The story say's this was a short haul commuter plane, could have been a Turbo-prop, in which case he was slower and more maneuverable than a Fan-Jet.
Looked it up, its a Embraer 175 (twin-jet)
Looked it up, its a Embraer 175 (twin-jet)
400 and BELOW!!!
- Thread starter loganboyd
- Start date
- Status
When I opened this thread I expected it to be about Irixguys site 400orbelow.com
This thread is not waterproof and ruggedized.
This thread is not waterproof and ruggedized.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 91
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 91
Basic registration won't work, it would require an electronic tag of some sort. If a phantom is eating by a huge 777 engine, there will be nothing left to trace. The pieces would be scattered for miles and the smaller than M&Ms
how fast are you travelling in meters per second on landing approach? How far away could you be from an object that's 450mm wide and half that as tall and still see it? how many seconds does it take you to maneuver around an object that may also be moving in any direction?
Trying to figure out how big of an object it would have to be for a pilot to see it and how much time they would have decide to avoid it and actually be able to.
An octocopter with gimbal and DSLR camera would play bloody hell with the fan blades.
In my eyes it's relative in every forum where idiots want to fly this high all the time
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Messages
- 229
- Reaction score
- 91
Yeah that would be tough. We can usually see birds pretty well but we still hit them all the time. We are normally traveling around 65 meters per second on landing approach. It would be tough thats for sure. Unless it was night and you could see the lights from pretty far.
You have jedi reflexs if you can avoid incoming birds at 400+ MPH
Doesn't stop them from using a picture of a Phantom... every single time.
So would a bird, which is much more likely to connect with a plane due to sheer numbers.
I guess this is where I am different from everyone else on this site. I come mainly from firearms as a hobby. We fight new restrictions tooth and nail. On here it seems many take what if scenarios that are HIGHLY unlikely and gov proposed restrictions as law.
I don't do anything ignorant with my drone by any means. But just because one person did, and didn't cause an incident mind you, doesn't mean we have to have restrictions in place.
In other words, I enjoy freedom
No jet is flying that fast that low on approach. more like 150 mph.
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
He was creating hazards at JFK.
Only if you're looking for one.
Like other planes, right? [EDIT: "loganboyd" beat me to the punch!]
"damitjim" put it best: Aircraft carriers don't maneuver around fish. By the time, you saw the Phantom it would be confetti coming out the engine.
OT rant: Thank you FOX news for the animated ALERT ALERT ALERT message, otherwise I wouldn't know that this was vital news of national significance that everyone must know right now! Keep 'em afraid Murdoch! Good work.
Modern jet engines can suck in even worse and still run. They are incredible peices of engineering.
- Status
Similar threads
