Turns at low IAS

[APenNameAndThatA]

5 hours ago, old man emu said:

If you stood on a ladder, jokes would still go over your head.

Thank God. My forehead still hurts from when you offered to keep discussing centrifugal force. 

[old man emu]

Grab a couple of Panadol then.

https://www.socialaustralia.com.au/topic/1408-centrifuges/?tab=comments#comment-50048

[Mike Gearon]

On the subject of centrifugal force.... I read that discussion. The weight on string only lifts from surface when swung under the right conditions. Those conditions make my head hurt and I’ve stopped thinking about it.

[old man emu]

Please. Enough of the discussion of fugal force on this site. If you want to continue it, go to the Science tab in the sister site. 

 

Thanks,

Old Man Emu

[Mike Gearon]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

Please. Enough of the discussion of fugal force on this site. If you want to continue it, go to the Science tab in the sister site. 

 

Thanks,

Old Man Emu

I get you’ve tried to soften this and you’re dealing with a bunch of rabble including myself. I like being rabble, dislike being told what to do unless it’s the doctor, the CFI or others I respect and that does include yourself and most of the other rabble.   I’ve only just seen as you’ve indicated it’s a sister site. Won’t be adding yet another site.

 

 

[old man emu]

There's a time and place for everything. Reacreationalflying dot com is the place for seriousness. Socialaustralia dot com is the place for taking the piss and also for some degree of seriousness.

 

Here, I expect intelligent debate. Over there I expect hecklers.

[spacesailor]

SO

IT will still go around !,

Do l have to 'rotate' to the other side now ?. LoL

spacesailor

[APenNameAndThatA]

On 04/03/2021 at 10:56 AM, old man emu said:

There's a time and place for everything. Reacreationalflying dot com is the place for seriousness. Socialaustralia dot com is the place for taking the piss and also for some degree of seriousness.

 

Here, I expect intelligent debate. Over there I expect hecklers.

Your challenge is to recognise that when people correct you they are being intelligent and not merely hecklers. An example of this is when I pointed out that your angle of attack meter would not work, and that a trimmed aircraft loses height rather than speed. 
 

To your credit, you were calm when people pointed out that QNH does not affect Vso and that V speeds are not based on true air speed. 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Academics don't fight on account of having a foolproof method of dealing with disagreements. Its called experimentation.

The rivalry between the Wright brothers and professor Langley is a great example. The Wrights were the best scientists by far. They used more and better experiments.

[Mike Gearon]

I went through all this a decade and a half ago. Moderators and debaters. Judge, jury and partner in crime. I was a little pissy a few days ago because of a business problem and probably the second time I’ve let that come through to this forum post. It quite rightly disappeared then and this now may go as well removed from topic. 
 

Mod... not an easy job. I had it for a while and thankful to remove the mod hat. OME does well I’m my humble opinion. Isn’t perfect but who is?

[Mike Gearon]

3 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Academics don't fight on account of having a foolproof method of dealing with disagreements. Its called experimentation.

The rivalry between the Wright brothers and professor Langley is a great example. The Wrights were the best scientists by far. They used more and better experiments.

I’ve been reading more on the Wright brothers as they’ve come up in Stick and Rudder. They were true experimental engineers. Nearly finished S and R. Historically interesting being closer to the start of aviation. Authors future predictions were well off the mark in most cases. New fangled tricycle landing gear warmly embraced though.

[old man emu]

2 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Your challenge is to recognise that

Rebuttal is not simply telling someone they are incorrect. Rebuttal in technical discussions requires presentation of researched material.

[aro]

26 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Rebuttal is not simply telling someone they are incorrect.

If there are major errors (which there are in many of your posts) pointing out the errors should be enough. But as with most things, it is slower to correct errors than to make them.

 

What qualifications do you have that you come and give "lectures" and call people who disagree hecklers?

[Student Pilot]

Epic PP thread...........

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, aro said:

What qualifications do you have that you come and give "lectures" and call people who disagree hecklers?

Before I answer that, answer this: Why is it that the only person whose posts that Apennameandthata and Aro insist on nit=picking are OME's? 

 

Further, why is it that Apennameandthata and Aro don't contribute any more than to say, 'You're wrong' and fail to provide anything more than that?

[gareth lacey]

21 minutes ago, old man emu said:

Before I answer that, answer this: Why is it that the only person whose posts that Apennameandthata and Aro insist on nit=picking are OME's? 

 

Further, why is it that Apennameandthata and Aro don't contribute any more than to say, 'You're wrong' and fail to provide anything more than that?

Trolls maybe,dont worry OME we know you and mostly understand your views and comments, i say if you can.t comment factually DONT COMMENT and never have a go at acommentor

cheers Gareth

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

3 hours ago, old man emu said:

Before I answer that, answer this: Why is it that the only person whose posts that Apennameandthata and Aro insist on nit=picking are OME's? 

 

Further, why is it that Apennameandthata and Aro don't contribute any more than to say, 'You're wrong' and fail to provide anything more than that?

I can’t speak for anyone else, but to answer your question, I correct your wrong posts more than other people’s posts because no on else’s posts are wrong anywhere nearly as often as yours are. 
 

It is not true that I merely say that you are wrong. I provide reasoning but you either don’t understand it, don’t want to understand it or don’t want to admit that you are wrong. 
 

For example, pointing out that a trimmed aircraft will lose height rather than speed IS giving the correct answer and not merely saying that you are wrong.

 

On the other hand, when I pointed out to you that just because centrifugal force is an apparent force does not mean that it is not real, I got no indication that you had a clue what I was talking about, but an invitation to discuss the issue on another forum. I didn’t need to discuss anything, you just needed to understand what was happening. You would have been better off asking questions. 
 

This comes in the context of stating, as a fact, that air speed instruments should be constructed differently and believing that you had invented a cheap and efficient AOA indicator - a feat that has eluded all engineers for 100 years. 
 

This also comes in the context of you cutting and pasting algebra from the internet. You saying that something that had a weight of 3 kg and a mass of 0.3 kg demonstrated that you had not studied physics in Grade 10 or 11. 

[APenNameAndThatA]

3 hours ago, gareth lacey said:

Trolls maybe,dont worry OME we know you and mostly understand your views and comments, i say if you can.t comment factually DONT COMMENT and never have a go at acommentor

cheers Gareth

 

Yeah, well, that’s the dangerous problem. Someone keeps on stating things that are untrue, and other people believe them and say that people who disagree with the are trolls. 
 

Do you understand that QNH changes Vso? Do you understand that V speed is based on TAS? Do you understand that centrifugal force does not exist? Do you understand that a spirit level can determine AOA? Do you understand that the best AOA of an aeroplane can be determined with the aeroplane static on the ground and a spirit level? Do you understand that sonething with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg? Do you understand that if a trimmed aircraft loses power it will slow down? So you understand that if an aircraft has its nose above a certain angle it will stall? Do you understand that if an airplane cannot maintain altitude it means that it has stalled? Do you understand that people are not allowed to answer teaching questions in a way that is not how the teacher wants them answered? I hope you do, because if you don’t you are nothing but a troll who has never contributed anything positive to this forum and lack the experience to know what a spirit level is. 

[Student Pilot]

2 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Yeah, well, that’s the dangerous problem. Someone keeps on stating things that are untrue, and other people believe them and say that people who disagree with the are trolls. 
 

Do you understand that QNH changes Vso? Do you understand that V speed is based on TAS? Do you understand that centrifugal force does not exist? Do you understand that a spirit level can determine AOA? Do you understand that the best AOA of an aeroplane can be determined with the aeroplane static on the ground and a spirit level? Do you understand that sonething with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg? Do you understand that if a trimmed aircraft loses power it will slow down? So you understand that if an aircraft has its nose above a certain angle it will stall? Do you understand that if an airplane cannot maintain altitude it means that it has stalled? Do you understand that people are not allowed to answer teaching questions in a way that is not how the teacher wants them answered? I hope you do, because if you don’t you are nothing but a troll who has never contributed anything positive to this forum and lack the experience to know what a spirit level is. 

Couple of things, a spirit level is open to flight forces and doesn't remain level. Bob Hoover demonstration of the roll while pouring a jug of water being an example. If an aircraft cannot maintain altitude it can just descend without stalling.

 

This thread has just become one giant pocket pissing contest.

 

Turns at low speed need you to be aware of the aircrafts foibles and handling, no science degree needed, a degree in pedantic's not required either. 

 

Stop this madness................. 

[pmccarthy]

Low IAS= low interesting aviation stuff.

[old man emu]

21 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I correct your wrong posts more than other people’s posts

Let's go through your posts and find out how many others you have corrected

https://www.recreationalflying.com/profile/8718-apennameandthata/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjM3MTY3LCJpZF8yIjo1MDM1NDd9

21 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Do you understand that sonething with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg?

"Weight" is the layman's term for expressing the magnitude of the Force which is directly dependant on the mass of of an object and the acceleration due to gravity in a relationship that can be expressed algebraically as F = ma. The acceleration due to gravity is given a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s/s. It is acceptable to approximate that value to 9.81 m/s/s. This of course is considered an average value as exploration has shown that the acceleration due to gravity at a certain altitudes varies due to the variation in the gravitational attraction of the crust. The average value is for an altitude called Mean Sea Level.

 

So, if an object is placed on a weighing device, the device measures the force exerted by the object by either compressing a spring system, activating a tensiometer, or balancing standard "weights". If we determine the "weight" of the object, to be 3 kg, and we use an accepted value for acceleration due to gravity, then,

F = ma

F/a =m

Substituting the known values,

3/9.81 = m

3/9.91 = 0.3058 kg

or

3/9.80665 = 0.3059 kg

or, if we approximate 9.81 to 10.0 for simpler arithmetic

3/10 = 0.3 kg

21 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Do you understand that a spirit level can determine AOA?

Do you understand what a theory is? I proposed a theoretical way of indicating AoA. Lacking access to a Foxbat or C-172, I was not able to test the theory by experimentation. I stand better than Darwin and Einstein in that their theories cannot be tested to absolute truth, whereas mine can.

 

21 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Do you understand that if an airplane cannot maintain altitude it means that it has stalled

Do you understand that if an aircraft cannot maintain altitude it simply means that the Lift is insufficient to balance firstly the force of gravity and aircraft mass, plus any other detractors you want to add to the effects of gravity. All things being equal, ie wing area and air density, you can have an airspeed that is insufficient to produce the required amount of Lift while maintaining a "straight and level" angle of attack. The aircraft will simply descend on a ballistic trajectory.

 

Note that the Coefficient of Lift, an important factor in the Lift equation, is also dependant on  the fluid dynamic pressure, in turn linked to the fluid density and to the flow speed, so the Coefficient of Lift varies constantly.

 

21 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

Do you understand that the best AOA of an aeroplane can be determined with the aeroplane static on the ground and a spirit level?

Do you know how to rig a wing? 

 

21 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

I hope you do, because if you don’t you are nothing but a troll who has never contributed anything positive to this forum and lack the experience to know what a spirit level is. 

Well, to all and sundry, APenNameAndThatA has just called you trolls. 

[Thruster88]

OME you messed up the force and acceleration,  F=MA.

A 3kg mass will have 30 N of force due to gravity, there is no 0.3kg anywhere. From my high school physics.  

[Mike Gearon]

7 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

OME you messed up the force and acceleration,  F=MA.

A 3kg mass will have 30 N of force due to gravity, there is no 0.3kg anywhere. From my high school physics.  

This must be the acceleration of m/s/s... Not sure though. It’s mass stays the same at 3kg. . It’s kinetic energy goes up.

[APenNameAndThatA]

36 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

OME you messed up the force and acceleration,  F=MA.

A 3kg mass will have 30 N of force due to gravity, there is no 0.3kg anywhere. From my high school physics.  

People told him that last time, too. I *honestly* thought that he got it last time. 

[APenNameAndThatA]

 

Re “Do you understand what a theory is? I proposed a theoretical way of indicating AoA. Lacking access to a Foxbat or C-172, I was not able to test the theory by experimentation. I stand better than Darwin and Einstein in that their theories cannot be tested to absolute truth, whereas mine can.”

 

I seems that a) OME compares his theories favourably to those of Einstein and Darwin and b) still believes that his angle of attack measuring device might work. Have I got that right OME?