Text 8553, 130 rader
Skriven 2008-12-14 03:58:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Excellent summation
===========================
~>> ~>>  Which is also wrong. However, the only way to explain this is in
~>> ~>>  terms of vector math.

~>>  EC> I assumed that you would attempt to use vector analysis
~>>  EC> when I asked the earlier question about making a level turn
~>>  EC> without losing airspeed.

~>>  If you had assumed that you would have said so.

 EC> Your assumption is as weak as your grasp of physics.

 That was a conclusion, not an assumption. And my physics has
 been sound.

 Do you know how to solve that as a right triangle? I hadn't done
 any of those calculations since I was working with solar
 collectors in the early '70s. So I had to look it up to refresh
 my memory. Oh, I knew the formula, I had to look up the cosine.

 I chose an angle of 45 degrees just to simplify. When I found
 the cosine was .707 I immediately remember the significance of
 that number. So I knew the lift increased by 40%.

 You do understand the significance of .707, don't you? And I
 don't mean the old jet airliners.

 I wonder how many others here remember the significance of that.
 I know some have familiarity with it.

~>>  EC> But instead of taking an approach
~>>  EC> that would lead you to expose your error, you ducked the
~>>  EC> question completely.

~>>  Since the error was yours, I had no reason to duck the question.

 EC> Once again you give a false paraphrase.  I didn't say you
 EC> had a REASON to duck the question, although it is becoming
 EC> more and more likely that you do have a reason.  I said you
 EC> DID duck the question.  Do you really not understand the
 EC> difference?

 Yes. If you said I had a reason, you would be wrong, but it
 would make sense. You said you didn't say I have a reason to do
 what you said I did. Which is not only wrong, but senseless.

 I had no reason to duck the question, and I didn't.

 EC> So, going back once again to your disagreement with Ceppa,

 I did disagree with Ceppa, and Ceppa did not agree with you. He
 shared one error with you, but he did not agree with you on the
 actual subject of discussion. Certainly not on your conclusion.

 EC> McCain was attempting to make a level turn without
 EC> increasing his power.

 You didn't post that in your original msg. So we would have had
 to *assume* that to reach anything like the conclusion you
 reached.

 OTOH, let's parse the wording the way you like to.

 The part you did post said he did not maintain enough
 power to make a level turn, but it didn't actually say he was
 making a level turn.

 Yep, good Croasmun word games.

 EC> Ceppa said McCain lost airspeed

 The error he shared with you. Not whether he lost airspeed or
 not, but that he said McCain lost airspeed with nothing in
 any reports you posted to support that.

 EC> while turning.  You said that a pilot in that situation can
 EC> make a turn without losing any airspeed at all.  I tried

 Which is true.

 EC> some time back to get you to explain what he would have to
 EC> do to make the turn without losing any airspeed in that

 Just make the turn and adjust his elevators to maintain his
 airspeed. Which nothing you posted from the reports disputes.

 EC> situation.  Instead of answering, you diverted to another
 EC> of your attacks on the poster rather than addressing the
 EC> post.

 Now that is blatantly false. I went to great lengths to explain
 to you how it works.

 EC> The news stories that cite the Navy report tell you
 EC> everything you need to know,

 Not really. They tell me everything I need to know to say you
 have been making unwarranted assumptions, but not to determine
 the exact sequence of events.

 EC> but you have to put the pieces together yourself.

 I have put the pieces together, as best can be done with
 incomplete information. Do you have a link to the actual report?

 I started out with what you posted. You did not say he was
 trying to make a level turn. So he could have been trying to
 make a decending turn for landing.

 Later you added that he failed to maintain enough power to
 maintain level flight in a turn. Which does not mean he lost
 airspeed. He could well have entered a decending turn whether he
 wanted to or not, but still kept his airspeed steady.

 He needed more power, and more airspeed, to maintain level
 flight.

 Which fits in with the report saying he did not maintain an
 airspeed above the stall speed. If he was fixated on the
 instruments he may well have maintained the airspeed he was
 flying before the turn, but not an airspeed above the stall
 speed.

 Which also fits in with the report.

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

... Faint mind never won fair hypothesis.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)