touched the ground at all times, you are not actually flying according to
> the FAA. Unfortunately, I could not find this statement in the FAR. I
> guess this might be answered by the question of needing a license to pilot a
> tethered balloon (with passengers)?

Simply dragging the rope is not enough. You must have one end solidly
secured to ground.

>
> 3. If I am in a glider connected to an airplane by a rope, and the pilot ot
> the airplane controls where I go, and I never detach, why would I need a
> glider license?

Because you are pilot in command of an aircraft. HOWEVER, if you are
on a car or boat tow, it is not an aircraft. There were plans in
Popular Mechanix for floating primary gliders in the old days, the big
attraction was you could "fly" with no license. It was illegal to pull
the release except in an emergency, but since neither the nonaircraft
nor the nonpilot were licensed, no one including the FAA much cared.

[Tim Ward]

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> 4. How high does Class A airspace extend?
>
> Hey, it is Friday. The first question popped up this afternoon during a
> practice autorotation. All the way back from the airport, the questions
> kept coming.
>
> Colin

18,000 up to and including FL 600 is Class A. Above that, it's clase E .

Part 71.31 defines Class A
Part 71.71 defines Class E

Tim Ward

[Stealth Pilot]

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 02:24:33 GMT, "COLIN LAMB" >
wrote:

I found these questions quite funny because of the total divorcement
from reality that they represent.

>Hey, I was the kid that aksed questions in school that made the teacher
>wonder if they were in the right class so here goes:
>
>1. If I built a large domed building, could I fly my helicopter inside
>without a helicopter license? I know there is some debate about needing a
>pilot license if you do not carry passengers - but in our state, at least,
>you do need a pilot license to fly.
>
of course you could. but just touch one of the blade tips against the
surface of the building for just a moment and you'll know why people
call out "hey carumba". ...actually it will happen so fast that the
carumba part make never make it into the light of day.

>2. Someone told me that if you dragged a rope behind an airplane and it
>touched the ground at all times, you are not actually flying according to
>the FAA. Unfortunately, I could not find this statement in the FAR. I
>guess this might be answered by the question of needing a license to pilot a
>tethered balloon (with passengers)?

ok an aircraft takes off at say 50 knots, climbs out at say 70 knots
and cruises at 100 to 120knots. and say you fly for one hour.
where are you going to find enough ground totally clear of powerlines,
fences and trees to be able to drag that rope without it snagging
something?
if you have such a space then it is probably so remote that you could
get away with it without anyone ever finding out. the first snag you
hit would sort you out well and truely though.

>
>3. If I am in a glider connected to an airplane by a rope, and the pilot ot
>the airplane controls where I go, and I never detach, why would I need a
>glider license?
>
physics again comes to the rescue of the world in the face of this
lunacy. you obviously have not the faintest appreciation for the
turbulence of slipstreams, the dynamics of operating long winged
aircraft close to the earth's surface and a few other real world
considerations. ...lets just say that there is a lot for you to find
out :-)
go for it!

>4. How high does Class A airspace extend?
>
to the top of the flyable atmosphere.

>Hey, it is Friday. The first question popped up this afternoon during a
>practice autorotation. All the way back from the airport, the questions
>kept coming.

obviously you are taking some medication that you forgot that day :-)
try not to let it happen again.

Stealth Pilot
Australia

[Vaughn]

"COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> 3. If I am in a glider connected to an airplane by a rope, and the pilot ot
> the airplane controls where I go...

I would really like to put you in the front seat of a glider and let you
try it. You will instantly find that the "pilot ot
the airplane controls" does NOT control where the glider goes. The glider does
not willingly and automatically follow the tow plane like a trailer follows a
car. The experience is much the same as formation flying, if you wish to remain
connected to the airplane, you must very precisely coordinate stick and rudder
to follow. As a glider instructor, I have watched many an experienced airplane
pilot sweat as they try it for the first time. Like riding a bicycle, once the
skill is learned it becomes automatic.

Vaughn

[COLIN LAMB]

1. If I built a large domed building, could I fly my helicopter inside
> without a helicopter license? I know there is some debate about needing a
> pilot license if you do not carry passengers - but in our state, at least,
> you do need a pilot license to fly.

As a practical matter, yes.

But, what if the large domed building is privately owned "Superdome" with
40,000 spectators?

[COLIN LAMB]

> 3. If I am in a glider connected to an airplane by a rope, and the pilot
> ot
> the airplane controls where I go, and I never detach, why would I need a
> glider license?

"Because you are pilot in command of an aircraft. HOWEVER, if you are on a
car or boat tow, it is not an aircraft. There were plans in Popular Mechanix
for floating primary gliders in the old days, the big attraction was you
could "fly" with no license. It was illegal to pull the release except in an
emergency, but since neither the nonaircraft nor the nonpilot were licensed,
no one including the FAA much cared."

Response: So that means I could hook up a glider to a car and tow it around
the desert without a license? I am also a glider pilot, certified for all
three types of launch and I did fly at the Alvord Desert this summer, towed
behind a 1972 Buick Riviera known as the "Brown Turd". We used a 3,500 foot
cable and could climb at 1200 feet per minute up to 2,000 feet (the release
point). Although I did release and did fly the glider legally, the car
could have gone in circles around the edge of the desert while I was
descending and come back down without releasing. On numerous occasions, we
brought the glider back behind a low car tow and never released until the
last few feet of the ground.

Hey, it is not Friday anymore, guess I should go outside and get ready for
winter.

Colin

[COLIN LAMB]

Well, I am a glider pilot, certified for all 3 launch types. I never
questioned whether it was easy, just what the limits of legality were. You
do not have to be safe or smart to be a pilot. In fact my wife thinks the
contrary is true.

And, yes, my glider instructor claimed I made him sick flying in the back
seat of the glider while I cross controlled "kicking" the yarn, while
transistioning to gliders.

[COLIN LAMB]

Hey Tim, you get an A for knowing the regs.

[Wayne Paul]

"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > 3. If I am in a glider connected to an airplane by a rope, and the
pilot ot
> > the airplane controls where I go...
>
> I would really like to put you in the front seat of a glider and let
you
> try it. You will instantly find that the "pilot ot
> the airplane controls" does NOT control where the glider goes. The
glider does
> not willingly and automatically follow the tow plane like a trailer
follows a
> car. The experience is much the same as formation flying, if you wish to
remain
> connected to the airplane, you must very precisely coordinate stick and
rudder
> to follow. As a glider instructor, I have watched many an experienced
airplane
> pilot sweat as they try it for the first time. Like riding a bicycle,
once the
> skill is learned it becomes automatic.
>
> Vaughn
>
If flying on tow isn't a big enough challenge, landing on tow should be a
lot of fun!! The procedure has been discussed on rec.aviation.soaring in
the unlikely event that both the tow plane and the glider have release
failures. Some believe that we should actually practice doing it.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

[Tim Ward]

"Wayne Paul" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Vaughn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "COLIN LAMB" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > 3. If I am in a glider connected to an airplane by a rope, and the
> pilot ot
> > > the airplane controls where I go...
> >
> > I would really like to put you in the front seat of a glider and
let
> you
> > try it. You will instantly find that the "pilot ot
> > the airplane controls" does NOT control where the glider goes. The
> glider does
> > not willingly and automatically follow the tow plane like a trailer
> follows a
> > car. The experience is much the same as formation flying, if you wish
to
> remain
> > connected to the airplane, you must very precisely coordinate stick and
> rudder
> > to follow. As a glider instructor, I have watched many an experienced
> airplane
> > pilot sweat as they try it for the first time. Like riding a bicycle,
> once the
> > skill is learned it becomes automatic.
> >
> > Vaughn
> >
> If flying on tow isn't a big enough challenge, landing on tow should be a
> lot of fun!! The procedure has been discussed on rec.aviation.soaring in
> the unlikely event that both the tow plane and the glider have release
> failures. Some believe that we should actually practice doing it.
>
> Wayne
> HP-14 N990 "6F"
> http://www.soaridaho.com/

Heh. I actually did a touch and go under tow as a student pilot with an
instructor. It was a weird feeling, making a much longer, much flatter
approach than usual. Not much I could do about it. Dropped to low tow on
final, touched down first, waited for the towplane to touch down, Then he
added power and we did another pattern tow, where I actually released.

Tim Ward

[[email protected]]

Wayne Paul > wrote:

> If flying on tow isn't a big enough challenge, landing on tow should be a
> lot of fun!! The procedure has been discussed on rec.aviation.soaring in
> the unlikely event that both the tow plane and the glider have release
> failures. Some believe that we should actually practice doing it.

I, for one, believe we should actually practice doing it. I was
trained to do it, I've done it 3 times, and I don't see a problem.
Yes, I did it all 3 times with less than 25 hours in gliders and less
than 100 hours in airplanes... and I am certainly NOT God's gift to
aviation... they taught me and I learned!

I would MUCH rather land on tow than attempt to break the rope after a
double release failure AND a double weak link failure (which is one
way to get into this situation). Landing on tow was a non-event.

Best regards,

Jer/ "Flight instruction and mountain flying are my vocation!" Eberhard

--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, Mountain Flying Aviation, LTD, Ft Collins, CO
CELL 970 231-6325 EMAIL jer'at'frii.com WEB http://users.frii.com/jer/
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane&Glider, FAA-DEN Aviation Safety Counselor
CAP-CO Mission&Aircraft CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 234 Young Eagles!

[Doc Font]

In article . com>,
"Bret Ludwig" > wrote:

> There were plans in
> Popular Mechanix for floating primary gliders in the old days, the big
> attraction was you could "fly" with no license. It was illegal to pull
> the release except in an emergency, but since neither the nonaircraft
> nor the nonpilot were licensed, no one including the FAA much cared.
>

I think you mean this one;
http://vulatalk.zdwebhosting.com/pictures2/aqua/Page.html

The "bigosh" was a tow behind a pickup land version;
http://vulatalk.zdwebhosting.com/pictures2/gliders/Page.html

DocFont

[[email protected]]

I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.

By extension, with a long enough rope you should be able to fasten a
rope to the ground, take off, and then fly in circles around the end of
the rope. Repeat until you get dizzy and crash.

I don't want to try it. But I want to watch.

Dave
www.davewilson.cc

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
> a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
> tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
> could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
> person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.

I've heard some pretty wild urban legends, but this has to be one of the
best.

Matt

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
>> a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
>> tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
>> could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
>> person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.
>
>
> I've heard some pretty wild urban legends, but this has to be one of the
> best.
>
> Matt


It's not an urban legend. It's been done for decades. The bucket
never reaches the ground, but a man can drop someing in or take
something out when it gets to shoulder height. There's a picture of it
being done in a mid 1960s National Geographic. There was a discussion
about it in rec.aviation.military a year or two ago.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <14h3f.1550$vE5.742@lakeread03>,
"Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
> >> a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
> >> tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
> >> could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
> >> person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.
> >
> >
> > I've heard some pretty wild urban legends, but this has to be one of the
> > best.
> >
> > Matt
>
>
> It's not an urban legend. It's been done for decades. The bucket
> never reaches the ground, but a man can drop someing in or take
> something out when it gets to shoulder height. There's a picture of it
> being done in a mid 1960s National Geographic. There was a discussion
> about it in rec.aviation.military a year or two ago.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It is also the principle of gunships, which do the same thing, only with
guns pointed out the side of the plane. The early gunships used a crude
sight taped or painted on the side window.

[Montblack]

("Matt Whiting" wrote)
>> I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
>> a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
>> tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
>> could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
>> person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.

> I've heard some pretty wild urban legends, but this has to be one of the
> best.


Interesting rope and bucket discussions in rec.aviation.student (2001).

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M3D8128FB #1
(same link as below ...wait for it)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?L3F8138FB #2
(same link as below ...wait for it)

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_frm/thread/1f9d8990c6ae73b2/b9eece1a17758fd5?q=rope+%2B+bucket&rnum=2&hl=en#b9eece1a17758fd5>

<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/browse_frm/thread/70991ad51db474e9/4c185d49d884a830?q=rope+%2B+bucket&rnum=3&hl=en#4c185d49d884a830>


Montblack

[Matt Whiting]

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
>>> a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
>>> tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
>>> could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
>>> person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've heard some pretty wild urban legends, but this has to be one of
>> the best.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
>
> It's not an urban legend. It's been done for decades. The bucket never
> reaches the ground, but a man can drop someing in or take something out
> when it gets to shoulder height. There's a picture of it being done in a
> mid 1960s National Geographic. There was a discussion about it in
> rec.aviation.military a year or two ago.

Maybe I'm not getting the full picture here, but it seems at first blush
that this would require the Cub to be able to fly a zero radius turn.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article <14h3f.1550$vE5.742@lakeread03>,
> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote:
>
>
>>Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
>>>>a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
>>>>tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
>>>>could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
>>>>person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've heard some pretty wild urban legends, but this has to be one of the
>>>best.
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> It's not an urban legend. It's been done for decades. The bucket
>>never reaches the ground, but a man can drop someing in or take
>>something out when it gets to shoulder height. There's a picture of it
>>being done in a mid 1960s National Geographic. There was a discussion
>>about it in rec.aviation.military a year or two ago.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
> It is also the principle of gunships, which do the same thing, only with
> guns pointed out the side of the plane. The early gunships used a crude
> sight taped or painted on the side window.

Not, not the same at all. The bullets aren't going straight down, they
are going at some angle to the ground and landing well away from the
airplane. How do you get the bucket and rope to stay at an angle to the
airplane and follow the same path the bullets would follow. I'm still
not getting the physics of how this would work.

Matt

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> In article <14h3f.1550$vE5.742@lakeread03>,
>> "Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
>>>>> a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
>>>>> tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
>>>>> could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
>>>>> person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've heard some pretty wild urban legends, but this has to be one of
>>>> the best.
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's not an urban legend. It's been done for decades. The bucket
>>> never reaches the ground, but a man can drop someing in or take
>>> something out when it gets to shoulder height. There's a picture of
>>> it being done in a mid 1960s National Geographic. There was a
>>> discussion about it in rec.aviation.military a year or two ago.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>>
>> It is also the principle of gunships, which do the same thing, only
>> with guns pointed out the side of the plane. The early gunships used a
>> crude sight taped or painted on the side window.
>
>
> Not, not the same at all. The bullets aren't going straight down, they
> are going at some angle to the ground and landing well away from the
> airplane. How do you get the bucket and rope to stay at an angle to the
> airplane and follow the same path the bullets would follow. I'm still
> not getting the physics of how this would work.
>
> Matt

Take a rope or chain with a small weight on the end. Let it hang
straight down from your hand, now move your hand rapidly on a small
circle. Once you obtain a spin in the rope make the circle bigger and
slower. With a little practice you can get the weighted end to remain
stationary in space spinning at the same rate as your circle. Same
principal.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[bowman]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Maybe I'm not getting the full picture here, but it seems at first blush
> that this would require the Cub to be able to fly a zero radius turn.
>

Picture a conic section with the bucket at the vertex and the rope
describing the generatrices.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Frank]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I read a story about bush flying in a Cub, where the pilot would lower
>>>> a bucket out the window on a rope. He would then go into a constant
>>>> tight banked turn, with one wing of the Cub pointed at the bucket. He
>>>> could spiral down, and place the bucket stationary on the ground, so a
>>>> person on the ground could drop off or retrieve small objects.

>>
>> It's not an urban legend. It's been done for decades. The bucket
>> never reaches the ground, but a man can drop someing in or take
>> something out when it gets to shoulder height. There's a picture of it
>> being done in a mid 1960s National Geographic. There was a discussion
>> about it in rec.aviation.military a year or two ago.
>
> Maybe I'm not getting the full picture here, but it seems at first blush
> that this would require the Cub to be able to fly a zero radius turn.

I have met a guy who claimed to have done it as part of an airshow,
using a Tiger Moth. He said that he used about 1500 feet of rope. Must
have been a bit of pain lowering and raising the bucket.

I think the whole thing depends on the bucket's drag, the rope's drag,
and the flexibility of the rope. The bucket lags behind the plane, and
the flexibility means that the bucket's horizontal position tending
towards the average of the horizontal position of the plane. If the rope
is long enough, then it becomes stationary.

[Richard Lamb]

Actually, this one it true, Matt.

The technique was first used (AFAIK) by the Wycliff Bible Translators
as a way to deliver
small loads to jungle missionaries.

Richard

[[email protected]]

On 13 Oct 2005 13:06:32 -0700, "Richard Lamb" >
wrote:

>Actually, this one it true, Matt.
>
>The technique was first used (AFAIK) by the Wycliff Bible Translators
>as a way to deliver
>small loads to jungle missionaries.
>
>Richard

Don't THINK that was the first use, but it was definitely an early
use. The bucket could get into terrain you would never land a plane
in, and unteathered drops were too easy to lose.

[Rich S.]

> wrote in message
...
> On 13 Oct 2005 13:06:32 -0700, "Richard Lamb" >
> wrote:
>
>>Actually, this one it true, Matt.
>>
>>The technique was first used (AFAIK) by the Wycliff Bible Translators
>>as a way to deliver
>>small loads to jungle missionaries.
>>
>>Richard
>
> Don't THINK that was the first use, but it was definitely an early
> use. The bucket could get into terrain you would never land a plane
> in, and unteathered drops were too easy to lose.

Nate Saint, a missionary aviator in Ecuador, was the inventor of the
technique.

Rich S.

[Cy Galley]

I believe I saw it in an issue of Popular Science being used by the Army
Air Corp during THE WAR.


"Rich S." > wrote in message
. ..
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 13 Oct 2005 13:06:32 -0700, "Richard Lamb" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, this one it true, Matt.
>>>
>>>The technique was first used (AFAIK) by the Wycliff Bible Translators
>>>as a way to deliver
>>>small loads to jungle missionaries.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>
>> Don't THINK that was the first use, but it was definitely an early
>> use. The bucket could get into terrain you would never land a plane
>> in, and unteathered drops were too easy to lose.
>
> Nate Saint, a missionary aviator in Ecuador, was the inventor of the
> technique.
>
> Rich S.
>

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:38:11 -0700, "Rich S."
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>> On 13 Oct 2005 13:06:32 -0700, "Richard Lamb" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Actually, this one it true, Matt.
>>>
>>>The technique was first used (AFAIK) by the Wycliff Bible Translators
>>>as a way to deliver
>>>small loads to jungle missionaries.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>
>> Don't THINK that was the first use, but it was definitely an early
>> use. The bucket could get into terrain you would never land a plane
>> in, and unteathered drops were too easy to lose.
>
>Nate Saint, a missionary aviator in Ecuador, was the inventor of the
>technique.
>
>Rich S.
>
-That's Correct - it was Mission Aviation Fellowship, not
Wycliffe/Jaars.

I just knew Wycliffe didn't sound right.

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:00:39 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
wrote:

>I believe I saw it in an issue of Popular Science being used by the Army
>Air Corp during THE WAR.
>
Korean war perhaps? Nate Saint was in the US Airforce in the second
world war, and apparently perfected the technique in the early
fifties.

[Rich S.]

> wrote in message
...
> -That's Correct - it was Mission Aviation Fellowship, not
> Wycliffe/Jaars.
>
> I just knew Wycliffe didn't sound right.

And all this time I thought it was the Moody Bible Institute at the
Moody-Wooddale airport near Chicago. :)

Rich S.

[Cy Galley]

Sorry youngster, it was WW2.


> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:00:39 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
> wrote:
>
>>I believe I saw it in an issue of Popular Science being used by the Army
>>Air Corp during THE WAR.
>>
> Korean war perhaps? Nate Saint was in the US Airforce in the second
> world war, and apparently perfected the technique in the early
> fifties.

[Mark Hickey]

bowman > wrote:

>Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> Maybe I'm not getting the full picture here, but it seems at first blush
>> that this would require the Cub to be able to fly a zero radius turn.
>
>Picture a conic section with the bucket at the vertex and the rope
>describing the generatrices.

If the pilot's willing to try a stunt like this one, his generatrices
must be huge!

Mark Hickey

[Richard Lamb]

Well, I was only 12 when I read the book.
Heck, I can't even remember the title now...

Richard

[Frank]

wrote:
> Don't THINK that was the first use, but it was definitely an early
> use. The bucket could get into terrain you would never land a plane
> in, and unteathered drops were too easy to lose.

The date I have here for Paul Beauchamp Legg in ZK-ARJ at the Hokitika
Air Pageant is Dec 11th 1960.

There's about a half-A4-page description in his book "West Coast
Memories"... taking off with 1500' of rope laid out on the runway ahead,
circling at 1000' and getting the bottom end securely attached to the
ground, and then attempting to slide a dummy down the rope, controlling
its speed by tension on the rope. Its not stated, but no doubt the
airshow crowd was told it was a real person descending the rope. Except
the dummy got snagged and the rope and dummy had to be cut away. He says
in the book that he'd done it successfully many times before.

[[email protected]]

On 13 Oct 2005 20:45:18 -0700, "Richard Lamb" >
wrote:

>Well, I was only 12 when I read the book.
>Heck, I can't even remember the title now...
>
>Richard

Through Gates of Splendour