APenNameAndThatA

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

Mike,

It seems that you are not Robinson Crusoe there. In that thread I described the whole process of setting up the device. I'll not repost it here. What is happening is that people are dropping in with comments akin to "That's B...sh!t" without providing a countering argument from which their point of view can be assessed.

 

The spirit level approach might seem steampunk to people who have been brought up with the convenience of digital devices, but digital devices are simply versions of steam driven devices. Neither is good nor bad.

 

Here, on the wingtip, 

is a common tool used in aviation which is somewhat related to the ball in a tube. Can anyone prove that they don't do their intended job?

 

 

 

That comment is taking the context of the argument to an absurd extreme. Actually, a spirit level in an aircraft going vertical in either direction would stop at the end of its range of travel. If that range extended to 90 degrees, yes it would show that. However, I, foolishly, expected to be directing my posts to people who fly aircraft within a limited range of movement around the lateral axis of the aircraft. If you can get a Foxbat, or a C-172 to fly vertically upwards, or vertically downwards (without exceeding Vne) then my suggested device is not for you. If, however, one's particular operations require flight at AoAs close to the stalling AoA, then the suggested device might prove useful.

 

aro, there's an outbreak of headlice at a local primary school. Can you attend because you're blood good at nit-picking. However, you are not much good are reading, so don't volunteer as a teacher's aide.

 

In relation to the path an aircraft would follow if the power was reduce when the aircraft was in "straight and level" flight, I said, and highlighted, 

For your benefit I know I should have listed all the things that would alter that trajectory from the theoretical, but there are other readers here.

 

Did you study trigonometry in school? Most people did. And when was the last time most people used what they learned in school? When they completed the last trigonometry exam question when they were in school. In my line of work, I had to use trigonometry as a basic tool. Admittedly, it was at the simple end of the spectrum, but so is the basic physics of flight. Also I had to apply the Laws of Motion and understand things like inertia, centripetal force, centre of mass, impulse and so on. These were my tools of trade, so I know how to use them, the same way as an aircraft woodworker knows how to make scarf joint in a spar, or an welder can join pieces of metal.

 

That statement clearly indicates that you have not even had the courtesy to read the description of the set up. Until you do, don't say anything more.

 

Can I have some of what you are smoking? Most physicists will say that, in relation to the planet, the acceleration due to gravity is a vector directed towards the centre of the planet. Since the aircraft and the planet are as one with respect to astronomic bodies, one can discount the effects of the gravitational forces exerted by those bodies.

 

Inertia, is a property of an object by which it opposes any Force to put it in motion or, if it is moving, to accelerate it by changing the magnitude or direction of its velocity. Inertia is a passive property and does not enable a body to do anything except oppose forces. A moving body keeps moving not because of its inertia but only because of the absence of a force to slow it down, change its course, or speed it up. In that case, the object has zero inertia. If the object is subjected to the Force of gravity, then it attains inertia. If you take the case of an object motionless on a surface, then it also has no inertia because the force of gravity is mathematically negated by the resistance of the surface to further movement of the object. It is in an equilibrium of forces. If you apply another force to the object, you upset that equilibrium. The force changes the velocity of the object and you have unbalanced the sum of the forces in the system. 

 

 

 

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

1 hour ago, Mike Gearon said:

I’m sad/ ashamed about 2 things.

 

1. Like a car accident I’ve returned to look at the thread. Interesting to learn OME history on this subject. That’s a good depth of knowledge. 

 

2. My wife watches Married at First Sight and I watched it with her last night.

 

AOA indicator... Okay. I’ve not seen the original thread. I’ve gathered enough flying knowledge now to be slightly dangerous. on that subject...Im going to look around for a more modern version of Stick and Rudder. Any suggestions appreciated....

 

I’m okay with the spirit level approach as long as the data goes to a chip that has software and an algorithm that gathers data right up until the stall warning goes off such as accelerometers on 3 axis, speed data, attitude and any others the aircraft has on offer to feed to the  software. Then bring in the good old fashioned Cessna vacuum stall warning indicator along with the spirit level. Have the little nerdy computer brain deal with all that and set off a noise and light alert.

 

 

 

 

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? 

2 hours ago, aro said:

OK... lets say we climb an aircraft at 60 knots with an angle of climb of 5 degrees. Then we reduce power to descend at an angle of 5 degrees at the same 60 knots.

 

The airspeed is the same. The angle of attack must therefore be the same. What do you expect your indicator to show? I would expect it to show a change of 10 degrees, where the correct indication would be a change of zero.

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. 

On 04/03/2021 at 9:17 AM, RFguy said:

yep, and since there is no concept of ground, you'll need a balanced PI filter. 

and you need capacitive input, because the internals will draw in pulses. 

All over my head. Hats off to both of you

11 minutes ago, old man emu said:

You mean this one? https://www.socialaustralia.com.au/topic/1408-centrifuges/?tab=comments#comment-50048 Doesn't seem to be closed to further comment. If it is, please advise Ian to open it up. I was hoping for the discussion of that topic to move over there.

 

Then why do aircraft designers go to all the trouble of instructing draughtsmen to design wing attachment points so that the chord line of the wing is at approximately +4 degrees above the longitudinal axis of the aircraft?

 

 In aerodynamics, angle of attack specifies the angle between the chord line of the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft and the vector representing the relative motion between the aircraft and the atmosphere.  The term "straight and level" implies that the aircraft is not turning, not altering altitude. That's the condition most people want to be in when cruising from A to B. In straight and level flight, all the vertical forces acting on the aircraft are balanced. This graph shows that at an angle of attack of about +4.5 degrees, the Coefficient of Lift has a value of one (1).

That coefficient is neither reducing nor increasing the lift for a given combination of air density, airspeed, or wing area. As you pointed out, an aircraft can fly within a large range of angles of attack, and those conditions you described do occur. "Straight and Level" is one of the conditions within that range.

 

Medic!!! He's shot himself in the foot!

 

Doesn"t change significantly? We could work it out, and I agree that the magnitude would not be massive, but change it does.

Power setting are how thrust is produced. Thrust results in velocity. Velocity is a factor in the creation of Lift. Change the velocity and you change the lift FOR A GIVEN AoA. When you demonstrate the stalling characteristics of your plane, what exactly is the exercise all about? I'd say that it is to show the dangers of stalling the aircraft at low altitude where recovery cannot be completed. Have you ever simply gone hands off and reduced power? The nose won't go up to the degree it does when you are demonstrating stalls and stall recovery. The aircraft, which has an intitial horizontal velocity will follow a ballistic trajectory.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/u3l2a5.gif

This simple trajectory is likely to be modified by the longitudinal stability designed into the aircraft.

 

Now, aro, you questioned my qualifications to post stuff about the motion of aircraft. Will these suffice?

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture - where I learned to research topics and draw conclusions from that research, Plus experience in experimental design.

Traffic Accident Reconstruction Specialist - Application of the Newtonian Laws of Motion, including conservation of momentum and energy.

Passed several Commercial Licence Theory Examinations 

Unrestricted Private Pilot's Licence 

Practical Aircraft Maintenance experience.

Practical general automotive experience.

 

I think that will do. 

 

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. 

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I gotta defend OME. I reckon his stuff is standard mechanics, like they once taught in physics classes. Can you give an example of a " false theory?"

 

 

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? 

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I gotta defend OME. I reckon his stuff is standard mechanics, like they once taught in physics classes. Can you give an example of a " false theory?"

 

 

It would be standard mechanics if he understood it

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

I can see that the problem with you blokes is that you cannot read. I started to post by defining the word "weight"

 

 Then I said, 

 

If we now put on our lab coats and become scientists, we will start talking in terms of Newtons. The scale shows us that the object exerts a force of 3 Newtons on the weighing mechanism.  Therefore in the equation F=ma, it is F that equals 3. We agree that a is an acceleration of 9.81 metres per second every second. If, for simplicity's sake, we round 9.81 to 10, then 3 = m.10. Therefore m = 3/10 which is 0.3.

 

Mass: If you could count up the number of protons, neutrons, and electrons in an object, this would be a measure of the mass. The mass is essentially "how much stuff" is in an object. 

 

Weight: There is a gravitational interaction between objects that have mass. If you consider an object interacting with the Earth ie affected by gravity, this force is called the weight. The unit for weight is the Newton.

 

I agree that if an object exerts a force of 30N, then it contains mass equal to 3 kg. But I never said that. I said that the Force (weight, whatever) was 3 kg. Read what I say, because I do think about what I write.

 

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative. Lacking the facilities to test my theory, I cannot completely dismiss my device as ineffective. Until those tests are done, it still remains a theoretical use of the bubble in the tube.

I agree, and I think I'm the urinal. 

 

 

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. 

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

I gotta defend OME. I reckon his stuff is standard mechanics, like they once taught in physics classes. Can you give an example of a " false theory?"

 

 

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? 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

7 hours ago, old man emu said:

That's where I got my Divine Inspiration for the simple Angle of Attack indicator.

 

I swear, 

 

You do know the AoAI would not work, right? 

+1 to covering the fuselage. 

Fill them with fuel and see? 

13 hours ago, walrus said:

I was saddened by the SAAA submission to the senate review. It could best be summarised as; "Misery loves company". They want everyone on the VH register with themselves and subject to CASAs tender ministrations.

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? 

On 04/02/2021 at 11:51 PM, NT5224 said:

Great clip but gotta say I thought his turn onto final rather steep with engine out. Still,did the trick I guess...

 

Alan

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. 

18 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

APNATA - I have already acknowledged the exception of, RAA of training schools based within CTA, which makes absolutely no sense to me if the rest of the RAA pilots can not seek similar privileges. I understand that to further confuse the matter, once qualified the RAA pilot can no longer fly from that location - is this true??

 

On the PPL/RPL matter; to be honest I still cant quit get my head around this.As a PPL currently undergoing a tail wheel endorsement training, at a controlled airfield, I briefly looked at down grading my medical to a "Class 2 Basic" (sufficient for an RPL). I didn't get far, as vague suggestions (from CASA) that my variose endorsements  (described as privileges)  may be withdrawn - so I have opted to down grade to a regular Class 2 and retain my "privilege's" whatever they may be.

 

I will repeat an erlier point - a pilot in command of an RAA registered aircraft must have an RAA Certificate - at least this is clear. If the same pilot has a GA License WITH endorsements that allow entry to  CTA he/she may do so, subject to the aircraft meeting the standards required for entry - this bit seems a bit muddy -  see Aro's contribution erlier in the conversation.

 

Back to the advertisement: I will  quote a little more "Can be converted to VH registration and can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" - seems to me the vendor is trying to make this aircraft all things to all pilots Fair Enough however the last part "can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current RAAus registration" I believe to be misleading best - that's how I started this conversation and where I still stand. There is no attempt to qualify or contextualise this statement - it is designed to mislead.

Commenting about the vendor’s *motives* is going way beyond the data. And the statement “can also be flown in controlled airspace on its current TAAus registration” is probably totally true. Here, you need to distinguish between what the vendor actually said and what happened in your imagination when you read it. 

On 13/02/2021 at 4:24 PM, skippydiesel said:

• I am not advocating RAA into CTA, although I dont see why not, subject to the appropriate training/endorsements and suitably equipped  aircraft

• No comment on the Aviation Classifieds advertisement itself ????

The situation at the moment is the exact opposite: to fly in controlled airspace, you do not need any licence (you are training) but need a Class 2 medical.

7 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

 

Fair comments both - but what of the vehicle being sold, that the vendor claims can be driven on a car licence (there a quite a few micro commercials ,that are in a licence grey area where a certain fit out changes the license required) and the car driver then gets booked, as he drives out of the car yard, for not having the requisite license ??

 

I stand by my statement - if the vendor makes a statement that in false or designed to mislead he/she is culpable

So, was there somewhere in the advert where the vendor said that a particular licence could be used??? 
 

Furthermore, you can fly an RA-Aus plane in controlled airspace without an RA-Aus certificate; you just need to be learning to fly and have a Class 2 medical. Also, you don’t need a PPL, you just need an RPL. And you can only do it during daylight hours, where daylight is defined as...

Unless the ad referred to licencing requirements (which it seems it did not) it is silly to criticise the ad when we can’t get straight the rules. A correct statement about the rules would take up more space than the ad. And to be thorough, would have to include the entire legislation and regs. On the other hand, saying you needed to have the correct credentials would just be stating the obvious. 
 

14 minutes ago, Jim McDowall said:

Don't you like them anymore?Try something with a future - the demographics of gliding clubs indicates that gliding will cease to exist in its current form in 5-10 years

That should keep prices down