B52 Crash Video's

I don't think C O Jones flys model planes - or real ones - actually.

Tell me about it. Conversely flying my 8oz IPS model in modest winds I have had teh darn thing with its nose upwards at full power doing 30 mph groundspeed down wind and not gaining an inch of altitude.

The next thing you know its suddenly shot up 50 feet!

I actually wait for certain wind conditions to land the things.

Ive been comong in in a commercail airliner on te htail end of a bad storm and heard teh opilott pulling the throttles back and forwards as we gained and lost 50-100ft, and watching other planes come down as we taxied back they were pulling up the jumbos in half the usual; distance

- abot 65 mph headwind I think with strong turbulence.

That's what I like about you D.H. Always ready with the kind words. And then you wonder why people attach you!

If what you say is true about flying characteristics, then explain this. When in rough weather, why is a pilot so busy flying the plane? If the forces don't change and if the plane doesn't know the difference! Then why does the pilot even have to mess with the controls in rough weather?

But Ed. When discussing our models we have to at least consider it. Simply because that is where most of our flying is done. And that is my point with that B-52.

Oh Clueless One. What, pray, am I being attached to?

Rough weather is not the same as heavy wind. You can have one without the other, asd any fool who has flown the jet stream can tell you.

Your ignorance never fails to amuse or amaze.

No, it wasn't your point. It may be NOW as you become aware of how stupid you have made yourself appear, but back then you were all in favour of wind, pure and simple. No mention of turbulence, wind shear or boundary layer.

You twist faster than greased weasel shit on a politicians trouser bottom.

Actually we do know. A real pilot knows the things these people have been trying to explain to you, yet you clearly do not want to understand the facts. It's not just some model airplane people saying this, it's the real aviation community that understands this concept.

It's basic, it's unchanging, it's been that way since the beginning.

What you're missing is the concept of why bumps occur. I do not believe ;yo will ever grasp the concept until you take ground school and any attempts to explain it will fall upon deaf ears. Do yourself a favor and go to a local library and check out a book by Jeppesen and do some reading, it's bound to help you accept reality.

No it does not. I fly real airplanes and I can guarantee you that wind does not do what you perceive it to. It's all in the perception of the plane relative to the ground. A plane has no such perception, only people do and so you may perceive this event as occurring because of what you are seeing happen relative to the ground. But the plane did not see it, that much is scientific fact.

I've been in wind shear in a plane, it did not try to flip me at all, but it did cause other momentary problems. Maybe you're thinking of something like a wake vortex? Something that happens when a plane is clean and slow, more so if it's a big plane flying clean and slow, or a heli. Something that in a 360 you sometimes hit. I've never hit wind shear in a turn but I'd think it would behave the same as normal wind shear. The guy in the hangar next to me flies a King Air and has hit wind shear numerous times, never has the thing tried to flip him. The only time he got flipped was on final when he got caught in a wake vortex and that did flip him. He righted it just fine, but it did wake him up just the same.

I agree with you, it wasn't wind shear. It was pilot error. It wouldn't have happened if the pilot understood the facts. It did not occur because it was windy either.

Just because a plane is flying faster does not mean you can safely slow it down. The plane can be going 100 mph, yet still flying right above stall if the conditions are right. Keep in mind I refer to ground speed there, not airspeed. The planes airspeed could be 50 MPH with a ground speed of

Yes, we do have to consider turbulence. But I was countering your example with the ceiling tile, remember? The ceiling tile demonstrated steady wind from a ground perspective. However, if one holds the ceiling tile long enough, some turbulence will probably display itself too.

The B-52 in the video I saw entered a classic spiral dive. This is probably the number one killer of all model airplanes and even quite a few full size airplanes, I suspect.

My wife's first R/C rig was a used 1968 Micro Avionics four channel proportional rig. We bought it mounted in a built and ready-to-fly Andrews A-Ray trainer with a brand new OS Max .35 R/C engine in the nose. This was in 1970, approximately. We flew it most of the summer before something went askew, the rudder went full to one side and the model spiraled into the ground. There was no stopping it. The R/C system had quit working.

In those days, we used five wire servos and battery packs. When one side let go, the rudder, aileron and any other servo in the system would go hard to full stop one way or another. The good side was that you didn't have to walk that far to collect the pieces, unlike today's systems which will die near neutral.

After another year of having the system repaired repeatedly, only to pull the same trick over and over again, I was getting really familiar with the spiral dive of death. That looks exactly like what happened to the B-52, although there isn't really any way to verify what was the cause. Mechanical failure? Maybe. Something could have come unplugged. This is one reason that I hate plug-in wings. There's simply too much to go wrong in a complicated model. But how else could one transport a 27' wingspanned behemoth?

Getting one's left and right crossed up during flight will often produce the same spiral dive. I didn't see any evidence of wind shear or dumb thumbs, but the crossing up of left and right is still possible.

The truth of the matter is, we most likely will never really know what caused the crash. Personally, I wouldn't have flown that kind of model in that much wind. Then again, I wouldn't have flown that kind of model at all anyway. 8>)

Ed Cregger

Well that might be because I thought I was dealing with people who don't need each and every detail spelled out to them. Obviously in your case I was wrong!

You know, I could continue this but I won't. Not because I think you're right and I'm wrong. But because I think were all just beating a dead mule!

Why don't you simply put that in your sig and every time you post, leave the rest blank?

Thank god!

More than one think you were wrong.

Not dead, but you certainly are stubborn as one.

Turbulence and variation in the wind speed - both of which will be greater close to the ground.

The Natural Philosopher posted message IDon Mon, 06 Sep 2004 12:06:08

Oh for chrissake, Neville...you're the last person on this newsgroup qualified to pounce on a typo.

Relax. C.O., we're just friends talking among friends. In the final analysis, what we think doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I'm not out to prove anyone wrong. As far as I know, no one wins anything by winning a debate anyway. If so, I want my prizes! 8>)

I don't understand the personal attacks on fellow newsgroupers and fliers. Never did, never will.

It would be much better if everyone behaved as though the person they are talking to was standing within arm's reach of each other. I guarantee that the conversations would be much more polite. No, I'm not referring to you necessarily.

Ed Cregger