Here is a little engineering bit for you. So the man says that he thinks that he was traveling at about “5mph”. Let’s do the math and see if his claim was true. He states that the prop hist his car 3 times while taxing. The plane, unless being a very old model, has a 3 bladed prop, and his car is about 13.6 feet long. If the plane was taxing, he probably had the throttle set at about 1200 rpm. Now that we have the facts and assumptions made, lets do a little analysis.
We first need to convert the engine speed to revolutions per second. To do this we divide by 60 and get 20 revolutions per second. Because there were three strikes on the car, we know that the prop made one complete revolution, or close to it. Now we want to know the time that it took for that to happen and we do that by dividing the known number of revolutions that the prop made by the speed of the engine and we get that this whole event took place in about 0.05 seconds.
So now we know the amount of time that it took to do the damage, and if we assume that the plane did move parallel to the direction of the cars movement, lets say 4 feet opposite of the direction of the cars movement, and the damage occurred over about 7 feet, the car traveled about 2 feet during the incident. We go to the old standby DiRT formula which is Distance=Rate*Time and solve for rate. By doing this we see that 3feet/0.05seconds=60feet/second. 60feet/second is about 40 mph.
sounds like BS. Your head wasnt “two” inches from the window. Dont airplanes have right of way at airports? Im guessing he just wanst the $ to pay for that old car.
what was he doing driving a Lamborghini on an airport! where was this, a taxiway? the apron? besides, isn’t it always the more maneuverable vehicles have to yield? and isn’t a Lamb more maneuverable than a Cessna? I rest my case… 60th birthday present for himself, lol…
I copied this off http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part103-13-FAR.shtml
it is (i hope) an accurate copy of Federal Aviation Administration regulations
feel free to confirm; i’m not gonna waste time double-checking what i think is the correct law
“RisingUp Aviation – Everything Aviation, Generally Speaking
Federal Aviation Regulations
Back to Index of Part 103 – Back to Federal Aviation Regulations Home
Sec. 103.13 – Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.
(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.
(c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered ultralights.
Previous: Sec. 103.11 – Daylight operations.
Next: Sec. 103.15 – Operations over congested areas.
The data contained in this page is intended only as a research aid and is not authoritative or official. Not responsible for incorrect data or damage caused by the use of the data on this page. Please view the privacy and legal statement for this site.”
apparently, an “ultralight vehicle” must “maintain vigilance” and “see and avoid aircraft” and must “yield right-of-way to all aircraft” including FBI-chartered Cessna’s
I don’t know about that airport, but at my small airport if you are driving your car on the taxiway or near aircraft and have an accident, it would be the (car) driver’s fault. When you take a car and mix them with aircraft, “let the (car) driver beware”. The driver says, “I can’t believe they (FBI) did not see me”. If he came out of nowhere in that little car, how would he expect anyone to see him as low to the ground as that car is.
This happened in May 2006. The NTSB has determined that “both the pilot and the driver share the blame”. So . . . I guess the FBI pays for the damage to their aircraft and the driver pays for the damage to his car.
The lengths you Americans will go to to make your people buy American cars… LOL
Seriously, though. Aircraft have the right of way on airfields. A good analogy is the case of a pedestrian getting hit by a car on a freeway/motorway. The person shouldn’t have been there. Neither should a Lambo on an airfield. Silly old sod… Shouldn’t the FBI be catching criminals instead of contesting this sort of thing?
Someone should tell the vehicle owner that aircraft have the right of way on the airfield.
(by the way, I am not affiliated with the FBI or any LE agency)
Yes absolutely 🙂
Here is a little engineering bit for you. So the man says that he thinks that he was traveling at about “5mph”. Let’s do the math and see if his claim was true. He states that the prop hist his car 3 times while taxing. The plane, unless being a very old model, has a 3 bladed prop, and his car is about 13.6 feet long. If the plane was taxing, he probably had the throttle set at about 1200 rpm. Now that we have the facts and assumptions made, lets do a little analysis.
We first need to convert the engine speed to revolutions per second. To do this we divide by 60 and get 20 revolutions per second. Because there were three strikes on the car, we know that the prop made one complete revolution, or close to it. Now we want to know the time that it took for that to happen and we do that by dividing the known number of revolutions that the prop made by the speed of the engine and we get that this whole event took place in about 0.05 seconds.
So now we know the amount of time that it took to do the damage, and if we assume that the plane did move parallel to the direction of the cars movement, lets say 4 feet opposite of the direction of the cars movement, and the damage occurred over about 7 feet, the car traveled about 2 feet during the incident. We go to the old standby DiRT formula which is Distance=Rate*Time and solve for rate. By doing this we see that 3feet/0.05seconds=60feet/second. 60feet/second is about 40 mph.
So much for doing only about 5mph.
Adam
sounds like BS. Your head wasnt “two” inches from the window. Dont airplanes have right of way at airports? Im guessing he just wanst the $ to pay for that old car.
what was he doing driving a Lamborghini on an airport! where was this, a taxiway? the apron? besides, isn’t it always the more maneuverable vehicles have to yield? and isn’t a Lamb more maneuverable than a Cessna? I rest my case… 60th birthday present for himself, lol…
I copied this off http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part103-13-FAR.shtml
it is (i hope) an accurate copy of Federal Aviation Administration regulations
feel free to confirm; i’m not gonna waste time double-checking what i think is the correct law
“RisingUp Aviation – Everything Aviation, Generally Speaking
Federal Aviation Regulations
Back to Index of Part 103 – Back to Federal Aviation Regulations Home
Sec. 103.13 – Operation near aircraft; right-of-way rules.
(a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right-of-way to all aircraft.
(b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft.
(c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right-of-way to unpowered ultralights.
Previous: Sec. 103.11 – Daylight operations.
Next: Sec. 103.15 – Operations over congested areas.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Risingup Aviation
The data contained in this page is intended only as a research aid and is not authoritative or official. Not responsible for incorrect data or damage caused by the use of the data on this page. Please view the privacy and legal statement for this site.”
apparently, an “ultralight vehicle” must “maintain vigilance” and “see and avoid aircraft” and must “yield right-of-way to all aircraft” including FBI-chartered Cessna’s
this guy’s suit is going nowhere
cool math/engineering, Adam Carlson; it’s convincing
40 mph… gee whiz, now his case is DEFINITELY cooked
the guy’s a rich idiot, he should foot his own bill
i rest my case
I don’t know about that airport, but at my small airport if you are driving your car on the taxiway or near aircraft and have an accident, it would be the (car) driver’s fault. When you take a car and mix them with aircraft, “let the (car) driver beware”. The driver says, “I can’t believe they (FBI) did not see me”. If he came out of nowhere in that little car, how would he expect anyone to see him as low to the ground as that car is.
This happened in May 2006. The NTSB has determined that “both the pilot and the driver share the blame”. So . . . I guess the FBI pays for the damage to their aircraft and the driver pays for the damage to his car.
The lengths you Americans will go to to make your people buy American cars… LOL
Seriously, though. Aircraft have the right of way on airfields. A good analogy is the case of a pedestrian getting hit by a car on a freeway/motorway. The person shouldn’t have been there. Neither should a Lambo on an airfield. Silly old sod… Shouldn’t the FBI be catching criminals instead of contesting this sort of thing?