Crosswind Landing

I saw an IL-76 take off at Oshkosh it wasn't nearly that dramatic.
LOL, only Aussie's air traffic controllers would joke about having enough film, to "film the crash."
 
IIRC, I was told you guys were the only crews in the USAF who took off in situations in which your critical engine failure speed was higher than refusal speed. This meant there was a point during the takeoff roll when, if you lost an engine, you could neither take off in the remaining runway nor stop in the remaining runway.
That's high adventure. "Prepare to engage localizer antenna." I'm sure it wasn't done all the time, but when the klaxon sounds . . .

It wasn't something we practiced as we would monitor the high temp for the day and reduce the fuel load accordingly. Of course that meant if the "real thing" happened the remaining fuel we had after offloading the fuel needed for the the B-52 to get to target wouldn't be enough to make it to any airfield. Since we didn't expect any usable runway to survive, it wasn't much of an issue at the time.
 
I Since we didn't expect any usable runway to survive, it wasn't much of an issue at the time.

I felt nearly the same way on a boomer: "So we've launched 16 and are still here. Now what do we do??"

Sorry for the hijack, all you pilots.
 
I felt nearly the same way on a boomer: "So we've launched 16 and are still here. Now what do we do??"
Set sail for Tahiti? No strategic target for either side there, was it?
 
No apology necessary. It was fatalistic yet very realistic, wasn't it. Kids these days don't understand what it was like to live during the Cold War and the MAD doctrine.

Yeah, I know. Cue the Four Yorkshiremen again...
 
I never actually expected to survive a full strategic launch. After the first 3 or 4, they pretty much know exactly where you are.
 
I felt nearly the same way on a boomer: "So we've launched 16 and are still here. Now what do we do??"
Clear datum at the max secure speed of eight knots!

I was always a little skeptical of that "get down to test depth where their torpedoes will burn too much fuel to follow for very long"...
 
One of my instructors told me that before you ever did anything questionable you shoud ask yourself:

"How is this going to sound at the NTSB hearing?"
 
In the early days of flying they didn't use runways. They used a "flying field" big flat field. They always landed into the wind. Would be nice now. (quote)

There is such a field (in concrete, no less) at Converse IN. Never been there and I see from the satellite that they've put some designated runways on it now. Converse's field used to be a recurring subject of our FBO coffee corner - back in the day. See -

Converse, Indiana IN Community Profile / Miami County, IN Data

Very Cool! But how does the pilot keep the plane "straight" during takeoffs/landings if he / she doesn't use the designated part? Do they just "eyeball" it?
 
Very Cool! But how does the pilot keep the plane "straight" during takeoffs/landings if he / she doesn't use the designated part? Do they just "eyeball" it?

"Maintain compass heading in absence of runway centerline stripes".
 
Speaking of crosswinds. Today here there is a 28 MPH crosswind. Did not get to fly the cub today!
 
Speaking of crosswinds. Today here there is a 28 MPH crosswind. Did not get to fly the cub today!
Good call. When crosswind component is about the same as stall speed, that's not good. Add in the taildragger post-touchdown drama and it could be a wild ride.
 
I have landed the legand cub in 12 mph crosswinds. Had full rudder in. Suppose to handle 15 mph. Maybe. I don't want to risk it.
 
With enough headwind you can fly a Cub backwards, right? Heck, 28mph should allow you to head into the wind and land it perpendicular to the runway. Of course taxiing could be a bit tricky...
 
Back
Top Bottom