FTDK Jet
 

Now we know why Forkie has been in the USA!:}

The roll out of the first one, Picture courtesy of AVweb.....

http://file040b.bebo.com/5/large/200...139271778l.jpg

If only I could afford one...:{

Geeez Jaba! I wouldn't fly something as ugly as that!

Dr :ooh:

Wonder if it has a parachute for the deep stall..............?

I don't think it's ugly at all. And it does have V-Tail :ok:

It would be interesting though to see what effect ground running would have on the tail feathers. prob OK until you're parked with a decent x-wind. :(

Wonder if it has the same yaw tendencies of the other ubiquitous beech forkies? Trap for the new players! (weight of one toe on either pedal i seem to remember works quite well...) :}

Looks like a toad tadpole!

Dr :8

PS: Ya can see how fuglies get laid!

That thing is butt fugly!


This is much better :)

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...7/piperjet.jpg

V tails have been around for years in jets works very well but sure looks different.

Its ugly...period.

I wouldn't be seen dead in one.

is that Piper jet a reality? Looks nice. Fuselage looks like a Chieftan too

'V' tail jet looks like a pregnant pasty:bored:

big difference is the FTDK(J) is actually sitting on its own wheels.

Not yet, but not far away...;)

http://www.avweb.com/newspics/piperj...n_01_large.jpg

WOW that's fantastic! Great pixs tnxs

Nope, I still reckon it looks good and I'll bet that in the flesh it looks even better.

Where I DO have issues is with single engines on high performance jets.:=

They do still stop occasionally and while a V35 only has one, the difference is in the speed of the forced landing. probably twice what you can bring a V35 or C210 in at.

The difference in Kinetic energy is pretty fearsome.

As far as I am aware there are no special rules for jet aircraft.
Here in the USA a single engine aircraft has to have a stalling speed of less than 61 kts. Therefore forced landing speed will not be any different for a single engine jet compared to other high performance singles, piston or turboprop.
Stalling speed can be higher than 61 kts but it requires greater crashworthiness in the cabin thus more weight.
FAR 23.49 is the reference if anyone wants it.


Why is it that people think that when you slap a jet engine on something it automatically loses it's gliding ability?

Quite the contrary, Peter. The actual gliding ability of most jet powered machines (including airliners) beats the heck out of any of the standard piston machines, not counting the new breed of powered gliders, of course.

I guess it's just that the pursuit of speed imposes some compromises in the low end envelope, since few jet aircraft are marketed as STOL machines.

Also, the Jet machines are required to operate over a much wider flight envelope than the old bangers we've become accustomd to.

Looking at the wing section of the Cirrus jet for example, it just LOOKS like it wouldn't be happy below 80 or 90 knots and the paraphernalia that you can hang on a piston engine machine to allow it to fly slowly exacts a toll at higher speeds of th jet.
Consequently, when the fire goes out, the driver has got less choices insofar as where he/she is going to park the said machine.
On the other hand, I s'pose it's also true that if it goes quiet at FL370 you can probably glide to a serviceable strip, but then the management of the approach phase sans burner is probably going to be the tricky bit.

I'm sure that if you got one of thse new jets on an ILS glide slope it would pretty much stay on it with a bit of judicious airbrake, but a succssful forced landing on field or off may be another matter.

I recall way back, I think it was my first attempt at SCPL Flight Planning there were a couple of people in the class who were convinced that a jet powered aircraft would not glide and would in fact fall like a brick should the engines all fail.

This one is more my style

http://www.bja.com.au/ext/DSC_1493.jpg

The Bevan666Jet.

Does the country from which these students came still have mud huts or are they ex-Mirage jocks?

When the ATAR stopped the pilot threw a brick 'out the window' and flew formation on it to achieve the best glide angle. Ejection mandatory if not at high key (10,000ft AGL) within 1nm of THR though.:O

Got a spare seat Bevan?;)

Maggott17; A one time Mirage Pilot once told me that the Mirage had a glide ratio of 1 in 6 at 300kts!:eek:

Apparently the Sabre was even worse!!:uhoh:

mig3 - he was pulling your leg. Probably suffering the dreaded curse, too much beer. Glide ratio 6:1, thats not bad, even the T-28 in the carrier pattern configuration beat that at 4.5:1. And at a pattern altitude of 325 feet would have concentrated the mind in the event the fan stopped.

Did any RAAF guy ever dead stick a Mirage? Did hear one story but scenerio given seemed too improbable for words. Records available don't show it to have been the case.

I recall a Mirage dead stick demo at Amberley many years ago. The intention was to recover but the pilot mis-calculated and belly'd it.

Dr :8

This incident is mentioned elsewhere on Pprune but no verification is to be had from any other source, certainly not in any listing of Mirage accidents. Did anyone actually see this in person and able to give a date, or occasion being celebrated? Or is it "a mate told me" tale.

At least the Piper Jet looks like a real aeroplane.

Too many of these new designs look like enlarged kiddies toys.

Like Chimbu, I wouldn't be seen dead in 'em.

Deadstick Mirage
 

G' Day Brian Abraham

I recently read a book titled "Sock it to 'em Baby". In Chapter 3 the author, Garry Cooper, ex RAAF describes his forced landing in a Mirage circa early 1966. On a training mission shortly after take-off & accelerating through 400 kts, while climbing through 1500ft the engine gave a loud bang which was later found to be an eagle enmeshed in the engine. Trading speed for height he climbed to 4000ft till he slowed for the the best glide speed of 240kts, noticed a disused wartime strip at Hexam (1300 metres!). As he turned towards the strip he tried a restart to no avail. By this time he was too low to eject. Gear & flap lowered, he pulled up on the bush studded strip. No slaps on the back for officer Cooper however. Apparently, if you flame out, you bump out!!!...By not bumping out it set a bad example for junior officers (at that time) and is likely to cost your life & a very expensive aircraft.:hmm:

All that I've heard from one of the members in our gliding club who peddled Miracles extensively, suggests that there is NO WAY that anyone would have approved a dead-stick demo.

In fact, I understand that even a stuck u/c is sufficient to require an exit via the booster, as the impact of the cabin following the high alpha approach was sufficient to compact the spine.

Nobody told that to one jockey who landed at Adelaide Aiport inadvertently with gear up and walked away from it.

That one was at Tullamarine.

An answer from the RAAF. The forced landing pattern for the Mirage was an exciting event – the high key point was at 15,000’ over the upwind threshold (i.e. the other end of the runway) the low key point was 1.5nm abeam the touchdown point at 10,000’ all executed at a best glide speed of 240-270 knots. The rate of descent to be checked in the flare was about 8500 feet per minute so the probability of stuffing it up (and the landing gear as well) was fairly high.
The recollection of the back bar story is consistent with several ex Mirage pilots. However, what is not spelt out - is the degree of back bar scepticism that always accompanied the story. From that I think we may be able to put the story to bed.

Didn't Vance Drummond dead-stick a Mirage? :confused:

Only in the sense that he died in a crash into the sea while on a conversion course. As I understand it.