APenNameAndThatA

I think we have a duty to not let people state false things as fact, mislead other people and not be pulled up about it. Not long ago, I said that I had a *theory* about when to respond to something as a stall and when to respond to it as a spin. Someone replied that someone could die if they read what I said and acted on it. That was not the end of the world. When I post something that is wrong, I welcome the correction. Like when I conflated mass and inertia. I value negative feedback. It’s unpleasant but valuable. I recognise that a number of people here think I’m a troll and therefore not good for the site. I honestly don’t know what to do about that, and welcome suggestions. One alternative is having a site that recommends using spirit levels to measure angle of attack. Is there a way to have a site that does not recommend spirit levels to measure angle of attack and does not make multiple members feel there are trolls? (A troll is someone who acts in bad faith, which clearly I am not. But the point is that people find what I was posting unpleasant.)

I suggest you spend your time learning from a qualified person, like a good physics teacher, and not from the internet. Also, please don’t teach people. I’ll give you $500 if you can demonstrate that something with a mass of 0.3 kg has a weight of 3 kg. Same thing with the AOA meter. If it works, you get the cash. My sense is that you will not be gone long.

OME?

Okay. If you hold a spirit level at 30 degrees (same as the aircraft) and move it at 30 degrees (same as the aircraft) what does it say?

Okay, if he aircraft was flying nose down 30 degrees, steadily, what would the AOA meter say the AOA was?

I had no idea that OME's ideas could be so seductive. I'm genuinely shocked, actually. You might be okay with a spirit level being linked to chips, but Dynon, Garmin, Cessan and EVERYBODY else is not. The Dynon has accelerometers but needs an external pitot tube to calculate AOA. Why do you think that is? It's because its the only way you can do it. Open question to everyone: if an aircraft was flying vertically straight up, what AOA would a spirit level show?

I’ve already tried that line of reasoning. For example, that if an aircraft was flying vertically straight up, the AOA indicator would show an angle of attack of 90 degrees.

All over my head. Hats off to both of you

It is true that a spirit level will work to determine aoa is straight and level flight. Same as a artificial horison could. But straight and level flight is not where you need to measure aoa.

Here’s a list of false theories. 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?

It would be standard mechanics if he understood it If something has a mass of 3 kg, it exerts 30 N of force, not 3. If you don’t believe me, speak to a high school physics teacher. And speak to a flying instructor about your AoA device.

He just said that something with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg. Insists on it no less. And his AOA meter can’t work. A theory is false if it is obviously wrong.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

You do know the AoAI would not work, right?

+1 to covering the fuselage.

Fill them with fuel and see?

I was mystified by the SAAA’s submission, and by their website. They seem to pretend that people only build aircraft to go on the VH register. The SAAA’s submission made their position very clear, but did not explain what it was based on. Engineering? Past accidents? Jealousy? Snobbery?

A slip is much safer than a skid. Disclaimer: I have 117 hours.

As you know, you can go 10% late on certified GA aircraft, ( but the next service needs to be correspondingly early).

I voted.