this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
208 points (98.6% liked)

Crazy Fucking Videos

5648 readers
12 users here now

Dive into the World of Insane Videos!

Rules

  1. No hate speech of any kind.
  2. Content warnings are required in post titles where applicable. Example: [CW: Injury]
  3. Use your best judgement and mark NSFW posts as such.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
dylpickles@lemmy.world
MutatedBass@lemmy.world
TimeNaan@lemmy.world
208
In Australia, a Cessna light aircraft's engine failed, but the pilot managed to steer it away from residential buildings. (i.imgur.com)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by Wilshire@lemmy.world to c/crazyfuckingvideos@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 54 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Which is better at barrel rolls?

Near the end of the flight, the aircraft was seen performing a barrel roll over Puget Sound, recovering approximately ten feet (3 m) above the water.

[–] scarilog@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 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.

[–] Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world 6 points 5 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.

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

  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.

[–] luciferofastora@lemmy.zip 1 points 5 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@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

But muh intuition says otherwise, so must be false.