It’s not illegal to carry a gun in your airplane, but it’s likely illegal to do so whilst drunk.
Right, since he cares so much about the law and the FAA telling him he’s not allowed to fly would make some kind of difference. That’s like saying more gun laws will reduce crime.
You think there’s a law that says you can’t carry a gun in your plane if you’re drunk? I seriously doubt it. According to the article, however, he was busted for felony gun possession, which means it was illegal for him to possess a gun at all.
After a landing like that, I’d need a drink, too. And maybe a change of clothes.
Yes, you can go to jail / prison for flying under the influence.
This isn’t just an FAA thing saying you can not fly anymore. The FAA is a safety / regulatory environment with the US Attorney to reck your world if they decide you acted with criminal intent to violate the regulations…
You can go to federal prison after you do your state time. Most people don’t know this. One is a federal crime, one is a state crime. No double jeopardy, only double the time.
Amen. Roger that! She had the situational awareness to save the day!
Thats one trip you’ll never forget Crystal. Something to tell your grand kids about.
This guy is toast. Good. But what about the others lurking out there on the fringe? CFIs are the first line of defense, and they need to step up their game here, and actively police the student pilot community for anti-authoritarian tendencies. It won’t do much for those that have already left the reservation, but it might dissuade a few. If we don’t police our own, we’ll have a bunch of fired up FSDO inspectors roaming around the ramps. We need to keep our house in order.
So why have any laws then, if people just ignore them? Turn off the Fox News
Interesting. Can someone tell me why you can’t just embed the motors in the wing to blow air over the surface through slots. You could also distribute the airflow more evenly via ducts. Seems like less drag. Also, if you do this do you need the slats?
I wonder if laminar flow wings have been tried on GA ships.
You can, lots of engineering work in 50-70’s with bleed air thru ducts (leading or trailing edges/ Coanda) penalty is structural complexity, maint headaches to maintain clean ducts and consequences of engine loss when below unblown stall speed. Engines exhausting across wing are less complex, but there’s cruise drag penalty and skins take a beating. This concept is potentially draggy in cruise but given limited speed range/priorities of a Cub is comparatively “simple” if you discount the wiring/mounts. Cub solution compared to exotic concepts kind of like fixed gear vs retracts, in slower aircraft fixed gear reduced weight (less induced drag)/simplicity beats out more complex retract’s reduction in form drag.
For laminar flow comment, high AOA is about maintaining boundary layer attachment, laminar boundary layers separate sooner than turbulent flow (dimples on golf balls). Laminar also more demanding of production/maint/contamination
(bugs/rain).
Yup . . . this’ll make my Piper Cub much more better. How is it a dozen reasons come to mind why this is a dumb idea?
Agree. Kind of like the Whittaker landing gear they developed for rough fields when all they needed to do was put bigger tires on. That wing looks like it has a ton of drag. Takes off and lands slower but cruises slower still.
Rich R covered pretty much what is/was part of the picture of aeronautical aerodynamics development, and boy! there’s so much more that could be developed… Well, the guys researching and experimenting in a full size aircraft is always a good thing. Lots to learn and deal with “new” packages and ideas. When I was developing a flying wing, and an amphibian and an ultralight aircraft I had the opportunity to make and use 12 full size different wings with different profiles and it was exhilarating to see what goes when you are actually flying the aircraft. Stall characteristics, cruise speed, what is the real result of profiles with this Cl that Cd etc…All in all it’s fun to see “new” ideas coming up being experimented and developed. As for me, this project is almost no deal. Can you imagine what would happen when you are flying and those little ducts are bombarded by bugs? LOL.
Imagine cleaning it up! LOL
Better than EVTOL, that’s all.
I doubt the application here is to make a super-STOL Carbon Cub more so but to provide a workable alternative to the phantasmagoric EVTOL.
Somebody at Cubcrafters either has OCD OR … all that public money they got from their IPO is burning a hole in their pockets. If they wanna build specialty low volume airplanes that pop into the air … let Mike Patey do it. He already has a buck rogers looking ‘thingy’ shown last year at Airventure. OR … maybe they’ve been watching too many NASA Armstrong X-57 videos and they want to compete? During the USAF STOL transport YC-14 / YC-15 competition, Boeing had an idea to use ‘blown flaps’ from two huge engines. For good reason, the USAF went for the standard McDonnell Douglas YC-15 design with four engines … which turned into the C-17.
Why doesn’t Cubcrafters use all that money to try to figure out how to mass produce an airplane for “everyman?” You know … one that mere mortals can AFFORD and would sell like hotcakes at a Sunday AM fly in breakfast. HEY … like a Cub. IF MOSAIC comes in as we all hope it will (I ain’t holdin’ my breath), there’ll be a place for such an airplane … not THIS abortion.
Makes sense. Thanks.
What’s amusing, here, is that CC will wind up doing in a year what NASA has been publicizing - but not accomplishing - for about a decade. See https://www.nasa.gov/specials/X57/
What makes you think this tech will not improve sales, reduce costs, or both? It may be the innovation that makes your “everyman” plane possible.
The idea that all the best in flying is already here continues to amaze me.