Is this plane flying just with this tiny propeller?

Looks like a tiny propeller. How can it make a big plane like that fly
to such a height?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=216D3WvspN0

Pause the video and you'll see that the propeller is normal-sized.

quietguy wrote:
Pause the video and you'll see that the propeller is normal-sized.

I find it amazing how a tiny thing can carry a plane.

wrote:
quietguy wrote:
Pause the video and you'll see that the propeller is normal-sized.

I find it amazing how a tiny thing can carry a plane.


As an ex jumper all I can say is what an insanely dangerous and
irresponsible stunt that was. Truly nuts.

John

"J.Kahn" wrote in message
...
wrote:
quietguy wrote:
Pause the video and you'll see that the propeller is normal-sized.

I find it amazing how a tiny thing can carry a plane.


As an ex jumper all I can say is what an insanely dangerous and
irresponsible stunt that was. Truly nuts.

John

I hear that!

A couple of interesting things was the drogue 'chute used to lower the
terminal dive velosity of the Cessna to match that of the skydiver and that
the drogue could be jettisoned in the dive without, apparently, exceeding
the Vne of the aircraft. I do wonder if the engine starved for oil
presssure since the pickup in the sump was probably unported.

My guess is that the Cessna was also used as a glider tug and therefore had
a tow hook on the tail. The pilot probably just threw the drogue out the
door to deploy it.

The prop, as in the case of most light aircraft, is much smaller than
optimal for the speed range. This is due to the desire for direct drive
engines and not have gear legs so tall that entering the aircraft would
require a ladder. A big, low RPM prop, however, would require much less HP
for the same performance. If Avgas prices continue to rise, I predict
geared props will become even more popular.

Bill

J.Kahn wrote:
wrote:

quietguy wrote:

Pause the video and you'll see that the propeller is normal-sized.


I find it amazing how a tiny thing can carry a plane.


As an ex jumper all I can say is what an insanely dangerous and
irresponsible stunt that was. Truly nuts.

John


As an ex jumper myself what was dangerous about it? The only thing that
was dangerous would be if he were to some way hit the prop and he has
enough control to not do that.

This was not nearly as dangerous and stupid as the guy (Rod Pack)that
jumped out without a chute on and had his buddy jump with a chute and
pass it to him while freefalling. Now that was stupid.

Jerry

wrote in message
oups.com...

quietguy wrote:
Pause the video and you'll see that the propeller is normal-sized.

I find it amazing how a tiny thing can carry a plane.

Actually, it can not. Fortunately, the wings can and do.

Peter
Two days of restraint, until I ran out. :-(

Jerry Springer wrote:
J.Kahn wrote:
wrote:

quietguy wrote:

Pause the video and you'll see that the propeller is normal-sized.


I find it amazing how a tiny thing can carry a plane.


As an ex jumper all I can say is what an insanely dangerous and
irresponsible stunt that was. Truly nuts.

John


As an ex jumper myself what was dangerous about it? The only thing that
was dangerous would be if he were to some way hit the prop and he has
enough control to not do that.

This was not nearly as dangerous and stupid as the guy (Rod Pack)that
jumped out without a chute on and had his buddy jump with a chute and
pass it to him while freefalling. Now that was stupid.

Jerry

True.

I admit I was a conservative skydiver. I thought canopy relative work
was crazy when it started in the late 70s too right on the heels of the
ram air revolution.

I was still using a comp paracommander when I stopped.

John