Carryfast:
Unless you see a bridge marked as 13 feet ahead of your 4m vehicle.
My vehicle combination should be under 13’ and 4m. It wasn’t when I set off but due to some train network and road management I now pull a flat.
I have to be careful about the cab height because sometimes I can stand up in it and other times I can’t. This is due to a bad back and my consultants are arguing about my movement with it. One says I can move 5’ the other says I can only move 1.5 metres
I’m 5’ 11’’ and am a little concerned. My wife is 1.6 metres tall…are we still compatible
Carryfast:
So it’s better for pilots to land a plane in 10’s of metres ( or yards ) increments rather than 10’s and 5’s of feet.
Why not 10’s and 5’s of metres?
(Am I right in saying vertical measurements are imperial but horizontal ones are metric in aviation?)
You said only 10’s not 5’s. While I’m guessing that you wouldn’t want to be a passenger on a plane approaching the runway with a decent rate of around 10 metres or more per second or for that matter the pilot to have no further idea of his height when the wheels are still around more than 15 feet off the deck. While we’ve discussed aviation a while back or elsewhere.It’s a mixture but it’s fair to say unless it’s China or Russia then imperial wins out.
Pilots are trained and fly on imperial measurements, only because of US influence, not because of the accuracy of the system. Its a lot easier in metric, since the WHOLE world is thought in metric from child, except US, Myanmar and one more country.
Its a lot easier for altitude and speed to be in meters and kilometers, the same way fuel is measured by tons, not pounds.
Its simply easier, not because is French, European or something else, but because: metric4us.com/why.html#OneUnit
Carryfast:
So it’s better for pilots to land a plane in 10’s of metres ( or yards ) increments rather than 10’s and 5’s of feet.
Why not 10’s and 5’s of metres?
(Am I right in saying vertical measurements are imperial but horizontal ones are metric in aviation?)
You said only 10’s not 5’s. While I’m guessing that you wouldn’t want to be a passenger on a plane approaching the runway with a decent rate of around 10 metres or more per second or for that matter the pilot to have no further idea of his height when the wheels are still around more than 15 feet off the deck. While we’ve discussed aviation a while back or elsewhere.It’s a mixture but it’s fair to say unless it’s China or Russia then imperial wins out.
Oh an aviation expert too then. There is no end to Carryfasts talents
dieseldog999:
possibly debateable depending on if your flying spitfires or a fokker??
this post is another good reason of me wishing that adolf would have won…then there would only be commonense and metric.
I’m sure that Lancasters were flying in feet over Germany not metres.With a wingspan of 102 feet.Dropping 4,000 lb and 500 lb bombs.In which case I’m sure Adolf would have agreed with you.
but what were the fokkers flying in?
ps…this one is giving you it on a plate for some obvious replies possibly for the newer members to give it a go…
Very slightly off topic but a Spitfires wingspan was 11.23m, the later ones were 9.9m…and their height? 3.5m…or 11.5ft… with gear down…so with a wide enough area and skilled pilot would easily go under a 4m bridge…
AndrewG:
Very slightly off topic but a Spitfires wingspan was 11.23m, the later ones were 9.9m…and their height? 3.5m…or 11.5ft… with gear down…so with a wide enough area and skilled pilot would easily go under a 4m bridge…
dri-diddly-iver:
Should have checked 5th wheel height!!!
No, he shouldn’t have. Checking the 5th wheel height is an UK thing, as nobody in continental Europe does it, as it never changes. You drive a combination that’s 4m high, that’s it. If the bridge is marked in imperial units and the driver doesn’t understand it, it’s the drivers fault. If the bridge is marked in imperial AND metric units, and it’s marked wrong, it’s the council to blame.
AndrewG:
Very slightly off topic but a Spitfires wingspan was 11.23m, the later ones were 9.9m…and their height? 3.5m…or 11.5ft… with gear down…so with a wide enough area and skilled pilot would easily go under a 4m bridge…
AndrewG:
Very slightly off topic but a Spitfires wingspan was 11.23m, the later ones were 9.9m…and their height? 3.5m…or 11.5ft… with gear down…so with a wide enough area and skilled pilot would easily go under a 4m bridge…
I was at Goodwood revival with Air Atlantique when Ray Hanna took a spitfire down the race track between the public grandstands next to the finishing line. He got a right bollocking for it I think
Dolph:
Pilots are trained and fly on imperial measurements, only because of US influence, not because of the accuracy of the system. Its a lot easier in metric, since the WHOLE world is thought in metric from child, except US, Myanmar and one more country.
Its a lot easier for altitude and speed to be in meters and kilometers, the same way fuel is measured by tons, not pounds.
Its simply easier, not because is French, European or something else, but because:
While if it was better to measure altitude in metres and kilometres for aviation you can bet that yards and miles is how we’d have done it. While as I said explain exactly how you’ll call this in metres without putting the landing gear through the wings if not taking the wings off when it hits the ground.
He is on fire at the moment between this thread and the drivervshortage one which is mainly the fault of the climate change brigade.That tipper that crashed in bath is the fault of hgv training schools and abs
