• Karyoplasma
      link
      fedilink
      English
      54
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The glide ratio of a Cessna 172 is about 9:1, video is from a T210N Centurion II, a similarly sized but heavier plane, so its gliding capabilities are worse.

      The glide ratio of an Airbus A320 is 17:1.

      A huge Airbus is much better at gliding than a small Cessna.

        • @Everythingispenguins
          link
          English
          66 months ago

          All planes can do a barrel roll. When executed properly a barrel roll is a 1g maneuver. At no point during a barrel roll should a plane experience any forces significantly different to level flight.

          The largest plan to ever be barrel rolled was a Concorde prototype.

        • @scarilog
          link
          English
          6
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          This is the craziest Wikipedia article I’ve read in a while.

          Feel sad for the dudes mental health state, but damn, what a way to go. A well executed barrel roll in a q400, seemingly without prior flight experience. Wild.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          Still reading the article, but I felt compled to comment on the level of detail:

          Both [fighter jets] […] reached supersonic speeds, which generated sonic booms on the way to the Puget Sound area. [emphasis added]

          Are these sonic booms relevant to the actual incident? Probably not. But the author decided it was part of the events and decided to include it and I find that endearing.

          • Karyoplasma
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago
            1. Sonic booms are cool

            2. Could have been a part of the incidence investigation to rule out that the crash was caused by the wake turbulence of the fighter jets going supersonic.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              16 months ago
              1. agreed
              2. That may well be the reason they were noted in the first place, but the article makes no further mention of them if they were relevant, so it’s still an editorial choice whether to include that detail. There is no informational value to it, it doesn’t affect the rest of the article, just a minor note “fast plane make boom” because it’s cool.
      • @riodoro1
        link
        English
        36 months ago

        But muh intuition says otherwise, so must be false.

    • @comrade19
      link
      English
      346 months ago

      You should prefer the bigger ones haha. The big planes have two engines and complete redundancy, two pilots who have more experience, turbine engines which are more reliable, better glide ratio so they can glide further, higher cruise levels so they can glide even further. I fly that plane in the video for work and I cross my fingers when we go over dense trees or water because those 1980’s planes are always giving us trouble!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      46 months ago

      Ultralight FTW! Some of them have a handle in the cockpit you can pull, that releases a parachute for the entire aircraft!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        I wish this was an option for more passenger planes. Not that they need it. But I’d like to know they have it lol