Text 8413, 85 rader
Skriven 2008-11-26 08:45:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Excellent summation
===========================
~>> ~>>  You said he lost speed in the turn. I pointed out
~>> ~>>  that he didn't have to lose speed to crash.
 EC>
~>>  EC> The first sentence is not completely accurate, but more
~>>  EC> accurate than your average.  The second sentence is
~>>  EC> irrelevant.  No one ever said that losing airspeed was the
~>>  EC> only way to crash a plane.  This has been pointed out to
~>>  EC> you several times, and yet you go on droning the same lines.

~>>  It is exactly accurate.

 EC> Again, no it isn't.  Ceppa said he lost speed.  I said that
 EC> the stories I had read suggested he lost speed.  If you
 EC> don't understand the difference... well, that wouldn't be a
 EC> surprise to anyone.

 So, after all this time, you did not raise that distinction
 before. Now you regress to claiming that you said it is maybe
 possibly could be might have perhaps it's possible he lost
 speed.

 The problem with that is, if he maybe lost speed, then it is
 implicit that he maybe did not lose speed. And that is what I
 said the first go round. I said it is not necessarily so that
 his speed "rubbed off". You said the report said it was so.

 These are the relevant comments from our exchange.
 **************************************************************************

 ...
 from you

 EC> The Navy report concluded that he failed to "maintain an
 EC> airspeed above the stall speed" while he was turning.  My
 EC> mistake was in taking that to mean that he dropped the
 EC> engine speed down to the point that it stalled.  The more
 EC> detailed stories seem to indicate that the turn rubbed off
 EC> airspeed that was not compensated for, resulting in the

 from me

 Not necessarily so. A plane that is turning needs more speed to
 fly, so it will stall at a speed that will allow flight when it
 is straight and level.

 ...
 from me

~>  Not necessarily so.

 from you

Since they did not say that it was "necessarily" so but only that it was
so, your comment is meaningless.

 ...
 **************************************************************************

~>>  What you
~>>  have pushed over and over is that he had to lose airspeed to
~>>  crash.

 EC> That is a rather obvious and glaring lie.  But that just

 Your comment that the report said *it was so* is strong evidence
 that you are the one lying here.

 EC> means another drop in a vast ocean.  And a rather
 EC> intentional lie, since it tries to go back and resurrect

 Seems the intent is yours.

 EC> your irrelevant claim that in the abstract a plane CAN
 EC> crash in a turn without losing airspeed by pretending that
 EC> it was a response to something I in fact didn't say!

 Actually, as above, you did say what I said you said.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)