|
craftedpacket
May 26, 2005, 6:28 PM
Post #26 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 187
|
[quote="bandycoot"]In reply to: If a helicopter landed on the summit of (insert name of cliff or mountain here) should everyone stop climbing it because they don't have to? I thought people climbed "because it's there" not "because a helicopter hasn't landed on it." By the way, what year did hundreds summit in december?
That made me laugh out loud.
|
|
|
|
|
moonshine505
May 26, 2005, 7:15 PM
Post #27 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 148
|
first reaction: holy crap, that's not possible there's not enough atmosphere up there for a rotor-driven craft to generate lift. That's really cool, must have been hard as hell to engineer/pilot.
Second, more realistic and less geeky reaction, uh oh, this dosen't sound good...
|
|
|
|
|
mcclung
May 26, 2005, 7:35 PM
Post #28 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 34
|
Everest!!! Is no climb sacred?
We should hunt that stupid chopper down and make him pay for vandalizing the rock. I don't care if the route is a crack.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 26, 2005, 7:39 PM
Post #29 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: landed on 29000 feet ? may be they landed on base camp or camp 1 but not the summit.
They actually DID land on the summit.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
May 26, 2005, 7:41 PM
Post #30 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
In reply to: --what is being done about the mess on everest? anything at all? Is it nepalese problem? Is there something that eco-outdoorsy types can do?
How about a crag clean-up day?
|
|
|
|
|
mother_sheep
May 26, 2005, 7:43 PM
Post #31 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 18, 2002
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Any joker with the cash will be there now
Isn't it already like that?
|
|
|
|
|
chitlinsconcarne
May 26, 2005, 7:44 PM
Post #32 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 199
|
Its not even close to being an altitude record for a heli.
I'm guessing that the factors holding back a summit landing have been more for political and bad publicity potential then physical for a while now.
|
|
|
|
|
cadreamin
May 26, 2005, 8:22 PM
Post #33 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 24, 2004
Posts: 10
|
this eurocopter as its called is setting the altitude record...the air has always been way too thin to create enough lift. The story reads that they have reported 33,000 feet. Helicopters have never been there!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cchildre
May 26, 2005, 9:44 PM
Post #35 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 671
|
In reply to: Its not even close to being an altitude record for a heli. I'm guessing that the factors holding back a summit landing have been more for political and bad publicity potential then physical for a while now.
My buddy at Bell Helicopter, who won the 2004 Texron Innovation of the year, was very suprised to hear of this achievement. This is a very significant breakthrough, and will be looked back upon in years to come as such, more so than is currently realized. The technical on physical barriers that have been surpassed is substantial. Flying at altitued is one thing, landing at altitued presents a much greater challenge, and then taking off again is even worse. I know the political thing was a big barrier, and the publicity is easily buried by a good PR department. What is the record altitude for a rotorcraft?
|
|
|
|
|
obe
May 26, 2005, 9:45 PM
Post #36 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Posts: 191
|
.......it seems like Everest isnt a mountain any more...but wait....now I can summit every mountain in the world if I get that chopper...I wonder what cost more? The expense for all the climbing gear and expedition costs added together or the chopper?
|
|
|
|
|
remi
May 26, 2005, 10:27 PM
Post #37 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 3, 2005
Posts: 424
|
That should make doing the 7 summits a bit easier...and what about doing all 14 8000m peaks? Would it be possible to summit them all in a day with enough gas in your chopper? Just think, now the people who pay a commercial expedition 70k or whatever it is will be the traditionalists!
|
|
|
|
|
alembical
May 26, 2005, 10:50 PM
Post #38 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2005
Posts: 6
|
The strange thing about this story is that all of the reports I have read indicate that May 12th, the winds up top were 75-100 mph and that continued through at least the 20th (while this landing happened on the 14th). I am not doubting the authenticity of the story, but just surprised that it would have been done at a time that no climbers felt comfortable climbing.
Alembical
|
|
|
|
|
chitlinsconcarne
May 26, 2005, 11:09 PM
Post #39 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 199
|
Highest previous flight record stood at just over 40k.
It wasn't too long ago that India (or perhaps Pakistan? I can't remember..) was reporting a landing and successful takeoff at over 25k, but an Everest summit landing would still represent an important milestone in heli history.
If it actually happened, that is.
|
|
|
|
|
rainontin
May 26, 2005, 11:35 PM
Post #40 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2005
Posts: 262
|
What makes Everest so "holy" anyway? Climbing it is not easy, but it isn't the hardest peak to summit. It is the highest point on planet earth but it is not the tallest mountain. When K2 becomes a tourist trap, tears will be shed.
|
|
|
|
|
walrus
May 27, 2005, 8:56 AM
Post #41 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2004
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: What makes Everest so "holy" anyway? Climbing it is not easy, but it isn't the hardest peak to summit. It is the highest point on planet earth but it is not the tallest mountain. When K2 becomes a tourist trap, tears will be shed.
Anyway, If I were to climb it I would probaly feel it was cheapened. No longer is it only approachable by foot. No longer is it as dangerous because you have the option to be rescued after you summit should something go wrong. Don't get me wrong, rescue is a good thing but you used to face the possibility of certain death if you wanted to Summit.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
May 27, 2005, 9:29 AM
Post #42 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
The helicopter altitude record was set in 1972 by Jean Boulet (France) in Alouette SA 315-001 Lama powered by Artouste IIIB 735 KW engine; Istres, France, June 21, 1972.
He reached an altitude of 40,820 ft; 12,442 m.
The problem with flying at high altitude is little or nothing to do with lift, it's to do with the fact that internal combustion engines don't work well at high altitude, for 2 reasons: firstly the amount of oxygen available to burn fuel in is decreased, and secondly and more importantly the air pressure is lower, making it more difficult to create the internal compression the engine needs.
Airliners with jet engines and the helicopter in the record flight overcome this by moving forward at high speed, forcing more air into the engine. Landing then taking off would be difficult because it would require to helicopter to be stationary, albeit briefly, losing that advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
viciado
May 27, 2005, 9:55 AM
Post #43 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2003
Posts: 429
|
I saw the video report the evening after the event. The belly mounted video shows the helicopter setting down on the summit. Subsequent video shot by the pilot or videographer passenger shows the vehicle sitting on the summit and provides enough of the surrounding area to confirm where it is. The pilot did use an oxygen mask. The two minutes stay is the minumum required by the International Aviation Federation to confirm the "landing" on the summit.
The company that makes the helicopter made the flight as a promotional "stunt". The spokesman points out the helicopter is a standard production model available to all of the company's clients.
|
|
|
|
|
karlbaba
May 27, 2005, 1:14 PM
Post #44 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2002
Posts: 1159
|
I think it would be pretty sad if Nepal allowed tourist landings on Everest.
After all, both the tourists and climbers would need good weather to summit, and tourist season and climbing season are the same.
So basically, you would be climbing on summit day with choppers coming to and from the summit.
Avalache hazard?
Do they wait for you to leave if you're on top and they arrive with clients?
Only a matter of time before a machine or two crashes and leaves a big crash mess up there too.
Not only would I hate to see this happen in Nepal, but I think it would be bogus in the Alps or the US. It already bad enough that helicopter tours buzz you in the backcountry here and there.
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
cchildre
May 27, 2005, 1:58 PM
Post #45 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 671
|
In reply to: Don't get me wrong, rescue is a good thing but you used to face the possibility of certain death if you wanted to Summit.
You still face the possibility of certain death. If a heli-evac were possible that doesn't mean they can pull it off for sure. Winds would keep them away. A fall and injury would probably still hold a very high death rate even with chopper access, even though it would be better than no chopper, I would guessitimate it going from 15% likelyhood of survival to 17% survival. Remember on Vertical Limit.......Robin, Alan Shephard, and their climbing teams caught a ride on that helicopter carrying while the bottles of Nitro with them, well they unloaded on the edge of the cliff no problem. That dude hovered there even hit his rotor on the wall! If they can do that then they can save you from anywhere. Right! LMAO.....Vertical Smiles!
|
|
|
|
|
moonshine505
May 27, 2005, 2:11 PM
Post #46 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2004
Posts: 148
|
Tradman, you're wrong on a lot of counts, don't mean to be negative, but it sounds like you should bone up on your Aero-E. Internal combustion rules don't really apply to Jet Engines which are continuous combustion and pretty much generate their own atmosphere through the varoius sections of the turbine. Jet engines are about as far from naturally aspirated as you can get, that's the point of the entire compressor section of a turbine and is one reason why planes like the U2 and SR-71 flew waaaaaay higher than everest, and your average Passenger Jet cruises at 30,000ft (remember "this is your captian speaking, we have reached our cruising altitude of 30,000 ft, I have turned off the fasten seatbelt sign, please sit back, relax, and enjoy your flight to Bora Bora).
Let's just say this, the technology that's impressive here is not the ability to run a jet engine at 30,000ft, it's the fact that instead of a stationary wing, the properties of lift associated with a rotor are waaaaay different, and the takeoff and landing at that altitude is far more impressive than simply piloting a chopper up to 40,000ft, and then coming back down.
God, I'm such a dork.
|
|
|
|
|
tradman
May 27, 2005, 2:19 PM
Post #47 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159
|
Moonshine, I only included the line about jet airliners to flesh out a simplified point about why some vehicles can fly successfully at high altitude. I'm well aware of the differences thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
jeep4evr
May 27, 2005, 2:28 PM
Post #48 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Posts: 80
|
Oh well, so what if some tourist boasts about standing on top of the summit. I can see the conversation with friends now.
GnarlyTourist: Dude, I stood on top of Mt Everest, check the pictures!
Tourist's Friend: Wow, you ain't BS'in, that's awesome! How long did it take to get to the top?
GnarlyTourist: oh, about 20 minutes, give or take.
Tourist's Friend: Wow, that's gotta be some kind of speed record. How long were you on top?
GnarlyTourist: oh, 10, 15 minutes, it was pretty cold up there! Just long enough to get the pics.
Tourist's Friend: You climbed all that way for 10, 15 minutes on the summit?
GnarlyTourist: Well.. I didn't exactly climb...
|
|
|
|
|
ajkclay
May 27, 2005, 2:54 PM
Post #49 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 1567
|
ummm, there's this climb at Arapiles called Kachoong, it's a very spectacular grade 21 roof (check photos, there's a lot of pics), and it's on the hit list of a large number of Aussie climbers.
The point?
Well, you can drive (your car, helicopter optional) to the summit car park and take a short walk to the top out of the route, but that doesn't mean you got to the top of Kachoong. And despite this it's still a very popular and sought after route.
Those who think that being able to fly a helicopter to the summit of any mountain makes it less of an accomplishment are ignoring one of the most fundamental aspects in climbing: It's not so much whether you get there, it's how you get there that matters.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
May 27, 2005, 4:11 PM
Post #50 of 61
(8490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
Was the wind not a factor in landing the thing up there? I would not believe this unless there was footage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
