• Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      5 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.

        • scarilog@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          5 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.

            • luciferofastora@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.
    • comrade19@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      5 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!

    • gramie@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 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