I always felt so out of my depth on those posts, like “what the hell am I doing hanging out here”. All I could do was sit at my PC and read, totally in awe of Lex in every possible way. The ultimate sycophant. I lurked until I didn’t.
1. How would Josh feel getting a former XO of TOPGUN (all caps; I’m learning!) – oriented in – relatively speaking – a puddle jumper in performance compared to the mighty FA-18? I am reading last night an account of an LA Times reporter getting a ride in #7 Blue Angel, and that thing accelerated from 0-100 in 5 seconds on the runway.
2. How would Lex feel going from high performance fighters to something with a 10th of the performance? It was a question I remember of the WW2 fighter pilots, returning from the war and their Corsairs and Mustangs to flying 40hp Piper Cubs.
After you’ve been to Paree, how can you go back to the farm?
OTOH flying is flying and if someone else is paying your flying bills so much the better.
Finally this portion of Lex’s piece
For although you get twice the engines, your operating costs tend to triple. You do save time over a Cessna 172 certainly, and even the somewhat speedier Cardinal. But it’s nothing like twice as fast, and at medium altitudes and full gross weight, a surviving engine will only carry you to the crash site in a more leisurely fashion than the single engine pilot will enjoy.
Always remembered something the late, great Bill Lear said about aircraft design and performance : that for each incremental increase in speed the cost goes up exponentially – to get another – say 20-30 kts out of an airframe, add retractable landing gear that adds 10s of thousands to the cost (not to mention recurring costs like annual inspections)
I always felt so out of my depth on those posts, like “what the hell am I doing hanging out here”. All I could do was sit at my PC and read, totally in awe of Lex in every possible way. The ultimate sycophant. I lurked until I didn’t.
Several thoughts came to me reading Lex’s post.
1. How would Josh feel getting a former XO of TOPGUN (all caps; I’m learning!) – oriented in – relatively speaking – a puddle jumper in performance compared to the mighty FA-18? I am reading last night an account of an LA Times reporter getting a ride in #7 Blue Angel, and that thing accelerated from 0-100 in 5 seconds on the runway.
2. How would Lex feel going from high performance fighters to something with a 10th of the performance? It was a question I remember of the WW2 fighter pilots, returning from the war and their Corsairs and Mustangs to flying 40hp Piper Cubs.
After you’ve been to Paree, how can you go back to the farm?
OTOH flying is flying and if someone else is paying your flying bills so much the better.
Finally this portion of Lex’s piece
For although you get twice the engines, your operating costs tend to triple. You do save time over a Cessna 172 certainly, and even the somewhat speedier Cardinal. But it’s nothing like twice as fast, and at medium altitudes and full gross weight, a surviving engine will only carry you to the crash site in a more leisurely fashion than the single engine pilot will enjoy.
Always remembered something the late, great Bill Lear said about aircraft design and performance : that for each incremental increase in speed the cost goes up exponentially – to get another – say 20-30 kts out of an airframe, add retractable landing gear that adds 10s of thousands to the cost (not to mention recurring costs like annual inspections)