Text 8575, 80 rader
Skriven 2008-12-18 15:20:08 av Earl Croasmun (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Bob Klahn
Ärende: RE: Excellent summation
===============================
~>  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.

Actually I asked it weeks ago, you quoted it in your response, and you
evaded the answer.  You finally answered it, but it was a weak answer.

~>  The difference is, I would not duck the question without a
~>  reason.

So you did have a reason, huh?

~>  no where in there do you say Bush
~>  was attempting to make a level turn.

Actually, not only did I say it but the LA Times article that YOU claimed
to have read also said it: "a power setting too low to maintain level
flight in a turn."

~> ~>>  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.

From more than a month ago: "But since you have now tossed out that same
strawman to Ceppa, maybe he will pick it up and beat you over the head with
it.  So why don't you explain to him exactly how a plane can be flying
level at a given airspeed and a given power setting, and then make a level
turn, at the same power setting, and NOT lose any airspeed?  Be sure to
show your work.  Use scratch paper and a slide rule if necessary, but don't
look at anyone else's paper.  And for extra credit you can explain what
would happen in the two options of him (a) increasing the angle of attack
and (b) not increasing it in the turn."

~>  Since the turn he made was *NOT* a level turn

And by now you know that it was not a descending turn, which would have
lowered the stall speed.  It was an attempted level turn during which he
used, according to the Navy inquiry: "a power setting too low to maintain
level flight in a turn."  Since you didn't understand what "maintain" means
before, you might want to finally check it.

~>  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.

Wrong again.  The Navy said he stalled.
 
~>  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.

The plane stalled and dropped.  It did not go into a descending turn, and
in fact if it had that would have CHANGED THE STALL SPEED!  He compensated
with the controls, but didn't increase his power to offset the increased
drag that was cutting his speed! 

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