Agreed... they've already had problems with it and NOT ACCEPTING the fix for it sounds kind of stupid to me. On second thought, maybe the GP should not accept the fix and let Darwin do his magic. Especially since the logic is so simple... if I'm pressing on the brake, don't give the engine gas. Seems like no brainer to me... I mean the fix, not the GP... on second thought, they both do.
Also ReplayTV, Microsoft's UltimateTV and TiVo were all introduced at the CES show in 98.
I'm not sure who actually did it "first." But no licensing deals were struck, so it seems that the patents either had already expired or there were none to begin with due to prior art.
I've been using a product called Knot Wax (from a company called LoPresti) for years on my airplane. It's a two part spray on process that coats the airplane in a glass shell.
I'm not so sure this is any different, or new for that matter.
Ah... but that's LA... try looking at the statistics from Chicago. I understand the Thompson was used in a few "contracts" that possibly used more than 31 bullets. In fact, Feb 14th comes to mind for some reason.
How about pricing it in Dollars and giving the measurements in Inches. That way us US customers (who is, after all, the apparent market) can actually buy and understand it.
BTW... I'll be damned if I'm going to use a gun that also makes me put on a watch. Imaging having to deal with that in the middle of the night when someone tries to break into your house. Let's see, can I use the watch on my left hand and have the gun in my right? 20cm... let's see... that 2.54 cm per inch, so 20 div... BAM... No, I've been shot!
No thanks... I'll stick with my Kimber 1911. No measurements required and sold for US $. And I'm pretty sure any would be attacker would notice getting hit with it.
Actually, the way the two are read is different. The Russian design is rated at altitude while the US design is rated at sea level. When you correct for altitude, they are both about equal.
When first examined by the west, the Russian system did have some nice advancements that the early Aces II didn't. However, the latest Aces II seats incorporate several of those same enhancements as well. (In fact, there was a technology sharing summit about 15 years ago where the US and Russian designers got together and improved both systems.) The Russians had two key features that the US system didn't have that were incorporated in the latest designs... stabilization and windblast deflection. The Russians gained better pyrotechnics, electronics and testing equipment.
Because of that technology sharing, both sides came out ahead to improve the pilots ability to survive an ejection. In the end, however, if you look at the survibility rates, they are still about equal.
Ah, I see what you mean. Actually, the envelope is a point on a curve right before it shoots straight up. If you are within that envelope, you will survive 95% of the time no matter what you do. However, if you pass that point, you only survive when you are right up close to that curve. The further away, the less chance you have. Much beyond that, you most likely aren't able to pull the handle because of g-loads or the fact that you're already dead.
Hmmm, I didn't mention "density altitude". Density Altitude is actually used to define something entirely different. Basically, what I was saying was the the actual speed (true airspeed) is greater than the rated speed (indicated airspeed) because the air is less dense at altitude.
As for knots... they are defined as "One Arc Minute." Which if the earth was divided up into 360 equal "degrees", then one arc minute would be one 60th of one degree.
Lastly, to correct my previous statement and make it clear... the Russian K36 seat design is listed at something like 1400kph at 15000 meters, where the US Aces II seat is listed at 600kts at 0 ft. When you equalize those numbers for altitude, they are about the same.
The real point is that either seat is way more capable than the pilot is.
Considering that if you don't eject, you die... I'd say it's pretty good. The Ejection Envelope is the "safe" limits of ejection. That can mean a number of things like speed, altitude, attitude and location (there have actually been sucessful underwater ejections!)
Having a 90% success rate outside the designed limits is darn good, if you ask me!
Friendly aircraft will see this "Soviet" style radar as a threat and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that.
The Radar on fighter aircraft's #1 purpose is to find and track other aircraft for the purpose of shooting it down, hence the "Fighter" name. I'm sure the FAA and the US Air Force would have problems with that.
Actually, the Russian K36 ejection seats are no more (or less) capable than the standard Aces II seat that all US fighters use. They are both very capable seats. The Aces II has a "success" rate of about 90% when operating outside the ejection envelope and about 95% within the envelope. The Russian design has similar statistics. Both are capable of 0-0 ejections, meaning that the pilot can eject from a stopped aircraft as 0 feet altitude and safely land. Most of the times, this feature is used when the aicraft is taking off or landing. There are several instances of both designs where aircraft doing low approaches had to eject with amazing results.
I think the difference in speed you are referring to is that the Russian seat is measured in kilometers and the US seat is in Knots. The Russian design is rated to about 1400kph, while the US design is 600 knots. If you do the simple math, that doesn't make them equal, until you realize that 600 knots is much much faster at altitude (because of air density,) where kilometers is a fixed distance. 600 knots at sea level is about ~1100kph, but at 35,000 feet, it is ~1400kph.
Remember, the limiting factor isn't the seat itself, it's that soft squishy part that the seat is design to hold. Russian or US designs don't differ in that respect.
Any foreign military aircraft that is brought into the US must be demilitarized before its sale can be approved. That include removing any equipment that could be offensive in nature, including radars, jamming equipment and weapon systems.
However, I still don't see how that is an FAA issue. The FAA has nothing to do with liability, it's the court system and the insurance industry that does that.
Actually, you are confusing the aircraft certification with the pilots certificate. A certificated Private Pilot can fly a properly equipped LSA aircraft at night or above 10,000 feet, however, a pilot with a Light Sport Certificate can not.
As for the seats, yes, that is a limiting factor of LSA aircraft. But I currently fly a Beech Skipper, which is also just as limited, yet is still certified.
"And if the FAA were revamped such that it more readily allowed free market competition, that price could likely be in the $30k range while at the same time making aviation safer for everyone;"
Can you clarify that statement? What can the FAA do to allow more free market competition? In fact, the Cessna SkyCrasher isn't an FAA Certified aircraft at all. It's a light sport aircraft, and as such, doesn't need to be certified by the FAA. It's built to a standard that is called ASTM. That standard is defined as an industry consensus, that way, the cost is significantly lower. In fact, it's far lower than a traditional FAR Part 23 certified aircraft like the Cessna 172 which costs more than twice as much.
The reports clearly indicate that they used water to extinguish the flame, so I doubt it could have been thermite. Thermite will burn even while wet because it has it's own supply of oxygen. It would take a lot of water to get the temperature low enough to actually put it out.
In WWII, my grandfather was a radar operator on a Navy ship. In the event of an order to abandon the ship, his duty was to also ignite the thermite charges to ensure the destruction of the equipment. The only problem was that he was ordered to stay by that equipment until it was completly destroyed... but thermite actually burns quite slowly. If the ship was sinking, he, quite possibly, would have drowned before the thermite actually got a chance to destroy the equipment. However, it would have continued to burn even as the ship was sinking.
I'm not being a dick... I'm pointing out facts in response to the previous ACs comments. I didn't use wikipedia or even play nintendo as that AC posted.:-)
I actually work in the automotive field and specifically, up until a year ago, mostly on GM products.
I'm currently working at a new car company, however, it is none of the above mentioned cars. In fact, it's a brand new startup that is creating an entirely new design. If you think Saab's were unique and innovative, you should see this thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed... they've already had problems with it and NOT ACCEPTING the fix for it sounds kind of stupid to me. On second thought, maybe the GP should not accept the fix and let Darwin do his magic. Especially since the logic is so simple... if I'm pressing on the brake, don't give the engine gas. Seems like no brainer to me... I mean the fix, not the GP... on second thought, they both do.
Bill
Also ReplayTV, Microsoft's UltimateTV and TiVo were all introduced at the CES show in 98.
I'm not sure who actually did it "first." But no licensing deals were struck, so it seems that the patents either had already expired or there were none to begin with due to prior art.
Bill
I wonder where he got the bits to upload them from.
Bill
I've been using a product called Knot Wax (from a company called LoPresti) for years on my airplane. It's a two part spray on process that coats the airplane in a glass shell.
I'm not so sure this is any different, or new for that matter.
Bill
In a life or death situation, I'll be grabbing for Kimber, thank you.
Bill
Ah... but that's LA... try looking at the statistics from Chicago. I understand the Thompson was used in a few "contracts" that possibly used more than 31 bullets. In fact, Feb 14th comes to mind for some reason.
Bill
Now that was damn funny!!!
Bill
How about pricing it in Dollars and giving the measurements in Inches. That way us US customers (who is, after all, the apparent market) can actually buy and understand it.
BTW... I'll be damned if I'm going to use a gun that also makes me put on a watch. Imaging having to deal with that in the middle of the night when someone tries to break into your house. Let's see, can I use the watch on my left hand and have the gun in my right? 20cm... let's see... that 2.54 cm per inch, so 20 div... BAM... No, I've been shot!
No thanks... I'll stick with my Kimber 1911. No measurements required and sold for US $. And I'm pretty sure any would be attacker would notice getting hit with it.
Bill
Go see "Office Space."
Bill
Please read the other responses.
Actually, the way the two are read is different. The Russian design is rated at altitude while the US design is rated at sea level. When you correct for altitude, they are both about equal.
When first examined by the west, the Russian system did have some nice advancements that the early Aces II didn't. However, the latest Aces II seats incorporate several of those same enhancements as well. (In fact, there was a technology sharing summit about 15 years ago where the US and Russian designers got together and improved both systems.) The Russians had two key features that the US system didn't have that were incorporated in the latest designs... stabilization and windblast deflection. The Russians gained better pyrotechnics, electronics and testing equipment.
Because of that technology sharing, both sides came out ahead to improve the pilots ability to survive an ejection. In the end, however, if you look at the survibility rates, they are still about equal.
Bill
Ah, I see what you mean. Actually, the envelope is a point on a curve right before it shoots straight up. If you are within that envelope, you will survive 95% of the time no matter what you do. However, if you pass that point, you only survive when you are right up close to that curve. The further away, the less chance you have. Much beyond that, you most likely aren't able to pull the handle because of g-loads or the fact that you're already dead.
Bill
Hmmm, I didn't mention "density altitude". Density Altitude is actually used to define something entirely different. Basically, what I was saying was the the actual speed (true airspeed) is greater than the rated speed (indicated airspeed) because the air is less dense at altitude.
As for knots... they are defined as "One Arc Minute." Which if the earth was divided up into 360 equal "degrees", then one arc minute would be one 60th of one degree.
Lastly, to correct my previous statement and make it clear... the Russian K36 seat design is listed at something like 1400kph at 15000 meters, where the US Aces II seat is listed at 600kts at 0 ft. When you equalize those numbers for altitude, they are about the same.
The real point is that either seat is way more capable than the pilot is.
Bill
Considering that if you don't eject, you die... I'd say it's pretty good. The Ejection Envelope is the "safe" limits of ejection. That can mean a number of things like speed, altitude, attitude and location (there have actually been sucessful underwater ejections!)
Having a 90% success rate outside the designed limits is darn good, if you ask me!
Bill
Friendly aircraft will see this "Soviet" style radar as a threat and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want that.
The Radar on fighter aircraft's #1 purpose is to find and track other aircraft for the purpose of shooting it down, hence the "Fighter" name. I'm sure the FAA and the US Air Force would have problems with that.
Bill
Actually, the Russian K36 ejection seats are no more (or less) capable than the standard Aces II seat that all US fighters use. They are both very capable seats. The Aces II has a "success" rate of about 90% when operating outside the ejection envelope and about 95% within the envelope. The Russian design has similar statistics. Both are capable of 0-0 ejections, meaning that the pilot can eject from a stopped aircraft as 0 feet altitude and safely land. Most of the times, this feature is used when the aicraft is taking off or landing. There are several instances of both designs where aircraft doing low approaches had to eject with amazing results.
I think the difference in speed you are referring to is that the Russian seat is measured in kilometers and the US seat is in Knots. The Russian design is rated to about 1400kph, while the US design is 600 knots. If you do the simple math, that doesn't make them equal, until you realize that 600 knots is much much faster at altitude (because of air density,) where kilometers is a fixed distance. 600 knots at sea level is about ~1100kph, but at 35,000 feet, it is ~1400kph.
Remember, the limiting factor isn't the seat itself, it's that soft squishy part that the seat is design to hold. Russian or US designs don't differ in that respect.
Bill
Any foreign military aircraft that is brought into the US must be demilitarized before its sale can be approved. That include removing any equipment that could be offensive in nature, including radars, jamming equipment and weapon systems.
Bill
Oh... you just missed it. The Russians sold the one they had under construction to the Chinese.
Bill
How about this one: Slashdot!!!
Remember when they used to give us the news ONCE, BEFORE everyone else did?
Bill
Hmmm... I'm trying to figure out ONE single good product they had to begin with.
Bill
However, I still don't see how that is an FAA issue. The FAA has nothing to do with liability, it's the court system and the insurance industry that does that.
Bill
Actually, you are confusing the aircraft certification with the pilots certificate. A certificated Private Pilot can fly a properly equipped LSA aircraft at night or above 10,000 feet, however, a pilot with a Light Sport Certificate can not.
As for the seats, yes, that is a limiting factor of LSA aircraft. But I currently fly a Beech Skipper, which is also just as limited, yet is still certified.
Bill
"And if the FAA were revamped such that it more readily allowed free market competition, that price could likely be in the $30k range while at the same time making aviation safer for everyone;"
Can you clarify that statement? What can the FAA do to allow more free market competition? In fact, the Cessna SkyCrasher isn't an FAA Certified aircraft at all. It's a light sport aircraft, and as such, doesn't need to be certified by the FAA. It's built to a standard that is called ASTM. That standard is defined as an industry consensus, that way, the cost is significantly lower. In fact, it's far lower than a traditional FAR Part 23 certified aircraft like the Cessna 172 which costs more than twice as much.
Bill
The reports clearly indicate that they used water to extinguish the flame, so I doubt it could have been thermite. Thermite will burn even while wet because it has it's own supply of oxygen. It would take a lot of water to get the temperature low enough to actually put it out.
In WWII, my grandfather was a radar operator on a Navy ship. In the event of an order to abandon the ship, his duty was to also ignite the thermite charges to ensure the destruction of the equipment. The only problem was that he was ordered to stay by that equipment until it was completly destroyed... but thermite actually burns quite slowly. If the ship was sinking, he, quite possibly, would have drowned before the thermite actually got a chance to destroy the equipment. However, it would have continued to burn even as the ship was sinking.
Lucky for him (and me!), that never happened!
Bill
I'm not being a dick... I'm pointing out facts in response to the previous ACs comments. I didn't use wikipedia or even play nintendo as that AC posted.:-)
I actually work in the automotive field and specifically, up until a year ago, mostly on GM products.
I'm currently working at a new car company, however, it is none of the above mentioned cars. In fact, it's a brand new startup that is creating an entirely new design. If you think Saab's were unique and innovative, you should see this thing.
Cheers,
Bill