Heck, years ago, I watched JW Musgrove depart the Gulkana Airshow with a single engine Otter and eight souls on board, enroute back to Tok, so with a fair amount of gas.

He took 88 feet to get airborne, and blew one side window out in the "pop"....cool ride home, I'm guessing.

MTV

Damn sure eliminates crosswind landings.

I kinda thinking along the lines of Flap's message above. That was not a 69' landing. What about all the gravel bar behind him? In my book, that counts. So it's a 1069' landing in my book. Just sayin'. I don't have a bit of experience with this sort of thing; but let's see him do it again over a 50' obstacle with a defined touch down point.

I used to fool around with short approaches and landing behind the power curve in the Mooney. You could do it pretty short but you can't let the tail hit first. Unless you've got arresting gear available.

Just sayin'. I'll bow to the more experienced here.

Emory Bored wrote:
I'll bow to the more experienced here.

Don't open that closet, McGee !

(I now see that Rob has edited out his reply, making an orphan of the following remark. I'll leave my tortured levity intact as an historical monument to the non sequitur)

Rob:
This is precisely why I included the disclaimers at the beginning of my post. I haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about. After spending considerable time at the dictionary with a ruler and a pencil I'm darned if I can find two words, the first of which begins with the letter D and the second with a Q that when put together perform some communicative task that is germane to the discussion. A personal reminder perhaps of why I should stay out of these high brow Super Cub discussions. It's a good thing we have these smiley things because otherwise I might have come to the conclusion that you were deliberately trying to confuse me. Having shuffled through my various overwritten memory banks the best I can do is recall some irritating banter between Elmer Fudd and Buggs Rabbit while the former draws a line in the sand and dares the latter to cross it. Then again, I suppose it may be some new Federal addition to "aerospeak" mandated to placate the French who perhaps feel slighted in some way by the plethora of English words found in the lexicon of ATC commands. I think most French words contain the letter Q somewhere don't they? Then again there is this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrzZ3wFonlw
I don't think that's what you had in mind either. I think we can agree that the object of landing an airplane is to land it somewhere. Taking that minor point as a good place to start let me concede that the Super Cub does that very well indeed. Repeatability is an added plus?

As to the second part of your post I can tell again by the smiley face that you are not suggesting that the F-18 pilot hit the wires at supersonic speed. So humor me a bit and consider that an aircraft carrier has a pattern, just like an airport, with a specific traffic pattern altitude. It's a portable pattern if you will. The AC takes the pattern with it at 40 knots or more where ever it goes. Let's agree too, that the FA-18 pilot decides that the "somewhere" he would like to land his airplane is on that aircraft carrier; preferably with his tailhook catching the second wire. So, using pitch as his speed control, and power to control his rate of descent he lines himself up on final and and adjusts pitch and power in such a way that his tailhook makes contact with the wire at precisely the point where he is at full power (to arrest sink) and minimum controllable airspeed (to maintain control of the aircraft). I've always heard this referred to as flying "behind the power curve". The airplane is designed in such a way that the angle of attack (AOA) at this power setting and airspeed will be such that the landing gear will be a few feet above the wires as he crosses the threshold.

Going back to Flap's original post, which I support, the AOA of the Super Cub in the video is too high to support repeatability of that sort of an approach to landing, because it's not designed to do that. A set of 72" bushwheels might help but it might make it tough to get the moose strapped in right.

Emory

Holy Shit!

Is this the Golf Channel?

He's having fun, and doing a damn good job of it.

Pop the Bush Wheel back on the hub and do it again.

Emory Bored wrote:
Then again, I suppose it may be some new Federal addition to "aerospeak" mandated to placate the French who perhaps feel slighted in some way by the plethora of English words found in the lexicon of ATC commands. I think most French words contain the letter Q somewhere don't they?

Well this will surely irritate the sh*t out of some of the natives in this forest, but the truth is the truth:

A fair number of words in our aviation language are French... Fuselage Empennage, Decalage, Aileron, Longeron, and others. There's a damn good reason. In the earliest days of aviation, the French were right there at the forefront. The Wrights did what they did and will forever be "the first to fly a heavier than air aircraft". But the French Montgolfier Bros. flew balloons in the 1700's. During the early days people like Santos-Dumont, Leon Levasseur, Louis Bleriot and many others (throwing France and Belgium into the same bucket) made very important technical advances that furthered the science of aviation PAST the bar that the Wrights had set. The French had designed the high performance Nieuport fighters and the first monocoque fuselage (Deperdussin racer) while we were building Curtiss Pushers and the Jenny. Very shortly after the Wrights were "the first", the French surpassed everyone for several years.

America's industrial power and ingenuity caught up and we eventually surpassed the French, but any serious student of aviation history must in all fairness give the French their due. They were responsible for a lot of advancements. Next time you move your control stick and instead of the whole wing twisting, you have a hinged "aileron", thank the French. ("Aile/ailes" is wing/wings in French, "Aileron" is "little wing or "secondary wing)". Although I proudly fall completely on the Boeing side of the airliner debate, the French kicked and continue to kick the crap out of us in civil helicopter design to this day.

Sacre Bleu! Granted! Every word of it. I was being sarcastic. Again. Sorry. But will somebody tell me please, in any tone of voice you desire, WFT a DQ line is?

EZFlap wrote:

Emory Bored wrote:
Then again, I suppose it may be some new Federal addition to "aerospeak" mandated to placate the French who perhaps feel slighted in some way by the plethora of English words found in the lexicon of ATC commands. I think most French words contain the letter Q somewhere don't they?

Well this will surely irritate the sh*t out of some of the natives in this forest, but the truth is the truth:

A fair number of words in our aviation language are French... Fuselage Empennage, Decalage, Aileron, Longeron, and others. There's a damn good reason. In the earliest days of aviation, the French were right there at the forefront. The Wrights did what they did and will forever be "the first to fly a heavier than air aircraft". But the French Montgolfier Bros. flew balloons in the 1700's. During the early days people like Santos-Dumont, Leon Levasseur, Louis Bleriot and many others (throwing France and Belgium into the same bucket) made very important technical advances that furthered the science of aviation PAST the bar that the Wrights had set. The French had designed the high performance Nieuport fighters and the first monocoque fuselage (Deperdussin racer) while we were building Curtiss Pushers and the Jenny. Very shortly after the Wrights were "the first", the French surpassed everyone for several years.

America's industrial power and ingenuity caught up and we eventually surpassed the French, but any serious student of aviation history must in all fairness give the French their due. They were responsible for a lot of advancements. Next time you move your control stick and instead of the whole wing twisting, you have a hinged "aileron", thank the French. ("Aile/ailes" is wing/wings in French, "Aileron" is "little wing or "secondary wing)". Although I proudly fall completely on the Boeing side of the airliner debate, the French kicked and continue to kick the crap out of us in civil helicopter design to this day.

I don't know here what it is, but to my family it is where one lines up to get ice cream

Emory Bored wrote:Sacre Bleu! Granted! Every word of it. I was being sarcastic. Again. Sorry. But will somebody tell me please, in any tone of voice you desire, WFT a DQ line is?

A man much wiser than me once told me, continued wallowing with the swine only makes you smell like pig shit. I will bow my head in shame and feed this troll one last time...

Take care. Rob

For your educational and enjoyment purposes EB:

http://199.238.132.174/events/flyIn/doc ... gs2011.pdf
Specially study page 4.

Don't like Alaska? No sweat , here's the old NIFA rules... they're all pretty much the same.
http://www.nifa.us/pdf%20rules/short%20field.pdf

BTW, I'm not sure what WFT means? care to elaborate?


A bit of rest after a long night in the Thrush, and I am off to fly my cub on the river.... where the gravel bars are at a minimum of 1069'.... Life is good

Disqualified Ah. Thanks. WTF means What The Fuck. I think you have an attitude problem sir. But that's just by MY book.

Rob, I think you're very seriously mistaking what's going on here. Perhaps I owe you an apology, perhaps Emory does... no matter. You have my apology for being a filthy swine that apparently has rubbed an unpleasant smell on you. Some barbecue sauce will make me smell a little better.

In my porcine simple-mindedness, I actually believe we're all involved in a lively discussion with other reasonably intelligent aviation people, and we all have something interesting to contribute. My belief is that this BCP forum is a really neat place that is reminiscent of "Hell's Kitchen" in New York. Most of us would never have been able to make these acquaintances and interact with people so wildly different than ourselves. Most of us treasure this place because of that. Most of us are smart enough to realize it enriches our lives and our aviation experience. Many of us come from entirely different cultures and backgrounds, but we all have this one substance abuse problem that brought us together. Just like Hell's Kitchen, we all more or less get along because of the strange place that unites us. People put up with my ridiculous ego, and my salesmanship, and my spouting ancient French aviation history facts. I put up with theirs in return.

One of the biggest values of this forum is that we can "spar" and joust and filibuster and karate chop back and forth at each other and it's almost always purely in fun, and never genuinely harmful. That is really the wonderful and golden thing that happens here. Even the more serious disagreements or differences of opinion are not that bad in the grand scheme of things.

Please understand that there's a big flaw in the internet that may never be addressed. You can never actually hear or understand the inflection, or tone, or read between the lines when you are reading someone else's written words. So when one person thinks he's being clever, or humorously sarcastic, another person can very easily not "hear" that between the lines, and they think someone is attacking them when that is not the case. Forgive my ego, but this is something that even those of us who are working professionals in the written communications field have trouble conveying. Those who are less skilled or less experienced writers and readers have even more difficulty. Those little "smiley" icons only help a little.

So the point is I do not think that there should be nearly as many feathers ruffled in these discussions as there usually are. Maybe be a little more thick-skinned, or at least wait until someone is clearly being antagonistic before you take any real offense.

I certainly apologize for my part in the matter. I do like to turn a phrase when cornered. I should watch that.

I just want to see the pretty plane videos get reposted.

Hey, I've had my feeling 'stomped on' here a few times, too. Seems to be the price of admission if you participate. On another/other 'un-named flying forums' you pay $$ for admission-THEN you get treated about the same as here.
I agree that words typed on a screen don't provide nuances that face to face conversation does. But, there will be conflict anytime you have a grouping of strong personalities-and this place wouldn't be much fun without our strong and sometimes colorful personalities. Pilots are always going to be passionate about flying stuff, and we all see things through the 'lens' of our past experiences and innate inclinations. That contributes to the 'richness' of this site.

My advice to anyone (& myself) would be "Lick your perceived wounds a bit. Sit out for a short time if you must, and then join us for the REWARDS far outweigh the drawbacks."

That goes for anyone who 'left in a huff'.......whenever.....
lc

A great landing at a very high AOA, on a freeway no less. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAVDOBWt ... re=related