titanmiller From United States of America, joined May 2006, 86 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
This type of flying is why that C-17 crashed in Alaska.
Any idea who the guys flying this aircraft are? They don't appear to be USAF pilots.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3283 times:
Quoting titanmiller (Reply 2): This type of flying is why that C-17 crashed in Alaska.
No it's not. The Alaska accident happened because they took the plane outside its control envelope. They never had airspeed or altitude to do what they were attempting. The C130J...ooh dear...that would be fun to be along on that ride.
Quoting titanmiller (Reply 2): Any idea who the guys flying this aircraft are? They don't appear to be USAF pilots.
My guess would be Lockheed Flight Test Crew
[Edited 2011-12-13 19:50:43]
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
chuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3208 times:
Quoting Oroka (Reply 1): My god! Was he doing near loops? It is hard to tell with possible camera angels.... but damn!
... it was an entertaining demo to watch from the ground...
My personal opinion is that they didn't "push the limits" but they definitely were right up there in terms of what the aircraft can do safely. And the PNF appears (as far as I can tell) to be doing some good monitoring...
wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3169 times:
Was it spectacular? Yes. Was it probably at the limits of the envelope? Most likely. Was it prudent over the heavily populated area surrounding Bourget? Not so sure on that one.
chuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3083 times:
Quoting wannabe (Reply 5): Was it prudent over the heavily populated area surrounding Bourget? Not so sure on that one.
... it got through the flight safety board, they didn't overshoot the allocated airspace boundaries, and they were always aware and within the minimum altitude constraints... the Paris Air Show always looks spectacular from inside the cockpit.
For clear space you'd probably have to relocate to Chateauroux, and that's less fun...
wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2978 times:
Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 6): For clear space you'd probably have to relocate to Chateauroux, and that's less fun...
Right....and we wouldn't want to let the aerospace community's "fun" get usurped by something as trivial as public safety. My bad.
chuchoteur From France, joined Sep 2006, 700 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Quoting wannabe (Reply 7): Quoting chuchoteur (Reply 6):
For clear space you'd probably have to relocate to Chateauroux, and that's less fun...
Right....and we wouldn't want to let the aerospace community's "fun" get usurped by something as trivial as public safety. My bad.
... welcome to Europe.
Farnborough is the same, RIAT also has some houses underneath the flight display areas, as does the Berlin Airshow etc.
Ironically, a number of the major airports in Europe were green field sites when they were built (CDG, FRA etc).
Now if we hadn't let people build everywhere around them... *ooops.