Mailing List Archive Mailing List Archive
>Dave, you are laboring under the mistaken impression that DIR is some sort >of religion. It is not, it is a *system*. Just as all the complexities of a >airplane can be understood if you break them down component by component, >the same can be done with DIR. Agreed. See my prior posts on equipment. >So let's just say that your favorite airplane is a MiG 17. You consider it >the epitome of aircraft design. You tell all your friends and fellow pilots >that there is simply no other plane like it and you would fly it to hell and >back. Now, would you saw a little bit off the wing tips increase the roll >rate, just to make your plane a little bit better. Would you pop-rivet an >addition to the rudder to make crosswind landings just a tad bit more >manageable. Would you attach a spin-chute to the tail, just incase you may, >one day, get in a unrecoverable spin. I doubt it. Does this make you a zealot? If a qualified designer were able to prduce an improvement in the aircraft, I would incorporate it. Actually, I have: The original brakes are pneumatic and frankly suck. I have redesigned the system on my MiG to a hydraulic one, using a hydraulic/pneumatic transfer device and find it much improved. Using a spin chute is SOP for depature from controlled flight testing. Ever see the movie "The Spin Doctors"?? >If someone does all this stuff to >their MiG 17, would you consider their plane to be improved? What would you >say to someone who said you were a miserable zealot and anybody who knew >anything about flying would tack on that rudder extension because it could >do nothing but make the plane fly better. Considering hat if he were able to put it in a wind tunnel and prove it, I might follow. The quarry is the wind tunnel for the ocean. You prove to me in the quarry that your 'geewhiz' works, and I'll then try it in the ocean. It's all a metter of observe, question, adapt, test, and either accept or reject. Basicially the scientific method, if you think about it. Hypothesis and experiment. Prove or disprove. This is how airplanes are improved, and the way that diving is similarly improved. >So relax on the enthusiasm of DIR divers. I really don't care if you DIR or >not. What does annoy me is someone say's they've "improved" DIR by doing >some stupid thing or other and then saying they've improved the system. Your >not going to pop-rivet anything to my MiG and get away with it. Carrying a hand-light rather than a cave-light is not a major change. it's -more- appropriate under certain circumstances. That's all. As for taking a complex system out for it's first open-world experience, in aviation you use a test pilot. Guess what? We take what is essentially a pop-riveted change out and test it as a matter of routine. Holding a dive light is the least of my worries. >And as far a rebreathers are concerned, they are specialized toys which add >nothing but complexity and task overload to the average techdivers already >busy slate. Nobody is twisting your arm. Do what you like. The snorkler tells the SCUBA diver that he has way too much stuff. The PADI open water diver (Yuck) feels the same way about the wreck diver. The wreck diver says the cave divers all have way too complex systems. The open circuit diver looks at the rebreather diver the same way. Play in the league that you choose. You plateau at whatever level you feel comfy at. Some snorkle. Some do mixed gas rebreather ops. The rebreather is about as complex as one small subsystem in the fighter. It's less complex than the friggin -ejection seat- fur chrissakes! If you feel overloaded with one, you stay away from them. But do not put your lack of experience in this application on my plate. If you understood the system, you would see it's simplicity and advantages. if you are satisfied with out of the catalog solutions, that's fine with me. There are 1000 sheep for every wolf. >BTW, I think the MiG 21 is one of the coolest looking jet fighters ever >designed, with the F-4 Phantom running a close second. Operated 4 of them for 5 years. Taught in them. Kill a F-4 everytime in a dogfight. Get anywhere within 1 mile to me in an F-4 and yer dead. Count on it. HAVE DONUT, will travel. Look up the HAVE programs and you'll understand. This is the stuff that I teach. MiG-17F is still the best scooter, though. Agile and lean. Fun to fly. MiG-21 is like playing with a straight razor: It's obviously good for what it was designed for but it'll cut your throat in an instant if you are careless. Hey, not for nothing: That stuff is dangerous. Diving by comparison is easy, even the most difficult diving. Not to put it down, it's just in a different league. Using a rebreather is relaxing compared to flying experimental aircraft. The MiG-21 launches with two emergencies in progress: It's on fire and out of fuel. That afterburner will empty the drop fuel and all of the fuselage fuel in about 18 minutes. If you break the mach going away from home, you are not going back where you took off from....... (and you want to talk about the rule of thirds, eh??? ;-) Best, Dave Sutton -- Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'. Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.
Navigate by Author:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject:
[Previous]
[Next]
[Subject Search Index]
[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]
[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]