Pretty good for slow going on rugged terrain... but i wonder what happens if you're going 50-60 on a road and slam on the brakes.

I did a little amateur investigation, a bit of reading and some numbers but you can skip to the bottom for a summary.

The plane is a Stinson 108-3, 16500 foot service ceiling, 2400 pound gross weight limit (1300 empty weight), 50 gallon fuel capacity. Thats about 1100 of useful weight (2400-1300), with full fuel that lowers it to 800 (6lbs per gallon*50 gallons=300lbs), I saw 3 men in there the 4th passenger I'm gonna assume male, so lets say 180lbs for each (200 for the pilot) that comes to 740lbs for passenger weight. That leaves 60lbs for cargo. Although I couldn't see the cargo, they were still close to the weight limit but still could have been within normal limits.

The airport Bruce Meadows (U63) has a field elevation of 6370 feet. I couldnt find the airport temperature for that day but I did find nearby Stanley Airport 23 Miles southeast of Bruce Meadows. Their METAR history shows a high of 27 Celsius/81 Fahrenheit for June 30, 2012. Definitely a hot day but was it too hot? The closest I could find on performance data shows a 675 Feet per Minute climb at 75 Fahrenheit at sea level. Thats pretty close to what many small planes of that nature can do, so I took those numbers and transposed them over what a Cessna 172N could do. The 172N has a slighty higher climb performance about 750 for sea level and 75 Fahrenheit, a difference of 75 feet ill subtract out. At 6000 feet at 27C/81F the 172N climbs at 420FPM. Taking out the 75 feet brings it to 345 FPM, now I know this isn't perfect but I'm going with what I have. The plane began its climb out at 1:13 and crashed at 2:55, that leaves 1 minute and 42 seconds in between or 1.7 minutes. 1.7*345 means about 590 feet possible gain. But the plane isn't climbing at its best the entire video, at 2:35 it is apparent something is giving it trouble, that brings it down to about 1.58 minutes climb time which is 545 feet. Theres still another factor to consider and thats how consistent the altitude at the ground was.

The runway at Bruce meadows faces at 05/23 (Northeast/Southwest) but most likely he took runway 23 (Southwest) as immediately to the north east theres a wildlife preserve (Gotta fly at least 2000 feet over it) and he flew straight for quite some time. Although the ground increases in the direction he flew, by how much is difficult using the sectional charts. That means that although he may have been able to climb to about 545 feet higher than his original ground altitude, the ground rose with him and his absolute altitude over the ground would be less than that maximum possible 545. The passenger in the rear reported the plane could only climb to about 60-70 feet above the trees. The trees looked to be around 75-100 but thats still difficult to tell. That would mean according to the passenger they might have only been about 170 feet off the ground. It could still be wildly off as we cant exactly see the altimeter.

Finally theres that disturbance at 2:35 described as a downdraft. It could have been windshear, or a wind effect from the mountains. I don't have too much hands on knowledge of mountain flying so I cant say. If it was windshear he might have suddenly lost a headwind and got a tailwind, screwing up his performance. It could have been a downdraft effect. The actual effect on the aircraft may not have been much (lets say 50 feet) but near obstacles it was definitely enough to have a negative impact.



Summary:

Yes he was flying pretty heavy but he may not have been over the weight limit

The temperature in the area was definitely hotter than standard and the altitude was high, but he still had climbing capabilities within service limits. However he didn't give himself much of a safety threshold.

He might have been able to climb about 545 feet higher than the runway elevation, but the terrain altitude rose in the direction he flew, so his actual altitude over the ground was probably smaller than that.

The disturbance at 2:35 might have been some form of windshear which has the capacity to reduce airplane performance, and with his margins of safety so low already, that could have been the final factor.

Basically he may very well have been flying within the service limits of the aircraft, but the margins of safety he left himself were very low and the decision to fly over obstacles like those trees in that mountain enviroment could be the reason this would be declared pilot error.

Other notes:

The takeoff looks pretty rough but he trying to get off the ground as quickly as he can and ride ground effect until he gets up to speed.

I cant find anything resembling a proper PoH for this aircraft but I did find some data that looks pretty close to it. However this aircraft was a model from the late 40s, so the standards of performance may not be the same as now, and the transcribing I did to the 172N could be thrown off more.

On that note, I do realize that a 172 would have different aerobatic effects with altutude and temperature than a Stinson 108, but its the closest data I could use.

I also couldnt not find balance information to get a rough idea of how the plane was balanced. The type of balance on a plane does have effects on performance.

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N773C.html (The aircraft)

http://www.aopa.org/airports/U63 (The airport)

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120701X65804&key=1 (The NTSB link posted earlier)

http://personalpages.tdstelme.net/~westin/avtext/stn-108.txt (Closest thing I could find to performance data, the actual numbers are at the bottom)

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/cgi-bin/gen_statlog-u.cgi?ident=KSNT&pl=none2&yy=12&mm=06&dd=30 (Weather data at nearby Stanley)

http://skyvector.com (sectional chart data, type U63 into the search at the upper left, then make sure that "Salt Lake City" is selected in the upper right for the sectional chart)

I dunno, I upvoted because it looks great, and we really need more mech games... But there's really not much to distinguish between the terrain and the mechs. During the combat, all I see is blurry metal buildings and the HUD. The HUD being the only thing you can really target with. Visually it looks great, until you start to move. I would get bored of that honestly.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era. Villages out there take days to walk to along mountain trails in some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. Is similiar to a lot of terrain in Afghanistan. Natural forts.

They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare. Every kid is handed a gun as soon as he's old enough to shoot and raised to abide by the honour code (pashtunwali, yes they even have a name for it). When the tribe is under attack, you don't question right or wrong, you defend the tribe. They're no electricity, television, newspapers, literacy, or any other medium that counters this message. I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Couple that with the decades of training provided in the arts of guerilla warfare; including drug running, weapons manufacture, crude bomb manufacture, etc. by the CIA and ISI during the cold war and the Soviet invasion, means they are a force to be reckoned with as the US is finding out in Afghanistan.

Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family. Most of the country is similarly undeveloped (as in people still live like 3000 years ago undeveloped) and backwards. Bringing them into the modern era is a long term project but there's a 150 million more people on that waiting list.

Since the war on terror Pakistan has taken a serious beating. This was supposed to be our decade of growth instead the economy is in shambles. We've been through yet another round of Western supported, foreign policy obsessed, military dictator leaving our civil institutions in shambles. We've lost around 4 thousand soldiers another 8.5 wounded. 40 thousand civilians killed and 3.5 million internal refugees (dirt poor and starving variety).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Those are big numbers, people are angry. The Americans are unlikely to win in Afghanistan. They're putting tribe against tribe. All this talk of democracy vs. extremism/terrorism is not something the average Afghan understands. The average Afghan is illiterate and does not understand complex ideas. He understands this: foreigners, christian army, my tribe has chosen this side because we always hated those other fuckers anyways. Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

From the Pakistani perspective the War on Terror has been a disaster. It's solved nothing and created tenfold the problem it aimed to solve. The Afghans are a primitive bunch (made more so by warfare) and need to establish a government, after which they will slowly over time, maybe a century, join the civilized world. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Taliban (as did the US) when they took control of the country and brought peace to it. Warfare is the real bitch not how "extreme" they are. Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

Now the government/military of Pakistan is in a tricky situation, we have to play both sides, thus the lack of trust. Either side has the ability to seriously take Pakistan on and bring it to it's knees. The government the American's have propped up in Kabul wouldn't last a month without them, is corrupt, and allied to the Indians, with whom we see ourselves as being in a state of justified war. What to do!? What to do!? (in a indian accent).

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

Sorry that was a long post





>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^FermitTheKrog:
Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.


Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.
Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.
I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.
I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.
Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

pilot error. not enough altitude and he didn't execute the maneuver very well - the chopper should have pivoted around at the end of the upward curve and straighten itself in the direction of flight thus giving the rotors a chance to provide lift as soon as possible before it starts loosing too much height. altitude of the terrain was also a factor, but the pilot should have calculated that in ...

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^BoneRemake:
>> ^therealblankman:
>> ^TheGenk:
Oh look, it's a copy of a design used in the alps for decades...

What are the odds? I have a question though, which would you choose if you were the operator and your life were on the line using it on the steep side of some mountain gorge?

The one that has decades of experience building the machines as well a company with a fantastic reputation. Both of which I know nothing of, but thats what I would go for. Reliability is paramount as well.

That's the only "right" answer of course, but it's not always the same answer that the bean-counters come up with.
On an unrelated note... nice package. Was it cold out?
Chances are both machines are manufactured in China anyway, which is where Chinese stole all the design plans from.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^therealblankman:
>> ^TheGenk:
Oh look, it's a copy of a design used in the alps for decades...

What are the odds? I have a question though, which would you choose if you were the operator and your life were on the line using it on the steep side of some mountain gorge?

The one that has decades of experience building the machines as well a company with a fantastic reputation. Both of which I know nothing of, but thats what I would go for. Reliability is paramount as well.

That's the only "right" answer of course, but it's not always the same answer that the bean-counters come up with.

On an unrelated note... nice package. Was it cold out?

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^TheGenk:
Oh look, it's a copy of a design used in the alps for decades...

What are the odds? I have a question though, which would you choose if you were the operator and your life were on the line using it on the steep side of some mountain gorge?


The one that has decades of experience building the machines as well a company with a fantastic reputation. Both of which I know nothing of, but thats what I would go for. Reliability is paramount as well.

>> ^TheGenk:

Oh look, it's a copy of a design used in the alps for decades...


What are the odds? I have a question though, which would you choose if you were the operator and your life were on the line using it on the steep side of some mountain gorge?

Very awesome China. That's going to come in handy when the ancient temple you're flooding is in rough terrain.

I love how russians don't give a flying shit about their own safety. Really do find it great. It's such a happy go lucky approach to everything, there's fun in absolutely everything, including falling out of a moving, bouncing car presumably on severe terrain.

Nice. I have driven up and down different parts of 1-5, from LA to Vancouver, but never such a long trip in one go. Taking the coast is a slow slog. A cool route would be taking 101 north from SF to see the redwood and the coast, and then scooting back to 1-5 via 199 and Grants Pass.

Aside from the terrain, the night sky is stunning in the more isolated parts of 1-5. Driving around the Cali/Oregon boarder in summer months and seeing the milky way from a convertible is breathtaking.

Also, there's the State of Jefferson, which is cool.>> ^Yogi:

>> ^longde:
Take I-5 from SF to Portland. Some amazing scenery on that trip, especially it you're willing to go off track a little; and good beer at the end.

I've traveled from LA to Seattle by car 6 times in the last 6 months because moving to Seattle and visiting friends and such. Besides getting my time down to 17 hours for the trip I've seen some great stuff and I've never regretted driving even though I take the boring route. I want to do a Coastal Road journey next time...I think it'll be a lot of fun.

Tolkein to me is the Stanley Kubrik of fiction books - to fans he's untouchable; to the few of us who aren't into it, he's long-winded and self-indulgent. People are going to throw things at me for saying this, but he could have written a much better story in two books than three

No one is going to throw things at you. Reading is a very individual experience. Not everyone is going to or has to like the same stuff any more than they have to like the same clothes or food. Your tastes in literature are just different. Nothing wrong with that.

I personally felt that every Harry Potter book (after Azkaban) could be cut in half and it would have made a far better reading experience. But to some people that would be blasphemy. I got sick of JK "The Exposition" Rowling pulling the Scooby-Doo revelation of the "Old Man Jenkins du jour" mystery at the end of every book. She took chapters and chapters to do it - sometimes hundreds of pages - and she's so addicted to exposition that she invented entire plot devices just so she could do more of them (Pensieve, I'm lookin' at you). But to some readers that was good stuff. Me - I skimmed right past it. If Tolkien's descriptions of terrain, histories, and such bog you down then just skim 'em.

Sometimes I feel bad that some folks don't get the same soul-rush I get from LOTR's language though. But there it is. You either appreciate that aspect of a text or you don't. To some people JRR's perfect craftsmanship, literary power, and brightness of theme/setting have no value - just as Rowling's redundant expositions mean nothing to me.

When I walked out of my first showing of the Fellowship of the Ring movie, I was pretty jazzed. I felt the movie (while having flaws) still managed to capture the essence of the story which was loyalty, honor, and sacrifice in the face of temptation and darkness. I heard some gal talking to her friend walking out of the movie saying how boring it was, how stupid parts were, and how the whole thing dragged out way longer than it should. Two different people with totally different opinions about the same thing. One person saw value, depth, and goodness. The other was just bored. Same logic applies to the book.

>> ^AnimalsForCrackers:

>> ^deathcow:
How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.

The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).
Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.
Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.


would have a hard time arguing against that

maybe that upcoming star wars whatever the hell it is will innovate

>> ^deathcow:

How have shooters not evolved? if they haven't... can they?? I don't feel like I am playing the same game at all. I am in a giant open terrain in vehicles armed to the tooth, or I dive out and go on foot sniping from the bushes, or I plant C4 bombs and hide in the bushes waiting... or I dive off a wall and stab someone below. Quake-1 was an utterly different experience. It is evolving into very real situations from the surreal cartoon world.


The multiplayer FPS has certainly evolved since Quake. No dispute there. My contention is that they STOPPED evolving and have hit what I call an "innovation plateau" circa 1999. No major strides have been made since then, just the refinement/streamlining (which much of the time amounts to down-sizing) of already existing mechanics/capabilities (which isn't necessarily a bad thing in of itself, as games like TF2 prove).

Starsiege: Tribes was doing futuristic class-based gameplay with 128-256 player matches in huge, wide-open expanses with a full suite of vehicles and commander/command station/team bases/sensor arrays and defense structures (which all rely on an energy source that must be defended to function) and a variety of player role customization options in 1999! Where are the successors who would take the core of this legacy and expand upon it? I don't doubt it'll happen eventually but damn, I'd have never guessed it'd have taken this long if asked at the turn of the century.

Had Tribes set the world on fire sales-wise I'm guessing the landscape of the MP FPS would look very different today. Instead it serves as another example to publishers that innovation on that scale, as incredible a game it may produce, simply isn't worth the risk.