CanuckInUSA 0 #1 February 12, 2003 As skydivers who like to swoop, the answer is obvious. Swoop!!! But before I go on, I'm sure to some, I'm not even a swooper. And that's ok ... I'm still new and learning this whole aspect of skydiving. But it does interest me even if I'm more of a spectator than a participant. Anyway, as I sit here. I'm thinking this is kind of interesting. Airplane pilots are taught to nail their airspeeds on short final just prior to touch down. Why? To obviously not stall, but also to not get stuck in ground effects (ie: a swoop) so that they can land and stop with plenty of runway to spare. In fact a much sought after skill in aviation is to be able to nail your short field take off and landings. But as swoopers, canopy pilots like to bring in extra air speed to increase their swoops distance for as long as the canopy can stay in flight. Quite the contradiction I'd say. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #2 February 12, 2003 QuoteQuite the contradiction I'd say. I'll give you another one, I've never seen an F-16 pilot perform a split-s to land . . . not twice anyway. My point here is that the F-16 is a fairly high wing loaded plane and actually has pretty crappy wings in terms of their ability to create lift (they're more designed for minimum drag), however, no pilot in his right mind would "hook it" in order to make the landings "better".quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygod7777 0 #3 February 12, 2003 QuoteI'll give you another one, I've never seen an F-16 pilot perform a split-s to land . . . not twice anyway. that would be cool to see. later Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygod7777 0 #4 February 12, 2003 QuoteQuoteI'll give you another one, I've never seen an F-16 pilot perform a split-s to land . . . not twice anyway. um, you posted a link for loop. try this one http://www.wbruce.ogilvy.clara.net/text/training/aero/a08.html later Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #5 February 12, 2003 Fixed.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites skygod7777 0 #6 February 12, 2003 Quote Fixed. there ya go later Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites listo 0 #7 February 12, 2003 Quote Quote My point here is that the F-16 is a fairly high wing loaded plane and actually has pretty crappy wings in terms of their ability to create lift (they're more designed for minimum drag), however, no pilot in his right mind would "hook it" in order to make the landings "better". Well, I kind of agree and disagree with you on this one. First of all you are right in saying that it is ludicrous to think an F-16 pilot would want to do a split-S for landing purposes. However, he/she really doesn't have to since the F-16 has one hell of an engine to give them the speed needed for the landing. Honestly, I feel like this is comparing apples to potatoes, they are both white in the middle but there are two totally different concepts at hand. The only common ground that a F-16 pilot and a swoop pilot have in common is getting on the ground safely without thumping in. Honestly, if I could strap a jet engine to my butt for swoop landings I wouldn't do hook turns either.Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites listo 0 #8 February 12, 2003 Quote Honestly, if I could strap a jet engine to my butt for swoop landings I wouldn't do hook turns either. ...........actually, I just gave myself an idea!Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #9 February 12, 2003 QuoteHowever, he/she really doesn't have to since the F-16 has one hell of an engine to give them the speed needed for the landing. You are aware they can land them engine out -- right? BTW, landing is just about the slowest normal operation that the F-16 will do.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,434 #10 February 12, 2003 >However, he/she really doesn't have to since the F-16 has one hell >of an engine to give them the speed needed for the landing. The shuttle has no usable engine for landing; pilots control their airspeed very carefully on final nevertheless, and they don't do split-Ses either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites listo 0 #11 February 13, 2003 ok, good point, but could the shuttle really be considered a plane though. ROTFnow, shuttle swooping could be one incredibly interesting sport......imagine the diving hooks those things could do Dynamic stalls might be a factor though Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites listo 0 #12 February 13, 2003 Quote You are aware they can land them engine out -- right? yeah, I used to work on them. I actually saw one come in with an engine out and the pilot had to dive the darn thing at about a 45 degree glide to keep his airspeed up for landing. Looking back on it, it kind of reminds me of a swoop. Gotta love high wing loadings!Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MrHixxx 0 #13 February 13, 2003 Little sis (kelleyadai) is going to start flying them in a year and a half or so. I remember her saying they have a considerable radial range without an engine. They not only glide, they glide well. -Hixxxdeath,as men call him, ends what they call men -but beauty is more now than dying’s when Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #14 February 13, 2003 Quote . . . darn thing at about a 45 degree glide to keep his airspeed up for landing. I don't think they're quite that draggy, but ya got me, I have no proof nor personal experience in an F-16 cockpit to say otherwise. My guess is THIS GUY might know something about energy management though!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,434 #15 February 13, 2003 > . . .had to dive the darn thing at about a 45 degree glide . . . It glides worse than a shuttle? Hard to believe. A lifting body (i.e. a bathtub) has a better glide than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites listo 0 #16 February 13, 2003 ok, ya'll got me. maybe it wasn't quite 45, but it was pretty darn steep. He was also carrying a full load of armament and full long range tanks. He had just taken off and had a flame out at about 2,000 feet and had nowhere to jettison his stores without killing civillians.Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ron 7 #17 February 13, 2003 I seen Mullins come DAMN close to a hook turn with his KA.. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites quade 3 #18 February 13, 2003 QuoteI seen Mullins come DAMN close to a hook turn with his KA.. I stand by my original assertion, "no pilot in his right mind would "hook it" in order to make the landings "better". " Look, that's not to say that even I haven't fooled around with the occasional "carrier" approach (aka a proper "short" approach). A well controlled yet steep and continous turn from downwind to final to landing. However, the goal of the carrier approach is still to arrive over the threshold at the correct approach speed of more or less 1.3 times Vso. Usually you have to do a lot of old fashion slipping to burn off excess speed (Flaps? WE don't need no stinkin' flaps!). Yes, the angles can look pretty awesome but the speeds are still supposed to be the same -- otherwise you're going to run out of runway. On an aircraft carrier, I'm told, this is kind of important.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhino 0 #19 February 13, 2003 He didin't say to land.. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
quade 3 #5 February 12, 2003 Fixed.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygod7777 0 #6 February 12, 2003 Quote Fixed. there ya go later Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #7 February 12, 2003 Quote Quote My point here is that the F-16 is a fairly high wing loaded plane and actually has pretty crappy wings in terms of their ability to create lift (they're more designed for minimum drag), however, no pilot in his right mind would "hook it" in order to make the landings "better". Well, I kind of agree and disagree with you on this one. First of all you are right in saying that it is ludicrous to think an F-16 pilot would want to do a split-S for landing purposes. However, he/she really doesn't have to since the F-16 has one hell of an engine to give them the speed needed for the landing. Honestly, I feel like this is comparing apples to potatoes, they are both white in the middle but there are two totally different concepts at hand. The only common ground that a F-16 pilot and a swoop pilot have in common is getting on the ground safely without thumping in. Honestly, if I could strap a jet engine to my butt for swoop landings I wouldn't do hook turns either.Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #8 February 12, 2003 Quote Honestly, if I could strap a jet engine to my butt for swoop landings I wouldn't do hook turns either. ...........actually, I just gave myself an idea!Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #9 February 12, 2003 QuoteHowever, he/she really doesn't have to since the F-16 has one hell of an engine to give them the speed needed for the landing. You are aware they can land them engine out -- right? BTW, landing is just about the slowest normal operation that the F-16 will do.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #10 February 12, 2003 >However, he/she really doesn't have to since the F-16 has one hell >of an engine to give them the speed needed for the landing. The shuttle has no usable engine for landing; pilots control their airspeed very carefully on final nevertheless, and they don't do split-Ses either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #11 February 13, 2003 ok, good point, but could the shuttle really be considered a plane though. ROTFnow, shuttle swooping could be one incredibly interesting sport......imagine the diving hooks those things could do Dynamic stalls might be a factor though Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #12 February 13, 2003 Quote You are aware they can land them engine out -- right? yeah, I used to work on them. I actually saw one come in with an engine out and the pilot had to dive the darn thing at about a 45 degree glide to keep his airspeed up for landing. Looking back on it, it kind of reminds me of a swoop. Gotta love high wing loadings!Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrHixxx 0 #13 February 13, 2003 Little sis (kelleyadai) is going to start flying them in a year and a half or so. I remember her saying they have a considerable radial range without an engine. They not only glide, they glide well. -Hixxxdeath,as men call him, ends what they call men -but beauty is more now than dying’s when Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #14 February 13, 2003 Quote . . . darn thing at about a 45 degree glide to keep his airspeed up for landing. I don't think they're quite that draggy, but ya got me, I have no proof nor personal experience in an F-16 cockpit to say otherwise. My guess is THIS GUY might know something about energy management though!quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #15 February 13, 2003 > . . .had to dive the darn thing at about a 45 degree glide . . . It glides worse than a shuttle? Hard to believe. A lifting body (i.e. a bathtub) has a better glide than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
listo 0 #16 February 13, 2003 ok, ya'll got me. maybe it wasn't quite 45, but it was pretty darn steep. He was also carrying a full load of armament and full long range tanks. He had just taken off and had a flame out at about 2,000 feet and had nowhere to jettison his stores without killing civillians.Live today as tomorrow may not come Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #17 February 13, 2003 I seen Mullins come DAMN close to a hook turn with his KA.. Ron"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #18 February 13, 2003 QuoteI seen Mullins come DAMN close to a hook turn with his KA.. I stand by my original assertion, "no pilot in his right mind would "hook it" in order to make the landings "better". " Look, that's not to say that even I haven't fooled around with the occasional "carrier" approach (aka a proper "short" approach). A well controlled yet steep and continous turn from downwind to final to landing. However, the goal of the carrier approach is still to arrive over the threshold at the correct approach speed of more or less 1.3 times Vso. Usually you have to do a lot of old fashion slipping to burn off excess speed (Flaps? WE don't need no stinkin' flaps!). Yes, the angles can look pretty awesome but the speeds are still supposed to be the same -- otherwise you're going to run out of runway. On an aircraft carrier, I'm told, this is kind of important.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #19 February 13, 2003 He didin't say to land.. LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
