Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

uss-la-ca135.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 274 posts

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#121

Post by jefftk »

lambda wrote: post #113
gibspaulding wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The progress of aviation technology fascinates me. We went from the wright flyer to the B-52 in just 50 years and then in the next 70 years went from the B-52 to... pretty much still the B-52 (at least in terms of payload/range/airspeed). You could probably come up with something similar to Moore's law for for those stats over those first 50 years. Makes me wonder if/when computing will reach a similar plateau. It's…

We basically built towards a local maximum of what's physically possible for fossil-fuel powered sub-sonic aircraft; we also pushed into super-sonic, but the efficiency and noise pretty much preclude that for all but military and niche commercial operations. However, there have been huge improvements in other areas, like efficiency and safety. Take a look at this fatal accident charts, and remember that aviation usag…

> remember that aviation usage has been growing in the meantime, so rates per passenger and per passenger mile have been improving even more than this shows

We can chart that directly, and I agree it's impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Fa...

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#122

Post by elteto »

tgarv wrote: post #118
elteto wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rolled" :)

Sounds more like a combination of pitch and yaw: "I trimmed the aircraft to fly in a kind of sidelong skid: nose high and with the tail swung around slightly to the right"

That makes sense, it not only gets the tail out of the way but also pushes it down, making it much more unlikely to hit it as he gets sucked out.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#123

Post by merely-unlikely »

spbaar wrote: post #108
anderspitman wrote: post #97

Reminds me of a web page I stumbled upon many years ago. It was very much visually designed in the 90s style. The whole page was dedicated to tips and tricks for surviving falls from very high distances. I only remember 3 points: * For most of the fall, try to spread out like a flying squirrel to reduce your terminal velocity. * As you get close to the ground, rotate to take the impact primarily on your feet and legs…

Didn't it also mention that a lot of survivors hit some type of slope?

Not sure if it was the same one but I've read you also want to avoid water (since it doesn't compress). Go for dirt/grass if possible.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#125

Post by bobthepanda »

zugi wrote: post #89
rootusrootus wrote: post #18

This happened in 1963. Planes had only been flying for 60 years at that point; it really is pretty amazing how quickly we progressed on technology during those early years. We still fly 737s, which are descended from a design that first flew in 1967. As well as the C130, which was part of this story. And don't get me started on B-52s, which are even older. We have made great strides since then, of course, but it does…

Some things are limited by unchanging physics, like what shapes work aerodynamically, limitations imposed by the speed of sound, the maximum amount of thrust that can be generated by a kilogram of fuel, and so forth. Once humans figure out what basically works, we keep making incremental improvements towards optimality given the physical constraints. In such scenarios the first steps always look the biggest. The Boei…

Right.

There have always been novel concept planes but they usually fall apart for practical reasons

* SSTs like Concorde use a lot more fuel and have to be narrow, to the point of sacrificing comfort

* blended wings are not desirable for passenger comfort; people like windows and hate middle seats

* airplanes have to fit within the constraints at operating at airports that currently exist. Cities are not going to build new airfields or modify existing ones for billions of dollars for what might be a technological fad instead of a long term improvement, so you pretty much need to fit existing gates, existing runway widths and weight limits, etc. The A380 needed such modifications and therefore could not be flown everywhere.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#126

Post by merely-unlikely »

robswc wrote: post #81

Sorta related... I just remember having my mind absolutely blown when I learned about terminal velocity. It never made sense to me as a kid how small things could fall from relatively greater heights yet humans couldn't do even a few stories.

“To the mouse and any smaller animal gravity presents practically no dangers. You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom it gets a slight shock and walks away, provided that the ground is fairly soft. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes. For the resistance presented to movement by the air is proportional to the surface of the moving object. Divide an animal’s length, breadth, and height each by ten; its weight is reduced to a thousandth, but its surface only a hundredth. So the resistance to falling in the case of the small animal is relatively ten times greater than the driving force”

https://www.phys.ufl.edu/courses/phy3221/spring10/HaldaneRig...

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#127

Post by acidburnNSA »

Maursault wrote: post #68
dxbydt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

aesop #1 - king spots an ant drowning in the pond. king uses a leaf to rescue ant. courtiers admonish king for wasting his busy schedule on trivia like ants. at night the king sleeps & the snake opens his fangs to strike the king's leg. the ant bites the king's toe & king moves his leg in the nick of time. the next morning the king admonishes his courtiers - if not for the ant i wouldn't be alive. aesop #2 - man fall…

You've reminded me of the story of the Zen master and the little boy from Charlie Wilson's War.[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2cjVhUrmII&t=0m38s

I was taught this by a Chinese culture coach. She said it more like:

Man's horse runs away: aww Horse returns, brings new wild horse: yay new horse Son riding wild horse breaks leg: aww War comes and takes able-bodied men: yay get to live

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#128

Post by martin1975 »

God sometimes spares some who would surely die due to circumstances, like this pilot through a horrific air crash....or Viktor Frankl and other holocaust survivors.... to show His power and glory to the rest of humanity.

Or maybe it's just all "luck", as many opined.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#129

Post by bobthepanda »

TrapLord_Rhodo wrote: post #90
pcurve wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the progress is mainly limited by cost of fuel and sonic boom. But progress has been made in so many other areas. Planes are safer quieter lighter and more reliable. Some parts of computers also stopped progressing. For example keyboards haven’t changed much and neither have laser printers. ;)

Progress is limited by security clearance. The US has incredible aircraft but no incentive to 'share'.

The military doesn’t optimize for fuel burn though, which limits practicality in the cutthroat commercial sector.

Re: I Fell 15,000 Feet and Lived (2009)

#130

Post by lambda »

jefftk wrote: post #121
lambda wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We basically built towards a local maximum of what's physically possible for fossil-fuel powered sub-sonic aircraft; we also pushed into super-sonic, but the efficiency and noise pretty much preclude that for all but military and niche commercial operations. However, there have been huge improvements in other areas, like efficiency and safety. Take a look at this fatal accident charts, and remember that aviation usag…

> remember that aviation usage has been growing in the meantime, so rates per passenger and per passenger mile have been improving even more than this shows We can chart that directly, and I agree it's impressive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Fa...

Yep, thanks! Was looking for a chart like that but didn't find one on a quick search.

And yeah, that's a huge improvement in safety. So while the general shape of airplanes, and range and speed might seem similar, the airplanes themselves and the whole ecosystem around them (pilots, maintenance, airline and airport ops, air traffic control, and so on) are far safer.

Post reply on HN