Libelle Camelbak stowage

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

A long while back somebody (Ian Molesworth?) mentioned "lashing a
Camelbak under the beam supporting the stick" in a Standard Libelle.

With the season visible on the horizon I'm wondering how he did that.
There's obviously sufficient space available under the beam and little
chance of fouling the controls because the stick linkages are are inside
the beam and the rudder cables run in plastic tubes attached to the
cockpit walls. My question is - how is the Camelbak tied down to stop it
getting where it shouldn't be? There are no obvious tie down points in
that area.

If anybody on r.a.s has done this I'd very much like to know the secret.

TIA
Martin


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Sarah]

Good heavens. Do I understand you to mean under the seat pan? Why on
earth would you want to take such a chance? "Little chance" is too
much for me. I put the water in a pouch behind the seat backor stuffed
behind my head.

Sarah

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> A long while back somebody (Ian Molesworth?) mentioned "lashing a
> Camelbak under the beam supporting the stick" in a Standard Libelle.
>
> With the season visible on the horizon I'm wondering how he did that.
> There's obviously sufficient space available under the beam and little
> chance of fouling the controls because the stick linkages are are inside
> the beam and the rudder cables run in plastic tubes attached to the
> cockpit walls. My question is - how is the Camelbak tied down to stop it
> getting where it shouldn't be? There are no obvious tie down points in
> that area.
>
> If anybody on r.a.s has done this I'd very much like to know the secret.
>
> TIA
> Martin
>
>
> --
> martin@ | Martin Gregorie
> gregorie. | Essex, UK
> org |

[Gav Goudie]

Why dont you just put it behind your head like everyone
else?!

The seat pan / control column support wasnt designed
to have a camelbak 'lashed' to it and its easier to
work with gravity than against it!!

Gav

At 22:06 11 January 2007, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>A long while back somebody (Ian Molesworth?) mentioned
>'lashing a
>Camelbak under the beam supporting the stick' in a
>Standard Libelle.
>
>With the season visible on the horizon I'm wondering
>how he did that.
>There's obviously sufficient space available under
>the beam and little
>chance of fouling the controls because the stick linkages
>are are inside
>the beam and the rudder cables run in plastic tubes
>attached to the
>cockpit walls. My question is - how is the Camelbak
>tied down to stop it
>getting where it shouldn't be? There are no obvious
>tie down points in
>that area.
>
>If anybody on r.a.s has done this I'd very much like
>to know the secret.
>
>TIA
>Martin
>
>
>--
>martin@ | Martin Gregorie
>gregorie. | Essex, UK
>org |
>

[jcarlyle]

I, like probably most glider pilots, put my Camelbak behind my head
next to my battery. But a cautionary tale seems appropriate here.

Last Summer a club member had his glider totaled when his battery set
fire to his empty Camelbak. The probable causes, pinched wires and too
big a battery fuse, were certainly preventable. However, it's clear
that the Camelbak acted as tinder for the overheated battery, and the
fire may not have occurred if the Camelbak hadn't been placed next to
the battery.

-John

Gav Goudie wrote:
> Why dont you just put it behind your head like everyone
> else?!
>
> The seat pan / control column support wasnt designed
> to have a camelbak 'lashed' to it and its easier to
> work with gravity than against it!!

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

Gav Goudie wrote:
> Why dont you just put it behind your head like everyone
> else?!
>
As I said at the start, I'd seen somebody else claim he did this and I
want to know how, because there are no lashing points to prevent
anything placed there to get amongst the rudder pedals or disapear under
the pan during a winch launch. That doesn't mean I'd do it: I'm allergic
to loose stuff getting to where it shouldn't be.

I have a spar-top bag that will take the Camelbak and a fleece but
little else: some place to put the canopy cover would be nice too.

Is there an issue with the Camelbak dribbling down your neck or on your
pants (if you leave the tube dangling) if its behind your head?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

jcarlyle wrote:
> I, like probably most glider pilots, put my Camelbak behind my head
> next to my battery. But a cautionary tale seems appropriate here.
>
> Last Summer a club member had his glider totaled when his battery set
> fire to his empty Camelbak. The probable causes, pinched wires and too
> big a battery fuse, were certainly preventable. However, it's clear
> that the Camelbak acted as tinder for the overheated battery, and the
> fire may not have occurred if the Camelbak hadn't been placed next to
> the battery.
>
Ouch. But, surely that means putting the Camelbak through the hatch
behind the spars? That makes my teeth itch: there are far too many
control runs back there for it to get tangled up with.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Papa3]

Leaving aside the fire or short issue, you need to consider what it
would feel like to be hit in the back of the head with an 80 lb sack.
Many of the first and second generation gliders have the "storage
shelf" level with the back of the pilot's head and nothing (no bulkhead
or other structure except a flimsy headrest) in between. A gallon of
water weighs about 8 lbs, and it's very possible to induce a rapid 10G
deceleration in an otherwise survivable crash (many texts talk about
survivable 20G pulses). 10Gs operating on 8lbs of water with a
straight shot to the back of your head or neck could put you in a world
of hurt.

At minumum, you need to have a system of tying the bag down to some
solid structure. If using the shelf, you'll probably need to run
anchor bolts down to the bulkhead surrounding the landing gear. LS,
for example, has very detailed instructions on doing this.

I've seen a couple of guys go to the trouble of mounting water supplies
behind the main bulkead (in front of the spars and out of the way of
the mixers/ control rods). They fill the supply through a tube. I
would worry about cleaning the container out periodically lest it get
funky over time, but I'm sure they've thought of this.

Cheers,

Erik Mann
LS8-18 P3






jcarlyle wrote:
> I, like probably most glider pilots, put my Camelbak behind my head
> next to my battery. But a cautionary tale seems appropriate here.
>
> Last Summer a club member had his glider totaled when his battery set
> fire to his empty Camelbak. The probable causes, pinched wires and too
> big a battery fuse, were certainly preventable. However, it's clear
> that the Camelbak acted as tinder for the overheated battery, and the
> fire may not have occurred if the Camelbak hadn't been placed next to
> the battery.
>
> -John
>
> Gav Goudie wrote:
> > Why dont you just put it behind your head like everyone
> > else?!
> >
> > The seat pan / control column support wasnt designed
> > to have a camelbak 'lashed' to it and its easier to
> > work with gravity than against it!!

[jcarlyle]

I put the Camelbak just in back of my head, in front of the spars,
wrapping its harness around the spar safety pins to keep it secure.
Nothing else is there except for the battery, so there's no need to
fret about fouling flight controls.

My Camelbak will indeed leak if the tube isn't kept nearly horizontal.
When I put it in the plane I route the tube outside the cockpit, and
after I'm in I route it over my shoulder and then under my shoulder
harness. Once (but only once) I got out and left the tube dangling on
the seat. I discovered after I'd gotten in again that it takes a long
time for your pants and underpants to dry out... <grin>

-John

Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
> Ouch. But, surely that means putting the Camelbak through the hatch
> behind the spars? That makes my teeth itch: there are far too many
> control runs back there for it to get tangled up with.
>
> (from another message)
>
> Is there an issue with the Camelbak dribbling down your neck or on your
> pants (if you leave the tube dangling) if its behind your head?

[Nyal Williams]

I put mine right beside me on my right side with no
further tiedown (Discus B) standing upright and behind
the back rest. (I'm a little guy and there is enough
room for that; don't remember about the Libelle cockpit
arrangement.

Why not put it in front of your chest under the harness?
Again, a little guy solution.

At 19:36 12 January 2007, Jcarlyle wrote:
>I put the Camelbak just in back of my head, in front
>of the spars,
>wrapping its harness around the spar safety pins to
>keep it secure.
>Nothing else is there except for the battery, so there's
>no need to
>fret about fouling flight controls.
>
>My Camelbak will indeed leak if the tube isn't kept
>nearly horizontal.
>When I put it in the plane I route the tube outside
>the cockpit, and
>after I'm in I route it over my shoulder and then under
>my shoulder
>harness. Once (but only once) I got out and left the
>tube dangling on
>the seat. I discovered after I'd gotten in again that
>it takes a long
>time for your pants and underpants to dry out...
>
>-John
>
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>
>> Ouch. But, surely that means putting the Camelbak
>>through the hatch
>> behind the spars? That makes my teeth itch: there
>>are far too many
>> control runs back there for it to get tangled up with.
>>
>> (from another message)
>>
>> Is there an issue with the Camelbak dribbling down
>>your neck or on your
>> pants (if you leave the tube dangling) if its behind
>>your head?
>
>

[jcarlyle]

Were that I were little, Nyal - or at least littler! <grin> I should
have said before that I'm flying an ASW-19, it's Martin who's
interested in the Libelle libation setup.

That said, at first I did try putting the Camelbak behind the seat, but
found there wasn't enough room since I've got to have it all the way
back. I don't think I could put it on my chest after I've got the
parachute on, but then I haven't tried. Basically, I'm satisfied with
it in front of the spars, as I've checked my electrical system and I
make sure it's fastened to the spar pins so it can't become a
projectile.

-John

Nyal Williams wrote:
> I put mine right beside me on my right side with no
> further tiedown (Discus B) standing upright and behind
> the back rest. (I'm a little guy and there is enough
> room for that; don't remember about the Libelle cockpit
> arrangement.
>
> Why not put it in front of your chest under the harness?
> Again, a little guy solution.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

jcarlyle wrote:
> I put the Camelbak just in back of my head, in front of the spars,
> wrapping its harness around the spar safety pins to keep it secure.
> Nothing else is there except for the battery, so there's no need to
> fret about fouling flight controls.
>
Nice. The only trouble is that I carefully trimmed the straps off the
Camelbak to stop them tangling round things they shouldn't ought to.
Back then I was flying the club's Pegase and the Camelbak sat nicely
behind the adjustable seat back. I've wondered about doing the same in
the Libelle: its only a 1.5 litre Camelbak so it may be possible to sit
it in behind the top of the seat.

I take the points made about being clouted round the ears by the water
supply: actually, a gallon of water weighs 10 lbs, not 8. My Camelbak is
only 1.5 kg (3.5 lbs but still.... My spar-top bag clips onto the
grunging bar studs so it may restrain a Camelbak that's on the inside.
That certainly needs investigation.

> My Camelbak will indeed leak if the tube isn't kept nearly horizontal.
>
I thought that might be the case. BTW, I've sat on the valve too when it
got down between me and the side of the seat pan.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

jcarlyle wrote:
> Were that I were little, Nyal - or at least littler! <grin> I should
> have said before that I'm flying an ASW-19, it's Martin who's
> interested in the Libelle libation setup.
>
Ah Ha. *NOW* I understand how you tied it to the wing pins. I was
wondering! That would also work for a Pegase or ASW-20 but not for a
Libelle with its single wing pin.

However, I could probably use a double keyhole in an alloy plate to tie
it to the grunging pins on top of the spars. Said pins are like the
heads of two rather large nails that project from the tops of the spars
and are used with the grunging bar[1] to pull the wings together during
rigging.

[1] general term in the Cambridge club for this tool. SZD Juniors
and Kestrels also have grunging bars.


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Andy[_1_]]

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> actually, a gallon of water weighs 10 lbs, not 8.

That depend on which side of the pond you are on. Despite the American
proclivity for having everything oversize, their gallon is a wimp of a
portion as are their pints of beer.


Andy

[Papa3]

Andy wrote:
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > actually, a gallon of water weighs 10 lbs, not 8.
>
> That depend on which side of the pond you are on. Despite the American
> proclivity for having everything oversize, their gallon is a wimp of a
> portion as are their pints of beer.
>
>
> Andy

Roger that. Explains how that Air Canada 767 got into trouble,
doesn't it :-)

Maybe it ought to be Gaylon or Galoun vs. Gallon.

[jcarlyle]

No problem - just measure everything in ounces! The American pint is 16
ounces, the British pint is 20 ounces, etc., etc. Who needs Gaylon,
Galoun, Gallons, Imperial or otherwise? <grin> OK, OK, for the purists
the Imperial fluid ounce is 1.04 American fluid ounces - close enough
for government work.

On the subject of beer, I'm a Yank but after spending 8 plus years in
Britain I've thoroughly converted to the viewpoint that what we Yanks
call beer should be put back into the horse! Except for Yuengling,
Saranac, or River Horse, of course....YMMV

-John


Papa3 wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> > Martin Gregorie wrote:
> > > actually, a gallon of water weighs 10 lbs, not 8.
> >
> > That depend on which side of the pond you are on. Despite the American
> > proclivity for having everything oversize, their gallon is a wimp of a
> > portion as are their pints of beer.
> >
> >
> > Andy
>
> Roger that. Explains how that Air Canada 767 got into trouble,
> doesn't it :-)
>
> Maybe it ought to be Gaylon or Galoun vs. Gallon.

[Bruce Greef]

jcarlyle wrote:
> I put the Camelbak just in back of my head, in front of the spars,
> wrapping its harness around the spar safety pins to keep it secure.
> Nothing else is there except for the battery, so there's no need to
> fret about fouling flight controls.
>
> My Camelbak will indeed leak if the tube isn't kept nearly horizontal.
> When I put it in the plane I route the tube outside the cockpit, and
> after I'm in I route it over my shoulder and then under my shoulder
> harness. Once (but only once) I got out and left the tube dangling on
> the seat. I discovered after I'd gotten in again that it takes a long
> time for your pants and underpants to dry out... <grin>
>
> -John
>
> Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>>Ouch. But, surely that means putting the Camelbak through the hatch
>>behind the spars? That makes my teeth itch: there are far too many
>>control runs back there for it to get tangled up with.
>>
>>(from another message)
>>
>>Is there an issue with the Camelbak dribbling down your neck or on your
>>pants (if you leave the tube dangling) if its behind your head?
>
>
Also not applicable to Libelle as I fly a Std. Cirrus.

My solution was to make up a carbon fibre plate that holds my radio speaker, and
keeps stuff on the shelf behind my head. I put my bag behind this but offset so
that in the event of large decelleration forces being applied the CG of the bag
will be on the port side of the plate. Theory is that any liquid filled
projectile will pass a centimetre or so to the left of my ear.

Strangely my cheap Raleigh cycling bag does not leak with the tube significantly
lower than the bag.

[Martin Gregorie[_1_]]

jcarlyle wrote:
> On the subject of beer, I'm a Yank but after spending 8 plus years in
> Britain I've thoroughly converted to the viewpoint that what we Yanks
> call beer should be put back into the horse! Except for Yuengling,
> Saranac, or River Horse, of course....YMMV
>
There are honourable exceptions. Sierra Pale Ale is quite drinkable
(though why it should be sold over here is a mystery), and if you're at
Kitty Hawk the theres an E-ball bitter at the "Outer Banks Brewing
Station" that's most acceptable.



--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |

[Tony[_7_]]

On Friday, January 12, 2007 at 2:30:48 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> Leaving aside the fire or short issue, you need to consider what it
> would feel like to be hit in the back of the head with an 80 lb sack.
> Many of the first and second generation gliders have the "storage
> shelf" level with the back of the pilot's head and nothing (no bulkhead
> or other structure except a flimsy headrest) in between. A gallon of
> water weighs about 8 lbs, and it's very possible to induce a rapid 10G
> deceleration in an otherwise survivable crash (many texts talk about
> survivable 20G pulses). 10Gs operating on 8lbs of water with a
> straight shot to the back of your head or neck could put you in a world
> of hurt.
> At minumum, you need to have a system of tying the bag down to some
> solid structure. If using the shelf, you'll probably need to run
> anchor bolts down to the bulkhead surrounding the landing gear. LS,
> for example, has very detailed instructions on doing this.
> I've seen a couple of guys go to the trouble of mounting water supplies
> behind the main bulkead (in front of the spars and out of the way of
> the mixers/ control rods). They fill the supply through a tube. I
> would worry about cleaning the container out periodically lest it get
> funky over time, but I'm sure they've thought of this.
> Cheers,
> Erik Mann
> LS8-18 P3
> jcarlyle wrote:
> > I, like probably most glider pilots, put my Camelbak behind my head
> > next to my battery. But a cautionary tale seems appropriate here.
> >
> > Last Summer a club member had his glider totaled when his battery set
> > fire to his empty Camelbak. The probable causes, pinched wires and too
> > big a battery fuse, were certainly preventable. However, it's clear
> > that the Camelbak acted as tinder for the overheated battery, and the
> > fire may not have occurred if the Camelbak hadn't been placed next to
> > the battery.
> >
> > -John
> >
> > Gav Goudie wrote:
> > > Why dont you just put it behind your head like everyone
> > > else?!
> > >
> > > The seat pan / control column support wasnt designed
> > > to have a camelbak 'lashed' to it and its easier to
> > > work with gravity than against it!!
AFAIK, being involved in multiple accident investigations, an 11g deceleration will fail your restraints and liquefy your internal organs. So securing your Camel full of ice and using it as a cooling headrest should be well outside risk considerations...the oxygen rack is even scarier, even though my charged steel bottle only weighs 13#. Without getting into why I offer this, I would defer to anyone that can show their work...

[Bob W.]

On 5/2/21 1:41 PM, Tony wrote:
> On Friday, January 12, 2007 at 2:30:48 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
>> Leaving aside the fire or short issue, you need to consider what
>> it would feel like to be hit in the back of the head with an 80 lb
>> sack. Many of the first and second generation gliders have the
>> "storage shelf" level with the back of the pilot's head and nothing
>> (no bulkhead or other structure except a flimsy headrest) in
>> between. A gallon of water weighs about 8 lbs, and it's very
>> possible to induce a rapid 10G deceleration in an otherwise
>> survivable crash (many texts talk about survivable 20G pulses).
>> 10Gs operating on 8lbs of water with a straight shot to the back of
>> your head or neck could put you in a world of hurt. At minumum, you
>> need to have a system of tying the bag down to some solid
>> structure. If using the shelf, you'll probably need to run anchor
>> bolts down to the bulkhead surrounding the landing gear. LS, for
>> example, has very detailed instructions on doing this. I've seen a
>> couple of guys go to the trouble of mounting water supplies behind
>> the main bulkead (in front of the spars and out of the way of the
>> mixers/ control rods). They fill the supply through a tube. I would
>> worry about cleaning the container out periodically lest it get
>> funky over time, but I'm sure they've thought of this. Cheers, Erik
>> Mann LS8-18 P3 jcarlyle wrote:
>>> I, like probably most glider pilots, put my Camelbak behind my
>>> head next to my battery. But a cautionary tale seems appropriate
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Last Summer a club member had his glider totaled when his battery
>>> set fire to his empty Camelbak. The probable causes, pinched
>>> wires and too big a battery fuse, were certainly preventable.
>>> However, it's clear that the Camelbak acted as tinder for the
>>> overheated battery, and the fire may not have occurred if the
>>> Camelbak hadn't been placed next to the battery.
>>>
>>> -John
>>>
>>> Gav Goudie wrote:
>>>> Why dont you just put it behind your head like everyone else?!
>>>>
>>>> The seat pan / control column support wasnt designed to have a
>>>> camelbak 'lashed' to it and its easier to work with gravity
>>>> than against it!!
> AFAIK, being involved in multiple accident investigations, an 11g
> deceleration will fail your restraints and liquefy your internal
> organs. So securing your Camel full of ice and using it as a cooling
> headrest should be well outside risk considerations...the oxygen rack
> is even scarier, even though my charged steel bottle only weighs 13#.
> Without getting into why I offer this, I would defer to anyone that
> can show their work...
>

Here's my chance to (maybe, har har) set new RAS records for
contributing to an old thread (14 years) while maximizing thread
drift!!! (Will I need a new record category? Who's in charge of RAS,
anyway?) I blame this on the thunderstorm that just drove me indoors...

So, OK, there's always devils in the details, but on the assumption that
the following quoted statement lacks any intentional hyperbole "...an
11g deceleration will...liquefy your internal organs", if he could, Col
Paul Stapp (and many other investigators in years since) and
considerable, multi-field, crash data (e.g. from aviation, auto racing,
etc.) might beg to differ. Many a (sore and bruised) person has survived
up to 20g decelerations, if I'm to believe lots of "technical crash
stuff" I've read over the years. And, no, I'm not volunteering to become
one!

That quibble noted, strapping things firmly (in addition to yourself, of
course, hyuk hyuk), is definitely a good thing, in the event of
crash-induced deceleration...

Bob W.

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 02 May 2021 12:41:33 -0700, Tony wrote:

> AFAIK, being involved in multiple accident investigations, an 11g
> deceleration will fail your restraints and liquefy your internal organs.
> So securing your Camel full of ice and using it as a cooling headrest
> should be well outside risk considerations...the oxygen rack is even
> scarier, even though my charged steel bottle only weighs 13#. Without
> getting into why I offer this, I would defer to anyone that can show
> their work...
>
I just use the bum bag thingy that Glasfaser sell for fitting in Libelles.
Its well made, pretty strong with a 2mm fibreglass base and clips rather
tenaciously to the rigging spigots on top of the mainspars.



--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Dan Marotta]

Tell that to these guys...

https://vimeo.com/292235615

Dan
5J

On 5/2/21 1:41 PM, Tony wrote:
> AFAIK, being involved in multiple accident investigations, an 11g deceleration will fail your restraints and liquefy your internal organs. So securing your Camel full of ice and using it as a cooling headrest should be well outside risk considerations...the oxygen rack is even scarier, even though my charged steel bottle only weighs 13#. Without getting into why I offer this, I would defer to anyone that can show their work...

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 02 May 2021 14:34:27 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> Tell that to these guys...
>
> https://vimeo.com/292235615
>
Thanks for posting: I've known about Stapp's rocketrides (and their
close connection to MURPHY) but this the first film I've seen of Stapp
riding that sled.



--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Nicholas Kennedy]

That first rocket sled track shot looks like it might be the track up on the mesa, along a line from Parowan Ut to Colorado City Ut.
It looks like the Pine Valley Mts in the backround.
We've flown over it many times.
83 G's Wow
Nothing like the USAF to max those test pilots guys out.
Nick
T

[Dan Marotta]

Col. Stapp was a physician and the sled rides were done or the track at
Holloman AFB, New Mexico.

If you happen to be in or around Alamogordo, NM, pay a visit to the
Space Museum there. IIRC they also have exhibits about the rocket sleds.

AND you can try your hand at landing the Space Shuttle simulator.

Dan
5J

On 5/2/21 4:30 PM, Nicholas Kennedy wrote:
> That first rocket sled track shot looks like it might be the track up on the mesa, along a line from Parowan Ut to Colorado City Ut.
> It looks like the Pine Valley Mts in the backround.
> We've flown over it many times.
> 83 G's Wow
> Nothing like the USAF to max those test pilots guys out.
> Nick
> T
>

[Martin Gregorie[_6_]]

On Sun, 02 May 2021 16:54:52 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

> AND you can try your hand at landing the Space Shuttle simulator.
>
I used to have a PC version of that: it started you at 55,000 ft and some
highish subsonic speed. You could fly it with a mouse and function keys
or use various degrees of automation up to letting it land automatically.

Curiosity: Is that the same version they use in the museum?


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

[Bob W.]

On 5/2/21 2:39 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2021 14:34:27 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> Tell that to these guys...
>>
>> https://vimeo.com/292235615
>>
> Thanks for posting: I've known about Stapp's rocketrides (and their
> close connection to MURPHY) but this the first film I've seen of
> Stapp riding that sled.
>

And I hadn't known of Captain Beeding until that video (and associated
commentary) - "Ditto," the thanks for posting bit! I wonder if Captain
Beeding ever thought any/much about being born on an anniversary of the
Wright boys' world-changing achievement...

[Dan Marotta]

They had a stick mounted on a table top for control inputs and a basic
visual display. As a glider pilot I had no trouble landing it
repeatedly but completing an aileron roll on final never worked out.
Even with a big pitch up before beginning the roll, the slow roll rate
would allow the nose to drop too far to recover...

Dan
5J

On 5/2/21 5:42 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 2021 16:54:52 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
>
>> AND you can try your hand at landing the Space Shuttle simulator.
>>
> I used to have a PC version of that: it started you at 55,000 ft and some
> highish subsonic speed. You could fly it with a mouse and function keys
> or use various degrees of automation up to letting it land automatically.
>
> Curiosity: Is that the same version they use in the museum?
>
>