Polymerized Cum posted:

It depends on the aircraft. Some are very forgiving in an auto (B206) and others are not (EC135)

A full stop, engine-out auto is a difficult move to land successfully. And by successfully, I mean to the extent where the helicopter can be rebuilt. The cyclic has to come back IMMEDIATELY without hesitation, as the collective is dropped. The military practices these often, civilian pilots do not.

movax posted:

Yeah, it's an urban legend when it comes to "there must be x stretches of y length for planes to land". I don't doubt there are stretches of highway where one could land a plane (it happens every now and then, usually a little Cessna though), but I don't know about taking off again. When you factor in specific states like dear old MI though, well, the plane probably isn't leaving the ground again.

Godholio posted:

I doubt if a single stretch of interstate highway is capable of supporting anything larger than an F-16.

YF19pilot posted:

I believe the Eisenhower Interstate Act included language that required something like 1 mile of highway for every 5 miles be built for the purpose or capability of handling aircraft (1 straight mile for every 5 miles of road or something like that). Not sure, so I'll have to look it up. It's one of those "common knowledge" things, so it could be total bunk.

holocaust bloopers posted:

Why because of aircraft size or ACN?

Groda posted:

This is however 100% real here in Sweden. On my way to work, I used to pass two repurposed Viggen barns outside the village of Gimo. The plan was to abandon the fixed airbases for ones like these in the event of war.

Godholio posted:

Both, but I was thinking specifically of ACN. Hell, we ran into problems at a major international airport over that.

CharlesM posted:

Even if you have a 4 lane highway it often has a grass median with divider, etc. Also I'm sure the main thing is it is not designed to support that weight.

Godholio posted:

I doubt if a single stretch of interstate highway is capable of supporting anything larger than an F-16.

hobbesmaster posted:

We have plenty of football fields for C-130s though!

holocaust bloopers posted:

Aren't Swedish fighters designed with the requirement for them to operate off of roads?

Madurai posted:

B-29 Superfortress:

ehnus posted:

I think that's a B-50.

ehnus posted:

I think that's a B-50.

ehnus posted:

I think that's a B-50.

ehnus posted:

I think that's a B-50.

MrChips posted:

As for the question about road width; a four-lane highway without a grass median would be something like 75-80 feet wide, including shoulders. It's certainly a usable width, but bear in mind that most normal runways you see at major airports or military bases are either 150 or 200 feet wide (some are wider still). Landing on a runway that narrow can be pretty tough, especially with crosswinds or high approach speeds.

Godholio posted:

And the ones with a grass median will be unusable for almost anything. Who wants the nose gear in the grass, even if the mains magically line up on each side of the road?

Polymerized Cum posted:

Nebakenezzer posted:

So after many years, I find myself visiting my parents, who live in Gander, NL. My dad has worked most of his career around the airport there, or in Gander Control center, the ATC hub that handles lots of traffic over the Atlantic. My dad took me out to supper on my birthday, and he told me an interesting story of Soviet aviation...

Gander used to be the western refueling point for communist bloc airliners flying to Cuba - as a kid I'd see all sorts of 'not-seen-in-the-west-generally' airliners. Being a kid of course I had no idea how unusual this was, but in retrospect, it was really cool: Cubana, Interflug, and most especially Aeroflot flew out of Gander all the time. I especially remember the Il-86s as those honkeys were loud. Earth-shakingly loud. The Soviets also takered in their own fuel, rather than buying it from the west.

Anyway, it's Febuary in the early 80s, and my dad is working as the manager of the control tower at the airport. One night, an Aeroflot Il-86 carrying VIPs to Cuba landed and managed to strike both inboard engines on the ground while doing so, even though the weather was (for once) fine. The VIPs are sent to the decadent capitalist luxury of the local hotel, while another Il-86 is flown in from the USSR, with the Aeroflot chief check pilot at the controls. That night, weather this Il-76 lands in is much more typical of darkest Newfoundland winter: absolutely appalling. Visibility is essentially nil - from the tower certain parts of the airport were cloaked in snowy darkness. So, this Il-86 is on final and is coming in for landing. He vanishes from the radar, and then...nothing. No response on the radio, no sound of thrust reversers, just silence. It's getting up to the time that the tower is legally required to start getting SAR crews out of bed, when the plane taxis up to her proper berth. The ground crew immediately report that the Il-86 has clipped some runway lights or something. So my dad is sent to meet with the pilot, who's English is not great but immediately starts complaining about the ILS being way off. A quick inspection of the runway told the story of the pilot's mistake.

Through the snow, the pilot had seen a string of lights, and assumed it was the runway's center-line. Gander has no center-line lights, so the lights the pilot had seen were of course the lights on the edge of the runway. He lands atop these, putting his Il-86 half into the several feet of snow on the side of the runway! So, yeah, no wonder he didn't need thrust reversers to slow down. So, they had to send a third Il-86...

Also I learned my dad was in the tower the night of the Arrow air disaster/possible terrorist attack. Interestingly, he's on the side of icing causing an accident, and gave me a plausible scenery as to how it could have happened. (I had no idea de-icing a plane cost $7000 in 1980s money, nor that you could refuse to have a plane de-iced. The Arrow Air DC-8 had refused de-icing before it took off, and apparently the Soviets *always* refused de-icing, because it cost too much money.)

Axeman Jim posted:

Phanatic posted:

I've never seen a B-17 painted like this. Anyone know what gives?
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/49024304@N00/2963413660/in/set-72157608125792619

Axeman Jim posted:

Correct on all counts sir, and yes, that Ambassador was at Duxford undergoing restoration last I heard.

OK, airliner time as promised. All these taken at LGW between 1972 and 1976, except one at an airshow, details unknown.

Madurai posted:

A trip to Castle Air Force Base Museum in Atwater CA today, despite the Texas-like heat out of nowhere.

MrChips posted:

Yes they are; that's why the Viggen has reverse thrust, which is extremely unusual in any fighter aircraft or any aircraft with afterburning engines. The Gripen (which replaced the Viggen) doesn't have reverse thrust, but has nose wheel brakes, good low speed aerodynamics (which allow for low approach speeds) and an airframe almost as rugged as a carrier-based aircraft (so it can fly steeper approaches and flare less before landing). All of these help keep the Gripen's landing distance to a minimum.