Text 8566, 147 rader
Skriven 2008-12-15 12:56:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Excellent summation
===========================
~>> ~>>  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.

 EC> It was an assumption, and an incorrect one.  You are still
 EC> ducking the question.

 Which question? About making a level turn withoug losing
 airspeed? That question was never asked until now. And I never
 once said the made a level turn without losing airspeed. I never
 said he made a level turn at all. Obviously, he didn't.

 And it was a conclusion.

~>> ~>>  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.

 EC> The difference is rather obvious.  But it is interesting
 EC> that, when you have to admit a false paraphrase or admit
 EC> ignorance you choose ignorance.

 The difference is, I would not duck the question without a
 reason. It ain't gonna happen, ever. Since I didn't have a
 reason I didn't duck the question.

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

 EC> You still are.

 Nope. As I have pointed out, your are in error, and that answers
 your question.

~>>  EC> So, going back once again to your disagreement with Ceppa,
~>>  EC> McCain was attempting to make a level turn without
~>>  EC> increasing his power.

~>>  You didn't post that in your original msg.

 EC> Wrong again.  It was in the thread from the start.

 Nope. I just reread Wilson's original post, and your response,
 and my and Massey's responses to your response, and your
 response to our responses, and no where in there do you say Bush
 was attempting to make a level turn. You said he was making a
 turn. But you didn't specify level.

 OTOH, since he failed to make a level turn, what is your point
 anyway?

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

 Oh, just noticed, you changed the chronology here. You said
 McCain lost airspeed. That's when I tried to educate you on the
 fact that it was not necessary for him to lose airspeed in order
 to crash as he did.

 Nor did anything you posted from the newspapers say he did lose
 airspeed.

~>>  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.

 EC> The question (and you have had a month to work on it) was
 EC> about "exactly how a plane can be flying level at a given
 EC> airspeed and a given power setting, and then make a level
 EC> turn, at the same power setting, and NOT lose any

 And here is where you alter it. The question was never how he
 could make a *LEVEL* turn without losing airspeed. The question
 was, did he lose airspeed in the turn he made. Since the turn he
 made was *NOT* a level turn, your entire line of arguement falls
 apart.

 EC> airspeed?"  Unfortunately, your answer is to reduce drag by
 EC> reducing the angle of attack.  That might keep the airspeed
 EC> up and thus avoid a stall, but loses vertical lift in the
 EC> turn and thus a descending turn.

 That's what I have been trying to tell you.

 EC> Two problems.  First, the
 EC> inquiry said he stalled, not that he descended in an
 EC> unstalled turn until hitting the water.

 Find a copy of the actual inquiry report. The paper had two
 descriptions, one of which was the stall, the other was as you
 described, decended until hitting the water. The paper said he
 lost several hundred feet of altitude. I find it hard to believe
 he could fall several hundred feet in a stall and not know it.

 EC> Second, if he had
 EC> lost lift and gone into a descending turn rather than a
 EC> level turn, as he is descending the stall speed would be
 EC> lower that it would for the level turn.  Now, if you go

 Ummm... not exactly correct. If he is in a 45 degree bank he
 needs aprox 40% more lift to maintain his altitude. Now I don't
 know how much the airspeed would change to provide that added
 lift, but even a decending turn, at a 45 degree bank, would
 require more speed, unless he was originally well above stall
 speed. If that were the case, how did he get into trouble in the
 first place?

 BTW, if his bank was shallower, the stall becomes less likely,
 and the decending turn becomes more likely.

 EC> back to the news stories that dealt with the Navy report,
 EC> you will be able to figure out what he did and what he
 EC> didn't do during the turn.

 Except for the fact that we don't have the actual report, which
 would give us a chance to see what they actually reported.

 And none of that contradicts my original point. There is nothing
 saying he lost airspeed. Not in any report you have posted, or
 any report I have found.



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

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