• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Little known / experimental aircraft

samb

Active Member
Ryan XV-5 Vertifan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_XV-5_Vertifan

5684530793_64bc74f057_z.jpg
 

MIDNJAC

is clara ship
pilot
Big brass ones to strap one of these on.

favorite airplane of all time......and agreed. Though I think the ballsiest test flight in the history of the world might have been STS-1/Young/Crippen. Once those SRB's lit, they either made it to wheel stop at the end, or were dead. I suppose the same could be said for every other shuttle crew as well, but it took some real balls to just strap in and do the full meal deal without any real incremental testing, aside from the approach/landing tests.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
favorite airplane of all time......and agreed. Though I think the ballsiest test flight in the history of the world might have been STS-1/Young/Crippen. Once those SRB's lit, they either made it to wheel stop at the end, or were dead. I suppose the same could be said for every other shuttle crew as well, but it took some real balls to just strap in and do the full meal deal without any real incremental testing, aside from the approach/landing tests.

Yeah...but they had ejection seats. Wouldn't that have been a hell of a ride?

Seat.jpg
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Yeah...but they had ejection seats. Wouldn't that have been a hell of a ride?
I can't remember if Young or Crippen was the one who was interviewed about the ejection decision. Apparently anytime they were in the seat's envelope, they would have been ejecting through the exhaust of the SRBs, so words to the more tactful effect of "Fuck no."
 

wink

War Hoover NFO.
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
I got up close to the F-16XL at MCAS Yuma back when it was making the rounds and in operational testing. Pretty impressive looking. I am a sucker for delta wings.
 

jmcquate

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Yeah...but they had ejection seats. Wouldn't that have been a hell of a ride?
The NASA line for why they removed the "Bang" seats was the trepidation of having explosives in the crew compartment............although, from talking to astronauts during my time in Houston, the real reason was there was no way to eject a full crew of 5. After Challenger, they put in a pole that extended out of the hatch that the crew would attach to and slide clear of the orbiter stack and deploy chutes...........nobody, including the designer of the system thought it would work, but it made the public feel better.
 

Hopeful Hoya

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
The NASA line for why they removed the "Bang" seats was the trepidation of having explosives in the crew compartment............although, from talking to astronauts during my time in Houston, the real reason was there was no way to eject a full crew of 5. After Challenger, they put in a pole that extended out of the hatch that the crew would attach to and slide clear of the orbiter stack and deploy chutes...........nobody, including the designer of the system thought it would work, but it made the public feel better.

The pole was only meant to work if the orbiter jettisoned the SRBs and ET, and was flown into a nice, gentile glide at ~200 knots. Even if you managed to get into the envelope after a launch failure (unlikely), you would still have to slide down the pole and pray that you have enough clearance under(!) the wing. I think I would take my chances ditching...
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
The pole was only meant to work if the orbiter jettisoned the SRBs and ET, and was flown into a nice, gentile glide at ~200 knots. Even if you managed to get into the envelope after a launch failure (unlikely), you would still have to slide down the pole and pray that you have enough clearance under(!) the wing. I think I would take my chances ditching...
And then there's the Return to Launch Site Abort, what John Young called "continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God." FTA:
Early in the Shuttle Program, NASA management felt that an intentional RTLS was a necessary first step in proving the validity of the shuttle concept. In fact, STS-1 was planned as an RTLS flight. Commander Young dissented rather poetically, “Let’s not practice Russian roulette, because you may have a loaded gun there.”

Mr. Young’s opinion certainly carried much weight. We’re not talking about some risk-averse, desk jockey statistician. This is a man who made peace with the risks of travelling to, and walking on the moon. Yet, he found RTLS a bit too much for his taste. It’s a little like Spinal Tap telling you to turn your music down!
That flight profile looks like something straight out of Kerbal Space Program.
 
Top