7 ms·

When His SR-71 Blackbird Disintegrated, This Pilot Free Fell from Space

206 points by dfsegoat 7y ago

catalogia 7y ago
Tangentially related, the Space Shuttle Columbia was outfitted with modified SR-71 ejection seats for the first few flights.
- phs318u 7y ago
  Really? Did not know this. Any info as to why they stopped doing that?
  - rangibaby 7y ago
    Weight
  - catalogia 7y ago
    Only the pilot and copilot had ejection seats, the rest of the crew couldn't also have ejection seats (I'm not sure if it was specifically weight, volume, or orientation/configuration that was the limiting factor. I think maybe a combination of all three.) STS-1 through STS-4 (all using Columbia) only had a pilot and copilot, no other crew. For STS-5 and STS-9 when there was more crew, they flew with the ejection seats disabled. After STS-9 the seats were removed. I don't have a source saying it specifically, but I think they weren't keen on operating a shuttle where two of seven crew could survive but the other five had no chance. It must have also saved weight and space too.
  - na85 7y ago
    They were kinda useless, operationally-speaking. Half the crew members were on the lower deck and surrounded by significant hull structure, and so couldn't eject. The first two shuttles were only designed around a crew of 2 where this design made more sense. Irrespective of that, the ejection seats only work for a very limited period of the shuttle's operating envelope. IIRC it's something like only the first 2 minutes of flight where the ejection seats could be used. And in most cases where you'd be able to eject, the solid rocket boosters were still firing and it was theorized that as the shuttle passed a pilot who had just ejected, the exhaust gases would ruin the parachute and/or kill an ejecting pilot anyways. By the time the SRBs burnt out, the shuttle was too high/fast to eject.
    - catalogia 7y ago
      > The first two shuttles were only designed around a crew of 2 where this design made more sense. Only the first I think, unless you're count Enterprise (which couldn't go to space.) Challenger (the second orbit-capable shuttle) never flew with less than four crew. Incidentally, the ejection seats of questionable worth in Columbia weren't without NASA precedent; the Gemini program also used ejection seats which similarly had a pretty narrow window of usefulness at best. One of my favorite pictures ever is this shot of the Gemini capsule with both hatches open, giving a pretty clear view of how the seats would have worked: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Armstrong_and_Scott_with_Hatches_Open_-_GPN-2000-001413.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Armstron...
      - greedo 7y ago
        That's a great photo! Really illustrates how small the capsule was.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - beerandt 7y ago
        Since Enterprise was initially intended to go to space, (to be completed after the flight tests) I'd count it for design purposes. STS-1 through STS-4 all had a crew of 2 on Columbia.
  - 00N8 7y ago
    I read that at least one shuttle commander thought the ejector seats would've been useless anyway b/c if you used them while the solid rocket boosters were still running you'd get burned up & lose your parachutes from the SRB exhaust - and your altitude & velocity would be too high to eject by the time you'd be safe from the SRBs
    - catalogia 7y ago
      They were zero-zero seats (capable of ejecting at zero airspeed/altitude, aka on the ground), so they conceivably would have been useful during some of the return trip, including sitting on the runway after landing. Understandably that was probably not the part of the flight the astronauts were most worried about though.
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Think of the situation that puts the commander and pilot in- they're the ones flying the shuttle; no one else can eject. If they eject, they are essentially abandoning the rest of the crew to die. It's the antithesis of the captain going down with his ship. Initial unpowered glide tests were the only flights where ejection was even likely survivable, and this was the reason the seats were ever installed in the first place. (Only on the first two orbiters.) Any other use was an extreme long shot. Of course all the abort modes ended up being fairly convoluted and unsurvivable to some extent, except abort to orbit. The "contingency" aborts were especially absurd, which depended on burning off most of the remaining fuel (which would take longer, given it would likely be used in the event of an engine failure), then orienting the shuttle into a position where the crew could attempt a midair bail out. Think about that. RTLS was a close second, for single SSME loss in the first 4 minutes. It was a 25 minute (!) abort process that involved building up enough speed and altitude so that the shuttle could be flipped around and "put in reverse" to return to the launch site. This involved a certain amount of time at near zero horizontal velocity, so the altitude was needed to permit some time of "free fall" while reversing direction. It also put the orbiter well outside of it's survivable stress envelope, and subjected the crew to extreme g-forces. It was highly questionable that even a perfectly functioning shuttle could have executed the abort, let alone a malfunctioning one. >Astronaut Mike Mullane referred to the RTLS abort as an "unnatural act of physics" >John Young:"RTLS requires continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful" These were abort modes that were considered survivable. There were another set of scenarios that were considered not survivable: LOCV for Loss of Crew and Vehicle. It was this level of absurdity that led to the NASA culture of basically ignoring some cherry-picked risks, ultimately leading to Challenger and Columbia. https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/aborts/rtls.html https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/a... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/383441main_contingency_aborts_21007_31007.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/383441main_contingen... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes
    - jabl 7y ago
      > Think of the situation that puts the commander and pilot in- they're the ones flying the shuttle; no one else can eject. > If they eject, they are essentially abandoning the rest of the crew to die. It's the antithesis of the captain going down with his ship. The Avro Vulcan bomber used by the RAF during the cold war had ejection seats for the pilot and co-pilot, and the 3 other crewmen had just parachutes. There were several accidents where the pilots managed to eject successfully but all the other crewmen were killed.
CodeWriter23 7y ago
Link via the Wayback http://web.archive.org/web/20190406205046/http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-free-fell-space-lived-tell/ http://web.archive.org/web/20190406205046/http://www.chuckye...
mellosouls 7y ago
Two weeks after the accident, I was back in an SR-71 Casually mentioned. A different breed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- topspin 7y ago
  Ok. You can stop now. I got it.
  - sndean 7y ago
    > Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong are still alive. Buzz and Mike Collins are still around, but Armstrong died in 2012.
  - cobythedog 7y ago
    Neil Armstrong is not still alive.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - CDSlice 7y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but the Neil Armstrong who went to the moon died in 2012 according to Wikipedia. [0] Fortunately Chuck Yeager is still alive at 96(!) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - melling 7y ago
    Neil Armstrong died in 2012. Perhaps you mean Buzz Aldrin
- beerandt 7y ago
  Get right back up on that horse!
js2 7y ago
At least he didn’t get caught in a thunderstorm like William Rankin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rankin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rankin https://www.damninteresting.com/rider-on-the-storm/ https://www.damninteresting.com/rider-on-the-storm/
- DarthGhandi 7y ago
  > was the only known person to survive a fall from the top of a cumulonimbus thunderstorm cloud. Perhaps that's technically correct but Ewa Wiśnierska rose from ground level to 10km to the top of a cumulonimbus thunderstorm and came down 4 hours later 60km away. It's an amazing story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewa_Wi%C5%9Bnierska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewa_Wi%C5%9Bnierska https://www.theage.com.au/national/after-flying-to-the-heavens-worlds-luckiest-woman-thanks-the-angels-20070217-ge48ts.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/after-flying-to-the-heave...
  - NetOpWibby 7y ago
    That was a fascinating read, thank you.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ta1234567890 7y ago
> The next day, our flight profile was duplicated on the SR-71 flight simulator at Beale AFB, Calif. The outcome was identical. Steps were immediately taken to prevent a recurrence of our accident. Wow! Super impressive that they could simulate that. Didn't know that was possible, especially in 1966. Is there any current simulation software (available to the public / off the shelf) in which you could accurately simulate something like the situation from the story?
- zarriak 7y ago
  I'm going to have to guess that CFD simulation above mach 1 that is good is probably not something that is publicly available but from reading RUAG's website they use open source software[1]. From my experience with CFD in F1 the main issue you have with CFD is correlation but maybe driving a car around a track is harder to simulate than going really fast in "clean" air. This reason is what leads me to think that it is a major issue and is why both China and the United States started going into mach 5+ with autonomous craft to gather data for correlation. [1]: https://aerodynamics.ruag.com/en/aerodynamics/simulation-analysis https://aerodynamics.ruag.com/en/aerodynamics/simulation-ana...
  - selestify 7y ago
    What is correlation?
    - fhars 7y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence
  - knolan 7y ago
    For low speed flows like in F1 the viscous effects are much larger and this can make flow prediction more difficult. It’s actually pretty easy to predict the shockwave pattern from 1D theory without the need for CFD [0]. The boundary layers are much thinner and you can assume inviscid flow at first. At hypersonic speeds the interactions get more complex however and you’re dealing with a lot more materials science challenges so CFD is important in predicting thermal loads and shock boundary layer interactions. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_shock https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_shock
samplatt 7y ago
>A big red light on the master-warning panel in the rear cockpit had illuminated just as we rotated, stating, “Pilot Ejected.” Fortunately, the cause was a misadjusted microswitch, not my departure. "Misadjusted switch". The ejection light "just happened" to be misadjusted 2 weeks after you survived force ejection. Uh-huh. Sure mate.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  That's a microswitch underneath the chair that checks for presence of that chair. If the switch is no longer depressed the chair is gone or the switch is maladjusted, which can easily happen.
  - anonymousiam 7y ago
    Especially on a brand new aircraft during the maiden flight.
vxNsr 7y ago
>: Fortunately, the cause was a misadjusted microswitch, not my departure. Lol, that's terrific.
dxbydt 7y ago
from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/1112841275324157952 https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/111284127532415795... Aside: Incidentally I just drove to campus on Yeager Road ! 25 astronauts graduated from Purdue including Neil Armstrong. Yeager flew with Armstrong ( https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/987529421618794496 https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/987529421618794496 ) & felt rather strongly about Armstrong's portrayal by Gosling in First Man ( https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/1035555347857981440 https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/103555534785798144... ) Space is huge here at Purdue...yesterday was Space day with over 1000+ kids packed into Neil Armstrong hall making rockets & stuff.
sabalaba 7y ago
I’m not sure if this is the same person but it sounds about right. The cowboy-pilot whose ranch he landed on died about 20 years later in a plane crash: https://oklahoman.com/article/2151107/cowboy-hall-figure-dies https://oklahoman.com/article/2151107/cowboy-hall-figure-die...
wiggler00m 7y ago
Resource limit is reached.
- EGreg 7y ago
  That was a pretty obscure reference given what the article talks about.
- cb504 7y ago
  google-cache4theWin
anonymousiam 7y ago
Looks like Yeager's site is rate limited, but Google Cache came through for me. I went to an AOPA dinner about 30 years ago where Bill Weaver talked about his F104 Starfighter flight experience. (At that time, the SR71 stuff was probably still classified BYEMAN.) He had many interesting tales to tell and I'm glad that he survived this terrible accident.
dtjohnnymonkey 7y ago
In college I had to take traffic school where I sat next to an SR-71 pilot. He was there for a speeding citation.
edf13 7y ago
Side note to this but it brings back great childhood memories of the c64 flight sim... https://www.mobygames.com/game/c64/chuck-yeagers-advanced-flight-simulator https://www.mobygames.com/game/c64/chuck-yeagers-advanced-fl...

206 points by dfsegoat 7y ago

Tangentially related, the Space Shuttle Columbia was outfitted with modified SR-71 ejection seats for the first few flights.

phs318u 7y ago
Really? Did not know this. Any info as to why they stopped doing that?
- rangibaby 7y ago
  Weight
- catalogia 7y ago
  Only the pilot and copilot had ejection seats, the rest of the crew couldn't also have ejection seats (I'm not sure if it was specifically weight, volume, or orientation/configuration that was the limiting factor. I think maybe a combination of all three.) STS-1 through STS-4 (all using Columbia) only had a pilot and copilot, no other crew. For STS-5 and STS-9 when there was more crew, they flew with the ejection seats disabled. After STS-9 the seats were removed. I don't have a source saying it specifically, but I think they weren't keen on operating a shuttle where two of seven crew could survive but the other five had no chance. It must have also saved weight and space too.
- na85 7y ago
  They were kinda useless, operationally-speaking. Half the crew members were on the lower deck and surrounded by significant hull structure, and so couldn't eject. The first two shuttles were only designed around a crew of 2 where this design made more sense. Irrespective of that, the ejection seats only work for a very limited period of the shuttle's operating envelope. IIRC it's something like only the first 2 minutes of flight where the ejection seats could be used. And in most cases where you'd be able to eject, the solid rocket boosters were still firing and it was theorized that as the shuttle passed a pilot who had just ejected, the exhaust gases would ruin the parachute and/or kill an ejecting pilot anyways. By the time the SRBs burnt out, the shuttle was too high/fast to eject.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    > The first two shuttles were only designed around a crew of 2 where this design made more sense. Only the first I think, unless you're count Enterprise (which couldn't go to space.) Challenger (the second orbit-capable shuttle) never flew with less than four crew. Incidentally, the ejection seats of questionable worth in Columbia weren't without NASA precedent; the Gemini program also used ejection seats which similarly had a pretty narrow window of usefulness at best. One of my favorite pictures ever is this shot of the Gemini capsule with both hatches open, giving a pretty clear view of how the seats would have worked: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Armstrong_and_Scott_with_Hatches_Open_-_GPN-2000-001413.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e2/Armstron...
    - greedo 7y ago
      That's a great photo! Really illustrates how small the capsule was.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - beerandt 7y ago
      Since Enterprise was initially intended to go to space, (to be completed after the flight tests) I'd count it for design purposes. STS-1 through STS-4 all had a crew of 2 on Columbia.
- 00N8 7y ago
  I read that at least one shuttle commander thought the ejector seats would've been useless anyway b/c if you used them while the solid rocket boosters were still running you'd get burned up & lose your parachutes from the SRB exhaust - and your altitude & velocity would be too high to eject by the time you'd be safe from the SRBs
  - catalogia 7y ago
    They were zero-zero seats (capable of ejecting at zero airspeed/altitude, aka on the ground), so they conceivably would have been useful during some of the return trip, including sitting on the runway after landing. Understandably that was probably not the part of the flight the astronauts were most worried about though.
- beerandt 7y ago
  Think of the situation that puts the commander and pilot in- they're the ones flying the shuttle; no one else can eject. If they eject, they are essentially abandoning the rest of the crew to die. It's the antithesis of the captain going down with his ship. Initial unpowered glide tests were the only flights where ejection was even likely survivable, and this was the reason the seats were ever installed in the first place. (Only on the first two orbiters.) Any other use was an extreme long shot. Of course all the abort modes ended up being fairly convoluted and unsurvivable to some extent, except abort to orbit. The "contingency" aborts were especially absurd, which depended on burning off most of the remaining fuel (which would take longer, given it would likely be used in the event of an engine failure), then orienting the shuttle into a position where the crew could attempt a midair bail out. Think about that. RTLS was a close second, for single SSME loss in the first 4 minutes. It was a 25 minute (!) abort process that involved building up enough speed and altitude so that the shuttle could be flipped around and "put in reverse" to return to the launch site. This involved a certain amount of time at near zero horizontal velocity, so the altitude was needed to permit some time of "free fall" while reversing direction. It also put the orbiter well outside of it's survivable stress envelope, and subjected the crew to extreme g-forces. It was highly questionable that even a perfectly functioning shuttle could have executed the abort, let alone a malfunctioning one. >Astronaut Mike Mullane referred to the RTLS abort as an "unnatural act of physics" >John Young:"RTLS requires continuous miracles interspersed with acts of God to be successful" These were abort modes that were considered survivable. There were another set of scenarios that were considered not survivable: LOCV for Loss of Crew and Vehicle. It was this level of absurdity that led to the NASA culture of basically ignoring some cherry-picked risks, ultimately leading to Challenger and Columbia. https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/aborts/rtls.html https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/reference/shutref/sts/a... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/383441main_contingency_aborts_21007_31007.pdf http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/383441main_contingen... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes
  - jabl 7y ago
    > Think of the situation that puts the commander and pilot in- they're the ones flying the shuttle; no one else can eject. > If they eject, they are essentially abandoning the rest of the crew to die. It's the antithesis of the captain going down with his ship. The Avro Vulcan bomber used by the RAF during the cold war had ejection seats for the pilot and co-pilot, and the 3 other crewmen had just parachutes. There were several accidents where the pilots managed to eject successfully but all the other crewmen were killed.

CodeWriter23 7y ago

Link via the Wayback http://web.archive.org/web/20190406205046/http://www.chuckyeager.org/news/sr-71-disintegrated-pilot-free-fell-space-lived-tell/ http://web.archive.org/web/20190406205046/http://www.chuckye...

mellosouls 7y ago

Two weeks after the accident, I was back in an SR-71 Casually mentioned. A different breed.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
topspin 7y ago
Ok. You can stop now. I got it.
- sndean 7y ago
  > Chuck Yeager and Neil Armstrong are still alive. Buzz and Mike Collins are still around, but Armstrong died in 2012.
- cobythedog 7y ago
  Neil Armstrong is not still alive.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- CDSlice 7y ago
  I hate to break it to you, but the Neil Armstrong who went to the moon died in 2012 according to Wikipedia. [0] Fortunately Chuck Yeager is still alive at 96(!) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- melling 7y ago
  Neil Armstrong died in 2012. Perhaps you mean Buzz Aldrin
beerandt 7y ago
Get right back up on that horse!

js2 7y ago

At least he didn’t get caught in a thunderstorm like William Rankin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rankin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rankin https://www.damninteresting.com/rider-on-the-storm/ https://www.damninteresting.com/rider-on-the-storm/

DarthGhandi 7y ago
> was the only known person to survive a fall from the top of a cumulonimbus thunderstorm cloud. Perhaps that's technically correct but Ewa Wiśnierska rose from ground level to 10km to the top of a cumulonimbus thunderstorm and came down 4 hours later 60km away. It's an amazing story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewa_Wi%C5%9Bnierska https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewa_Wi%C5%9Bnierska https://www.theage.com.au/national/after-flying-to-the-heavens-worlds-luckiest-woman-thanks-the-angels-20070217-ge48ts.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/after-flying-to-the-heave...
- NetOpWibby 7y ago
  That was a fascinating read, thank you.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ta1234567890 7y ago

> The next day, our flight profile was duplicated on the SR-71 flight simulator at Beale AFB, Calif. The outcome was identical. Steps were immediately taken to prevent a recurrence of our accident. Wow! Super impressive that they could simulate that. Didn't know that was possible, especially in 1966. Is there any current simulation software (available to the public / off the shelf) in which you could accurately simulate something like the situation from the story?

zarriak 7y ago
I'm going to have to guess that CFD simulation above mach 1 that is good is probably not something that is publicly available but from reading RUAG's website they use open source software[1]. From my experience with CFD in F1 the main issue you have with CFD is correlation but maybe driving a car around a track is harder to simulate than going really fast in "clean" air. This reason is what leads me to think that it is a major issue and is why both China and the United States started going into mach 5+ with autonomous craft to gather data for correlation. [1]: https://aerodynamics.ruag.com/en/aerodynamics/simulation-analysis https://aerodynamics.ruag.com/en/aerodynamics/simulation-ana...
- selestify 7y ago
  What is correlation?
  - fhars 7y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_and_dependence
- knolan 7y ago
  For low speed flows like in F1 the viscous effects are much larger and this can make flow prediction more difficult. It’s actually pretty easy to predict the shockwave pattern from 1D theory without the need for CFD [0]. The boundary layers are much thinner and you can assume inviscid flow at first. At hypersonic speeds the interactions get more complex however and you’re dealing with a lot more materials science challenges so CFD is important in predicting thermal loads and shock boundary layer interactions. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_shock https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oblique_shock

samplatt 7y ago

>A big red light on the master-warning panel in the rear cockpit had illuminated just as we rotated, stating, “Pilot Ejected.” Fortunately, the cause was a misadjusted microswitch, not my departure. "Misadjusted switch". The ejection light "just happened" to be misadjusted 2 weeks after you survived force ejection. Uh-huh. Sure mate.

jacquesm 7y ago
That's a microswitch underneath the chair that checks for presence of that chair. If the switch is no longer depressed the chair is gone or the switch is maladjusted, which can easily happen.
- anonymousiam 7y ago
  Especially on a brand new aircraft during the maiden flight.

vxNsr 7y ago

>: Fortunately, the cause was a misadjusted microswitch, not my departure. Lol, that's terrific.

dxbydt 7y ago

from the horse's mouth: https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/1112841275324157952 https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/111284127532415795... Aside: Incidentally I just drove to campus on Yeager Road ! 25 astronauts graduated from Purdue including Neil Armstrong. Yeager flew with Armstrong ( https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/987529421618794496 https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/987529421618794496 ) & felt rather strongly about Armstrong's portrayal by Gosling in First Man ( https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/1035555347857981440 https://twitter.com/genchuckyeager/status/103555534785798144... ) Space is huge here at Purdue...yesterday was Space day with over 1000+ kids packed into Neil Armstrong hall making rockets & stuff.

sabalaba 7y ago

I’m not sure if this is the same person but it sounds about right. The cowboy-pilot whose ranch he landed on died about 20 years later in a plane crash: https://oklahoman.com/article/2151107/cowboy-hall-figure-dies https://oklahoman.com/article/2151107/cowboy-hall-figure-die...

wiggler00m 7y ago

Resource limit is reached.

EGreg 7y ago
That was a pretty obscure reference given what the article talks about.
cb504 7y ago
google-cache4theWin

anonymousiam 7y ago

Looks like Yeager's site is rate limited, but Google Cache came through for me. I went to an AOPA dinner about 30 years ago where Bill Weaver talked about his F104 Starfighter flight experience. (At that time, the SR71 stuff was probably still classified BYEMAN.) He had many interesting tales to tell and I'm glad that he survived this terrible accident.

dtjohnnymonkey 7y ago

In college I had to take traffic school where I sat next to an SR-71 pilot. He was there for a speeding citation.

edf13 7y ago

Side note to this but it brings back great childhood memories of the c64 flight sim... https://www.mobygames.com/game/c64/chuck-yeagers-advanced-flight-simulator https://www.mobygames.com/game/c64/chuck-yeagers-advanced-fl...