![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Sea Lord
![]() Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Republiken Finland
Posts: 1,803
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Platabus could you as a pilot answer to small question? It was mentioned that there is restricted airspace of 30 miles in diameter. From edge of restriced airspace how long it would take for Piper Cub to reach center? If we assume that president is in that location and that aircraft is flying in relatively low altitude, how much warning time Secret Service would have?
__________________
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. - Dr. House |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Taking your 30 mile diameter circle as given, it would depend on the exact model of the J3. J3's had different engines. But let's assume an "average" J3 speed of between 65 and 75 knots To get to the center of your 30 mile circle (15 mile) would take about 12 minutes. A little less if the pilot is diving and has no intention of surviving. The payload of the J3 is about 500 pounds. That's a lot of explosive that could be carried. Not saying that a J3 is the uber weapon of choice, but I would hardly dismiss the threat of a J3 in the hands of a dedicated Bad Guy.
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Chief of the Boat
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]()
I wonder if modern heat seeking missiles would even lock on to a J3?
Especially when you have 10 minutes. That's not a long time, especially when some of that time will be spent evaluating the thread and deploying defenses. Imagine a J3 diving with the engine off how would you shoot it down? Would a stinger type weapon be able to lock on to a stopped J3 engine? Small arms fire is probably not going to do it. You can poke a lot of holes in a J3 and unless you hit the main wing beam it might keep on its ballistic course. I suppose a 20 mm round on the engine or the explosive payload would take care of it, but how hard would that be to accomplish? I hope the USSS has already figured this out. ![]()
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Seasoned Skipper
![]() Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 713
Downloads: 209
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Kinda negligent to turn off your radio in a private plane. Bad airmen(woman)ship if you ask me.
Its nice to know at least the people in place for security do their jobs. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]()
It is important to recognize that this was not some prohibited zone in the middle of nowhere. This was centered on O'hare Airport, which gets a little busy at times. O'hare is the third busiest airport in the world.
What was she doing flying within 30 miles of O'Hare without her radio on? Even if it is not required due to airspace designations for that area/altitude, wouldn't you think it would be a good idea to have it on? Besides, part of the Private Pilot's education is non-radio air intercepts. When these F-16's intercepted her, they did it in an specific manner that communicates their intention. She must have a pretty high self image if she thinks that F-16's would fly close to her just to admire her and her aircraft. Planes don't do that, they maintain separation, especially military jets and civilian props. I think this lady needs to lose her ticket until she goes through some remedial training. She does not seem to have the judgment expected of a pilot operating in crowded airspace. Here is a nice FAA document that describes Temporary Flight Restricted Zones and at the end of the document covers the interception procedure including non-radio communication. http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/not...dia/tfrweb.pdf
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | ||
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 2,983
Downloads: 102
Uploads: 1
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
Quote:
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Sea Lord
![]() Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Republiken Finland
Posts: 1,803
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Thank you Platabus. I read about Piper J-3 and I understood that its cruise speed is just 65 knots which is about 75 mph (121 km/h). Wouldn't it make sense to fly in low altitude in same direction with highways and try to make aircraft to look like being just one more car speeding in road for radar operator?
__________________
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic. - Dr. House |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]()
I am sure there are advantages of approaching at all altitudes. Not being an suicidal terrorist, I can't opine on which would be the best.
![]() Since the J3 could legally approach until the edge of the TFR zone, I would imagine a higher altitude for the dive speed might be better. The lower altitude makes you more vulnerable to small arms fire and kills the ballistic trajectory option. It is an intriguing problem to consider.
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Chief of the Boat
|
![]() Quote:
Possibly radar guided? ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,184
Downloads: 248
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Maybe optical image recognition....
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Fleet Admiral
![]() |
![]()
The RCS of a J3 head on would be significant
That would be the best. Do we have any ManPads that use that system? I am not a Manpad guy.
__________________
abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|