Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjk166 | Hacker News Reader

> There are questions like max takeoff weight, fuel burn rate, max dive speeds, etc. Stuff a pilot had better know or he's a dead pilot.

You don't want a pilot who is creative when it comes to max takeoff weight.

Obviously there are good reasons to memorize certain things, creativity just isn't one of them.

View on HN

>You don't want a pilot who is creative when it comes to max takeoff weight.

In certain combat situations, or when smuggling coke across South and Central America, you certainly do.

Gravity works just as well if you're in combat or smuggling coke. They don't suddenly give you the ability to takeoff under too much load

Sure, there are hard laws of physics.

Until you get to those, you'd be surprised how far some creativity with weight distribution, getting rid of unneeded cargo or even plane parts, using stuff to your advantage, and a little daring to push the plane to its limits, goes...

Way beyond what the "by the book" pilot who isn't creative can achieve in times of need.

The max takeoff weight in the book isn't the actual maximum. It's the "certified" maximum. Anything beyond that may cause structural issues during takeoff, but probably won't be that big of a problem until you land. You'll need to be especially creative on getting very low on fuel, so you don't crash through your landing gear.

Not to mention that in combat, you need to understand the limitations not only of your own plane but also of both the allied and enemy planes in your airspace.

But you don't want CIVILIAN pilots to get too creative, though. Running out of runway with a 747 is no joke.

You can't be creative if you don't remember the facts.

BTW, bombers in WW2 were routinely overloaded on takeoff, at high risk to the crews. If one of the 4 engines wasn't delivering the max power, the result was crashing inside a planeload of fuel and bombs.

Forgoing factor of safety is not creativity.

You most certainly can be creative without remembering the facts.

> You most certainly can be creative without remembering the facts.

I've seen enough episodes of "Aviation Disasters", each of which dissects a crash or an averted crash, to not buy that.

There was once a 727 that suffered an autopilot failure, which rolled it over into a steep dive. The speed exceeded them max speed, and due to separation the controls could not "bite" into the air. The creative pilot thought he might increase the drag by lowering the landing gear in flight, which is a giant no-no. But he had nothing left to lose, and lowered it. The landing gear doors were ripped off and the gear was bent back, but it slowed the airplane enough that he regained control and saved everyone's life.

I know of another case with an F-80. That was the first US jet fighter, and it had straight wings and a powerful engine. They found out that if you overspeeded the airplane, which was too easy with its engine, it would violently pitch up and tear the wings off.

One day, in the Korean War, an F-80 pilot had a Mig on his tail that he couldn't shake. So he thought, I bet the Mig couldn't follow me in a pitchup, and so he rammed the throttles forward. The F-80 did pitch up, and the wings stayed on, and he shook the Mig.

When he landed, the wings were visibly bent up, and the airplane was scrapped.

I know about this because my dad flew F-80s in combat in the Korean War.

How are any of those examples of "needing to remember the facts to be creative"?

Both are examples of going way off the reservation of known emergency procedures. First, knowing enough to override the fact that lowering the gear at such speeds can be catastrophic, the second knowing the fact that the pitchup is a violent maneuver and how to induce it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com