Confed College Plane Goes Missing

mcconnell14 · Post by **mcconnell14** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:30 pm

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show ... 8590.shtml

Yavuz Berke, a/k/a Adam Dylan Leon, 31, of Thunder Bay, Ontario, was charged in the federal complaint with a violation of Title 18, USC, Section 2312, interstate transportation of a stolen aircraft; and Title 8, USC , 1325(a)(1), illegal entry into the United States.

Interstate transportation of stolen property carries a maximum penalty of ten years in prison. Illegally entering the United States carries a penalty of six months prison.

black hole · Post by **black hole** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:51 pm

Maybe thay will double deport him???!!!

BH

Naveed · Post by **Naveed** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:57 pm

Wonder what the stall speed of a F-16 is...musta been the most fuel efficient mission the air force had ever been on chasing a 172, wonder if a 172 even would emit enough heat for a heat seeking missile.

AuxBatOn · Post by **AuxBatOn** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:02 pm

Naveed wrote:Wonder what the stall speed of a F-16 is...musta been the most fuel efficient mission the air force had ever been on chasing a 172, wonder if a 172 even would emit enough heat for a heat seeking missile.

I doubt the L/D max is anywhere close to a cessna cruise speed on a Viper. Probably a high power setting to maintain a higher Alpha.

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:07 pm

I remember an air show years ago where the F-18 was flying around at 100 knots or something... anyone correct me if I'm wrong. But yeah, seemed like a high power setting and very high AOA. I imagine the F-16 could do something similar, but again I could be wrong.

AuxBatOn · Post by **AuxBatOn** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:09 pm

Just another canuck wrote:I remember an air show years ago where the F-18 was flying around at 100 knots or something... anyone correct me if I'm wrong. But yeah, seemed like a high power setting and very high AOA. I imagine the F-16 could do something similar, but again I could be wrong.

L/D Max on a Viper is around, my WAG, 200ish kts. I doubt there is a 100 kts difference between Max AOA and L/D max. Plus, there are tactical disadvantages to fly that slow.

Flybaby · Post by **Flybaby** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:26 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:there are tactical disadvantages to fly that slow.

Just encase the 172 went on the offensive?

Being serious I thought they would have used a chopper to intercept a 172, when he lands and runs, they can just land and get him.

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:36 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:L/D Max on a Viper is around, my WAG, 200ish kts. I doubt there is a 100 kts difference between Max AOA and L/D max. Plus, there are tactical disadvantages to fly that slow.

I see... I was really just making an educated guess.

Flybaby wrote:Being serious I thought they would have used a chopper to intercept a 172, when he lands and runs, they can just land and get him

That actually would have made a whole lot of sense and I'm now surprised it took this long for someone to mention that.

sissyphus · Post by **sissyphus** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:37 pm

before landing in Missouri with about 30 minutes' worth of fuel left in the tank.

At least he didn't bust his reserves. A+ for flight planning.

AuxBatOn · Post by **AuxBatOn** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:49 pm

Just another canuck wrote:
Flybaby wrote:Being serious I thought they would have used a chopper to intercept a 172, when he lands and runs, they can just land and get him
That actually would have made a whole lot of sense and I'm now surprised it took this long for someone to mention that.

Until the aircraft goes up to 14 000'. Helicopters are made to fly close to the ground!

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:53 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:Until the aircraft goes up to 14 000'. Helicopters are made to fly close to the ground!

Haha... good point and I'll first say my knowledge of choppers is limited to the say the least. But although they are MADE to fly close to the ground, could they not have done the job here? I have no idea what I'm talking about... just so you know.

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:56 pm

Specifications (UH-60L)
Orthographically projected diagram of the UH-60A Black Hawk.

Data from Encyclopedia of Modern Warplanes,[28] US Army Fact File,[29] Frawley[30]

General characteristics

* Crew: 2 pilots (flight crew)
* Capacity: 2,640 lb of cargo internally, including 14 troops or 6 stretchers, or 8,000 lb (UH-60A) or 9,000 lb (UH-60L) of cargo externally
* Length: 64 ft 10 in (19.76 m)

* Fuselage width: 7 ft 9 in (2.36 m)

* Rotor diameter: 53 ft 8 in (16.36 m)
* Height: 16 ft 10 in (5.13 m)
* Disc area: 2,260 ft² (210 m²)
* Empty weight: 10,624 lb (4,819 kg)
* Loaded weight: 22,000 lb (9,980 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 23,500 lb (10,660 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× General Electric T700-GE-701C turboshaft, 1,890 hp (1,410 kW) each

Performance

* Never exceed speed: 193 knots (222 mph, 357 km/h)
* Maximum speed: 159 kt (183 mph, 295 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 150 kt (173 mph, 278 km/h)
* Combat radius: 368 mi (320 nmi, 592 km)
* Ferry range: 1,380 mi[28] (1,200 nmi, 2,220 km)
* Service ceiling: 19,000 ft (5,790 m)
* Rate of climb: 700 ft/min (3.6 m/s)
* Disc loading: 7.19 lb/ft² (35.4 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.192 hp/lb (158 W/kg)

Army manual drawing

Armament

* Guns: 2× 7.62 mm (0.30 in) M240H machine guns or M134 miniguns[31]
* Can be equipped with VOLCANO minefield dispersal system. See UH-60 Armament Subsystems for more information.
* Can be equipped with 2x GAU-19 .50 in (12.7 mm) gatling guns.[citation needed]

------------------------------------------------------------
IMHO F16 is not the best choice for this kind of thing. Looks good on TV maybe...?

Ghost Rider · Post by **Ghost Rider** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:57 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:
Just another canuck wrote:
Flybaby wrote:Being serious I thought they would have used a chopper to intercept a 172, when he lands and runs, they can just land and get him
That actually would have made a whole lot of sense and I'm now surprised it took this long for someone to mention that.
Until the aircraft goes up to 14 000'. Helicopters are made to fly close to the ground!

hmmm methinks he knows not of what he speaks, or is funning
look in these links for service ceilings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_206
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/ehi/sp ... s500d.html
http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces ... _1_n.shtml

AuxBatOn · Post by **AuxBatOn** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:58 pm

Is that what they use for shadow? Because the Blackhawk can go that high, doesn't mean that every helo can go that high (and that, I know for a fact)

Even though the service ceiling is 19 000', it doesn't mean it will perform well at these altitudes. I'm sure some people at NORAD had a good tought about the "how-to" intercept that plane... They have much more experience than you an I and they decided not to use a helicopter, probably with valid reasons...

GR: I didn't say it cannot go that high, I said it's not made to go that high. Variation. Have you ever flown an aircraft to its service ceiling? If not, I can tell you it does not perform well at all...

2milefinal · Post by **2milefinal** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:03 pm

AuxBatOn wrote: Have you ever flown an aircraft to its service ceiling? If not, I can tell you it does not perform well at all...

i have

AuxBatOn · Post by **AuxBatOn** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:05 pm

2milefinal wrote:
AuxBatOn wrote: Have you ever flown an aircraft to its service ceiling? If not, I can tell you it does not perform well at all...
i have

Performs as well as sea level yeah?

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:09 pm

I have as well... performs like shit... but 5,000 feet below the service ceiling it's not bad and that would have been the difference. But AuxBat is right... we are not the experts here. NORAD is and I'm sure the individuals they have making the decisions are there for a reason.

AuxBatOn · Post by **AuxBatOn** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:12 pm

Just another canuck wrote:I have as well... performs like shit... but 5,000 feet below the service ceiling it's not bad and that would have been the difference.

For straight and level operation, I have no doubt. As soon as you need to manoever a little bit, I'm sure you'd get into issues with excess power, and depleting energy. But that's a totally different topic and we're derailing quite far...

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:17 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:For straight and level operation, I have no doubt. As soon as you need to manoever a little bit, I'm sure you'd get into issues with excess power, and depleting energy.

Absolutely... agree 110%. Aaaaaaaand moving on.

Here's a question: If the college kid gets jail time. does he have to serve it south of the border?

Ghost Rider · Post by **Ghost Rider** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:41 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:Is that what they use for shadow? Because the Blackhawk can go that high, doesn't mean that every helo can go that high (and that, I know for a fact)

Even though the service ceiling is 19 000', it doesn't mean it will perform well at these altitudes. I'm sure some people at NORAD had a good tought about the "how-to" intercept that plane... They have much more experience than you an I and they decided not to use a helicopter, probably with valid reasons...

GR: I didn't say it cannot go that high, I said it's not made to go that high. Variation. Have you ever flown an aircraft to its service ceiling? If not, I can tell you it does not perform well at all...

All but one of the dozen or so types I have been checked out on .. not exactly legal in some cases, if you know what I mean

And of course they dont perform as well as at sea level .. that was rhetorical, right?

Just another canuck · Post by **Just another canuck** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:46 pm

Ghost Rider wrote:dozen or so types I have been checked out on

Just out of curiosity, is that rotary or fixed wing?

Flybaby · Post by **Flybaby** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:48 pm

I just remembered that Duluth has a fighter wing, probably just the closest equipment to the call.

iflyforpie · Post by **iflyforpie** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:53 pm

Just to keep this siding going on a little further, they use Blackhawks for intercepting drug running aircraft. I saw this in a National Geographic article years ago. The reason is the Blackhawk can keep up with and climb as high as most drug running aircraft, they are more maneuverable, they can operate under night vision better (ie, no need to circle or flyby a slower aircraft and reaquire), and they can track the aircraft until it lands and loiter to see what the suspect does. Not to mention, burns less fuel.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 6:58 pm

Roger, Maverick.

I was also thinking that was pretty decent flying to land on some dirt road, and good airmanship to pull off the road to let the car traffic go by.

Aw hell, if I were in the position, I'd hire the guy. He probably won't do it again.

-istp

Flybaby · Post by **Flybaby** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:02 pm

Any guesses to what Transport Canada's knee jerk reaction will be?

Confed College Plane Goes Missing

Re: Con Plane Goes Missing

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Not the way l'd wanna go

Re: Con Plane Goes Missing

Re: Con Plane Goes Missing

Re: Con Plane Goes Missing

Re: Con Plane Goes Missing

Re: Con Plane Goes Missing