LearningTOfly

Thanks for the helpful input everyone... your info plus a bit more I've read has cleared things up for me... I was thinking that the center of lift for the wings was somehow related to the centre of pressure of the fuse... which it isn't, after all. Thanks again...

For an aircraft utilizing a lifting canard instead of a conventional horizontal stabilizor, is it true that the aerodynamic centre of pressure/ lift must act always behind the centre of gravity in order to maintain stability about the normal axis in all(most) usual attitude manuevers? ...otherwise a gust would trigger a 'goundloop' type maneuver, but in the air.(?) I'm assuming that that is the reasoning in designs like Rutan's e-z's or the starship to sweep the 'main' wing, but want to confirm with anyone who has a bit more knowledge of the stuff...

That's interesting... I've had a few dreams about people pounding in and then getting up again... aren't dreams wonderful. I've had another in which I fell through some cumulus clouds and thought: 'I must have a bit of time still...' then I look down and see that the trees are unusually large and closing fast, so I dump. In the next scene I'm talking to some friends at the DZ and they were saying how low the pull was... open by fifty feet, apperently. A third was of a cutaway - I pulled, but didn't slow down, so I figured it must be a mal, chopped, reserve opened fine and I felt myself slow. Funny thing was that I never looked up at the canopy once...

Speaking about history... history is a funny thing- it's generally written by the group that managed to win the conflict- so for the most part we gain a biased account of whatever event it was when we take information from general issue school textbooks and such.

I'm a pilot, and it seemed to me that you were slamming them also. Okay, sorry about that then, I take it back...

Right on dude... that's the truth. It's all downhill from here.

No... rather that (most) Americans don't care about anybody besides themselves, and they're perfectly fine with that fact... I know that sounds like an attack, but please take it as my opinion only (and we all know about opinions..). I've lived in the States for a majority of my life, and that's just what I have observed.

This is exactly what is most distressing about the entire situation...

You could try flying and get into aerobatics... but that way you're only sure to get a rush when you mess up and the horizon turns to a blur. Both activities become as expensive as you can afford... which is why I don't use a credit card for either. Jumping offers somethings that aviation just can't, though... so go for it... try it more than once and see if the lifestyle fits.

Okay, ouch, that was a tad rough, but your call... I'll admit I have a bit to learn here and there, but I may have a little more up my sleeve than you assume. I'm well aware of the professionalism of commercial pilots, and share in that degree of professionalism myself. By saying "...except for the landing...", I was simply making a facetious comment that any other pilot in the know would take lightheartedly as well. The point I was trying to make is that what if it's possible for a third party to install a virus type program onto the autopilot system that cancels the programmed plan as the aircraft is climbing through 10,000 say, and reprograms a rather doomed flight plan back into the system. After that, the interface available to the pilot may be useless... couple that with the great fly by wire technology, and the crew will be left scratching their heads. After that, everybody's just along for the ride... On a slightly different note, just because I'm curious... how would having an engine failure overwhelm someone enough to cause them to put it into a building? Most pilots I know would want to LIVE after an unscheduled arrival... but to each his own. (I've never seen any of the "Die Hard(s)" you speak of....)

Dude, you could be on to something!

I agree- both do become lifestyles if one is serious about them... exactly. Both as well can turn to the bottomless pit... like they say- It only takes two things to fly, airspeed and money. Flying is my primary interest with jumping following a close second. I'm also still in school, so any way I look at it I'm stuck on the ground more than I like (no time for a job) for the next little while. Hopefully once I build a few more hours I'll get onboard with a DZ as a 182 driver and live the best of both worlds (for a low timer, that is). The thing that got me hooked on both is the feeling of freedom that comes with the activity. When flying you can go up, down, le... well you get the idea, and in any attitude you prefer until the go juice gets low. The only thing that you think about during that time is flying the plane... absolutely nothing else- your life depends on this focus. Skydiving comes with the same (or even an increased) feeling of freedom, I think. Of course your choice of directions is a bit limited, but you get the same clarity in your mind during the jump because you're focused on one and only one activity (besides pulling at the end)- whether that be to make a four way happen, or finally get a stable sitfly going, or to get the spin out of your arch (my noviceness shows). Both activities also have groups of almost fanatical followers, who often become very good friends once the common interest is revealed.

I started jumping solo when I was 18... I did my first tandem at 17 (semi-pirate jump). One thing I have thought about a bit is that at an earlier age, did I have enough of an understanding of this 'death' concept that we flirt with everytime we leave the plane to make a responsible decision to jump. I personally gained that understanding between my tandem and first solo jump- which is why I went out the door with a smile on my face for the tandem, and almost peed myself on the solo. But the smile is back now... We're (us young 'uns) still very vulnerable to feeling invincible, which history has shown is not terribly beneficial to one's health. I used to feel invincible too, but I've had a few experiences that very quickly put that fallacy in it's place... and luckily I'm still around to continue learning. Nonetheless, to the kids out there lucky enough that have yet to turn 18 and have 200+ jumps I say: make sure that you command the respect that you deserve around the DZ, because you guys are the next generation of butt-kickers on the PST...

Why did you decide to take up skydiving instead of flying (general aviation)? Or if you do both: which one do you participate in more often and why?

Word up from the north 'yo... ...well, I guess semi-north, because it's only about 0 C right now... I'm looking forward to doing some frosty jumps over the Christmas break (because my plane tickects to the Sunshine State didn't work... pout) At least snow is soft to land on... I hope everybody in warmer regions is having a blast! ...lucky dogs

I think it's a pointless idea... hostage taking is so 1980, and hijacking no longer has the element of surprize. Give it ten years until we forget, and then it might be effective once more, but until then... I saw someone say that they'd rather have the pilot flying the plane than trying to defend the paxers. Well, just for those who don't spend much time in the cockpit... pilot's don't actually do much active flying at all... it's too much work... the trusty autopilot can handle the plane just fine all by it's self. They might do the landing, but just for fun Which brings up an interesting idea... what if it's possible to program a flight path into that trusty Honeywell that intercepts a fairly tall building. No human hijackers necessary... the pilots wouldn't have much of an idea of what's going on or how to stop it... I guess they could take out their guns and blast away at the control panel, but I doubt that that would do much more than frighten the paxers. That 737 would then be no less of a guided missile than a Tomahawk...

This brings up the question: is it worth it? The US is prepared to send their kids of to distant lands only to return in bodybags for what? To 'liberate' some poor county from a ruthless dictator... not quite- why should we have cared anyways? And why in that case don't we care about Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lybia... Saddam seemed to have things under control pretty well. Sure he was a bit ruthless, but who in the mid-east isn't these days? Besides, the entire region is still living by the school of thought that the western world knew five hundred years ago, so a bit of 'evil' is to be expected. Maybe we invaded because we were scared of being blown to smitherines by the WMDs that they never had... although that theory has long been shot down. Iraq was subject to something on the order of 24000 bombing sorties over the ten years previous to this escapade- which didn't leave the mad scientists much time to concentrate. Maybe it's for that black gooey goodness that lies under their sands. That would make sense... we have SUV's and they don't... why should they have all the oil when we need it? In that case, Iraq is just a county subject to invasion for resources in this now overpopulated world. We're playing the same game as the Vikings or Romans did- we're stong, they're weak, they have something that we want but won't give it too us, so we'll just take it. Maybe we'll colonize after as well... it'd be a heckofa spot for the next ClubMed. Maybe it's because the Pax Americana idea is an idea that went away with the Cold War. It felt so warm and snuggly for the government to know that all the 'free' world was asking to hide under their wing for protection from the Commies. But that feeling is now gone, and the eagle once again is alone... until the next big bad enemy comes along; but, "hmmm, no enemy over there... none over here... oh, look, a 'terrorist'! Woohoo, we found our enemy! Wait, you guys (Germany, France, etc...) don't buy that? Fine then, we'll prove it, we're still tough, you'll see." What do you think the real motive is? The other unfortunate thing I see is all these kids fresh out of high school looking forward to killing someone... or killing lots of people (and we complained about Columbine and those type events... hello, it's what we're teaching our kids to do- if you don't like someone, kill 'em.) These guys graduate, enlist, and go out to, as I saw above: "get some". Like WTF is that?! Whatever happened to respect for human life? It's like because they're brown and poor that they're just the next generation of gophers that we're out to use for target practice...

I get that comment alot, too... it was the rolling joke at the DZ for awhile. I'm a tad anal about making sure that everything looks right... or at least that it looks the same way as the last one that worked did. I've unpacked a rig I packed the night before and repacked it because I didn't like how something looked. I take about 20-30 minutes to pack... which I don't mind at all... I feel much more comfortable afterwards.

Since jump number one... I was a packer before that, so I had about 200 packs that worked under my belt... I've only jumped someone else's pack-job once, come to think of it...

Sorry about the dead horse post... thanks for the link

What modifications are needed to make a Vector II freefly friendly... and at approximately what cost?

Thanks for the link, even if it's a repost... it's quite entertaining. ...I think it's a bear... but who knows for sure...

Kindof confused here... I'd expect that the heavier round would carry a tad farther... momentum=mass*velocity in conjunction with the same surface area as the 55 gr. round. More mass= more momentum...

Of course they have. Please tell me what Iraq did to us that was on par with Pearl Harbor. Blues, Dave Iraq has been on the neo-cons hit list for years. Rummy, Rice, asscroft and the gang are trying to bring the Pax Americana state back. Clinton was urged to invade, but he had other things on his plate at the time... or rather other things on interns' clothes... ...welcome back to the cold war everybody...

Sad but true...