![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Capt.Doug" wrote in message ...
"Larry Fransson" wrote in message Not quite. According to the report, they were trying to determine the minimum horizontal distance required for landing. Not quite- It's an example of what my co-pilots try to do to me every day. D. :-) Funny Doug, I was just wondering what your reaction would be. :^D I'm impressed with you "flying stovepipe" pilots. Is PIO easy in that thing? The clip kinda reminded me of a typical f/o approach into Kaohsiung (one-way airport ILS) with 18kt tailwind shearing to ten on ground. 1000 fpm down, no real flare, hope I don't have to take it away again... But the old gen of airplanes 9's, L-10's (jmpstng) 72's, 10's, 74's & early buses seemed stouter and could take a real earthquake. It looked O.K. untill the last very last part when the tires did the cartoon thing and the tail fell off. ;-) Mr. Douglas really had a knack for stretching things didn't he? The MD-11 drivers tell me it's "one of those airplanes" (that's dangerous to land) since the stab is so small, and if the tail software load screws up, you hit hard (no elev authority) and then if one wing spar cracks, the other keeps flying and you wind up on your head. Yikes is right. pac "high blood pressure" plyer (Those Edwards guys broke the tst MD-11 in half during hard ldg tsts, 1400fpm in flare, plated it back together and we bought it. gulp.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|