Article

2009-08-11 Europe

Your Glider Is Now Boarding: SAS Planes To Land In Mexican Overdrive

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Grunter 2009-08-11 00:08|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 Let's see, risking a $50-60M airplane and fiery death for 200 people to save 30 gallons of fuel. I'm sure that makes perfect sense in some alternate universe.

Posted by ed 2009-08-11 07:18|| 2009-08-11 07:18|| Front Page Top

#2 The glide slope on a airliner isn't a glide. It's more like a controlled fall. It'll be interesting to see if it works. I wonder what the glide slope on the shuttle is?

Posted by Varmint Phavimble3524 2009-08-11 07:46|| 2009-08-11 07:46|| Front Page Top

#3 I wonder what the glide slope on the shuttle is?

The turn around time for the next flight after prep maintenance though is not likely to meet commercial standards.

Posted by Procopius2k 2009-08-11 07:51|| 2009-08-11 07:51|| Front Page Top

#4 Of course I should have said glide ratio. Seems that a 747 has a glide ratio of 15:1 and can actually be landed like that. Still don't know if I would fly SAS if they do approve it.

Posted by Varmint Phavimble3524 2009-08-11 07:51|| 2009-08-11 07:51|| Front Page Top

#5 The glide slope on a airliner isn't a glide. It's more like a controlled fall. It'll be interesting to see if it works. I wonder what the glide slope on the shuttle is?

Posted by Varmint Phavimble3524 2009-08-11 07:51|| 2009-08-11 07:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Shuttle forward speed divided by sink speed = 4.5

Posted by Skidmark 2009-08-11 07:55|| 2009-08-11 07:55|| Front Page Top

#7 It not just gliding. Engine power comes in real handy, like during wind shear. I wouldn't even want to caught anywhere near the ground with the engines idle and a possibility of a strong wind gust.

Posted by ed 2009-08-11 07:58|| 2009-08-11 07:58|| Front Page Top

#8 On first reading the head-line, I thought someone had seen sense and were sending the SAS to sort out Mexico's problems.
Back on topic, why is this favoured for landing in mountainous places? Seems like they're places it's good to have the control of power working.

Posted by rhodesiafever">rhodesiafever 2009-08-11 10:04|| 2009-08-11 10:04|| Front Page Top

#9 And when the control tower screws up the ground traffic, or a general aviation aircraft wanders onto the runway, or a herd of deer suddenly materialize, or an aircraft malfunction takes place - there's no immediate power available for a touch and go.

Posted by mrp 2009-08-11 11:22|| 2009-08-11 11:22|| Front Page Top

#10 That's all right. Remember . . . . the engines are put into neutral.

Posted by Canuckistan sniper 2009-08-11 12:29|| 2009-08-11 12:29|| Front Page Top

#11 Towed Passenger Gliders were a science fiction staple around 1955 or so, I remember seeing a serious effort by Pan Am, advertisements and all.

Posted by Redneck Jim 2009-08-11 13:01|| 2009-08-11 13:01|| Front Page Top

#12 the engines are put into neutral.

Just a note, R does NOT mean RACE.

Posted by ed 2009-08-11 13:06|| 2009-08-11 13:06|| Front Page Top

#13 Several items:
1. There cannot be any conflicting traffic and a clearance for a straight in approach from cruising altitude.
2. The pilots must be VERY good or the aircraft is on autopilot to maintain the proper route and glide path.
3. The passengers had best not eat heavily before flight and no one should have sinus problems.

Posted by tipover 2009-08-11 13:31|| 2009-08-11 13:31|| Front Page Top

#14 The phrase "glide slope of a home-sick brick" comes to mind...

Posted by mojo 2009-08-11 14:15|| 2009-08-11 14:15|| Front Page Top

#15 OK, I'm not convinced. It sounds like a 400 ft Fire Force jump, but you don't get to jump out of the plane. Now that was lack of control, wouldn't want to do it three times a day again, however.

Posted by rhodesiafever">rhodesiafever 2009-08-11 14:35|| 2009-08-11 14:35|| Front Page Top

#16 "On one hand, we save fuel, on the other, we reduce our emissions of CO2 (carbon dioxide)."

And on the third hand, we reduce our inventory of aircraft.

Posted by Mullah Richard 2009-08-11 14:37|| 2009-08-11 14:37|| Front Page Top

#17 And all those former passengers (Now dead) no longer can increase their carbon footprint! And it strikes a blow at world overpopulation.

Posted by Silentbrick">Silentbrick 2009-08-11 16:28|| 2009-08-11 16:28|| Front Page Top

#18 All in favor of changing the name of 'Mexican Overdrive' to 'Scandiknavian Overdrive," please post aye.

Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2009-08-11 18:28|| 2009-08-11 18:28|| Front Page Top

#19 I'd make a comment about Congressional Gulfstreams, but I'd probably be banned.

Posted by Eric Jablow">Eric Jablow 2009-08-11 18:38|| 2009-08-11 18:38|| Front Page Top

#20 How about the idiots who thought this one up take the first live test flight.
Or maybe they should consider running it through the flight simulator (a real one, not the MS toy version) under simulated emergency conditions like the ones mentioned here - wind shear, unexpected traffic, etc.

Posted by Rambler in Virginia">Rambler in Virginia 2009-08-11 19:07|| 2009-08-11 19:07|| Front Page Top

#21 I think the correct term is "Glide angle of a brick".

Posted by James Carville 2009-08-11 23:51|| 2009-08-11 23:51|| Front Page Top

23:51 James Carville
22:51 Grunter
22:35 notascrename
21:52 gorb
21:42 Pappy
21:22 Pappy
21:13 Pappy
20:41 Rambler in Virginia
20:23 lotp
20:22 lotp
20:08 Redneck Jim
20:02 Redneck Jim
19:57 Redneck Jim
19:55 Redneck Jim
19:48 Redneck Jim
19:42 Redneck Jim
19:28 Phil_B
19:07 Rambler in Virginia
19:06 Frank G
18:56 JosephMendiola
18:53 JosephMendiola
18:53 Rambler in Virginia
18:52 49 Pan
18:48 JosephMendiola