bfilarsky

Asshats... hope they learn their lesson.

You know what, I think you're on to something. I hope to God the design engineers are reading this thread. The wings are made of carbon fiber reinforced plastic, and are absolutely designed to flex substantially in flight. Here's a artist's rendition from before the first flight - notice how much the wings bend? http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2005/photorelease/q4/051213h_Quantas02_787-8.jpg I'm taking an aircraft stability and control class right now, and this was one of the things we talked about. From an aerodynamic perspective, its a huge design challenge to build such a flexible wing because of the significant changes in the wing geometry as it flexes.

I believe Mesquite is the only place near Vegas that truly allows fun jumpers.

You had a canopy that YOU decided YOU couldn't safely land. You cut it away. I'd say you made the correct choice. It is absolutely possible to land a canopy on rear risers, but that doesn't necessarily mean its the best decision for YOU. Good job!

Stone Brewing Co. beer is NOT on there

+1

If I recall correctly, 3 blade props are supposed to climb faster than 2 blade props, but they cruise slower.

If you're willing to travel as far as attitude aviation out in Livermore, they do an amazing job with tailwheel/aerobatic training. I did my aerobatic training with them - already had the tw though. I'm a CFI based in San Diego - I may be able to do some TW training in the beginning of January if that fits your schedule. PM me if interested.

OK, I'm a fucking idiot. I was thinking San Marcos - when you clearly wrote San Carlos. Its a mere difference of 450 miles or so Good luck finding some good grub!

The Stone Bistro http://www.stonebrew.com/home.asp# Amazing beer, great food, and a cool restaurant. You can do a free tour of the brewery if you want as well, with a free tasting

Diver Driver/Flight Instructor/Student

Red Rocket! Red Rocket!

..." ................................................................................................ Cheaper direct operating costs? Yes! More capability? Probably. Much higher purchase price? YES! The DZO probably bought that Navajo for not much more than a half-life Cessna 206 ... say $100,000. Meanwhile, a single turbine (Caravan, Cresco, Kodiak, PAC 750, Porter, Turbo-Beaver, etc.) starts at around a million dollars. Few Canadian DZs can pay off that kind of investment ... operating only six months out of the year. No doubt about it - if one can be leased, however, that seems like it would be a far better option than running 12 turbocharged jugs.

I believe jump run is done at about 105mph @ 12,700 MSL but I would have to ask again. I also believe they called for 15 degrees of flaps. Engine management has been a big topic of discussion and I know they're being run at well below maximum power output, especially since one is a light case engine. Low jump run speeds eats cylinders??? Some of the issue is that the pilots don't have a large number of hours on the type yet. It would be interesting to hear from Navajo jump pilots. I can point our pilots in this direction but I'm really just asking out of personal curiosity and not on behalf of anyone. -Michael Is it 105 mph Indicated Airspeed, or is that what you're seeing on the GPS? And are we really talking MPH, or knots? 105 is pretty fast for jump run - but some planes need more speed like that (King Air, for instance). More speed would definitely help, but if he's already doing 105 mph (or worse knots) IAS, then the benefits of the extra speed might not be as great as the costs. Not that low jump run speeds will eat cylinders - Its having 12 cylinders run hard for the jump operation (specifically, lots of high power, low airspeed climbing, followed shortly by low power, high airspeed descending) I can't imagine a single engine turbine wouldn't be cheaper to operate, and give you more capability.

Damn I just saw this on FB a few minutes ago. Can't believe it yet - I was just talking to that crazy dude a few days ago. RIP

I wonder if the FAA will agree. Did you file a NOTAM, and jump through all the other hoops you need to jump through to make a "legal" skydive? Remember man, it's not you they'll throw the book at. Elvisio "pilots are our buds" Rodriguez I was wondering the same thing.....

What does DT stand for? Oh ya, Dirty Toes. I rest my case

My vote is SD! I am obviously partial (live in SD), but our winters are better than the summers in half the country! With SDSD, Perris and Elsinore all a relatively close drive, there is just no comparison.

On a standard day, sea level pressure is 29.92 InHg. You lose 1" per thousand feet in the lower atmosphere, which would include 13,000'. So, you should expect roughly 17 InHg at 13,000 ft MSL. That would be 1.013 Bar at sea level, .57 Bar at 13,000'. Edit - you are confusing millibar with InHg (Inches of Mercury). Standard pressure at your DZ would be 29.5 InHg, not millibar.

I'll have to give some of those a shot. Be interested to see if I like any of them!

Any recommendations for a really good one? I mostly stick with various ales.

+1 But right at freezing is too cold for any beer, IMNSHO. (Bud light, etc don't count as beer. They are piss water - and in order to reduce the taste as much as possible, they should be drank as cold as possible)

CSC does rock!!!

The equation for terminal velocity is Vt = ((2MG)/ρACd)^(1/2) Vt is terminal velocity M is Mass G is Acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s^2 on earth) ρ is density A is area Cd is Coefficient of drag The only two factors that change with a change in body size, presuming the same basic shape are Mass and Area. As mentioned, mass increases more than surface area, so the fraction M/A goes up, increasing Vt. Confused yet?

Skydive Las Vegas is tandems only. Not sure where you should go under 18.