Text 8599, 169 rader
Skriven 2008-12-21 22:12:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: 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.

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

 I went back through my archives. You did *NOT* ask me that as a
 question, you made it a statement of fact, and demanded an
 explanation.

 I responded shortly thereafter, and concisely and directly on
 topic. I pointed out that what you claimed not only would not
 happen, but I never said it would or could, and nothing you
 posted showed it was even relevant.

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

 EC> So you did have a reason, huh?

 Since I didn't duck it, but responded on target and shortly
 thereafter, you are wrong *AGAIN*.

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

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

 You did not say he was in any of the original posts, and not
 even what you posted there says McCain was trying to make a
 level turn.

 Oh, and what you have posted now claims you asked how he could
 make a level turn without losing airspeed and without increasing
 power.

 First, it didn't say he didn't increase power. Nor did it say he
 didn't maintain his airspeed, nor did it say he didn't increase
 his airspeed. And he most certainly did *NOT* make a level 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.

 EC> From more than a month ago: "But since you have now tossed
 EC> out that same strawman to Ceppa, maybe he will pick it up
 EC> and beat you over the head with it.  So why don't you
 EC> explain to him exactly how a plane can be flying level at a
 EC> given airspeed and a given power setting, and then make a
 EC> level turn, at the same power setting, and NOT lose any
 EC> airspeed?

 I never said he could. In fact, had he made alevel turn he would
 not have crashed. Again, I said he did not necessarily lose
 airspeed, I never said he maintained a level turn. Your whole
 claim was he was trying to make a level turn. No where does
 anyone say he did make a level turn. I pointed out that he may
 not have lost airspeed. In fact, he might have increased his
 airspeed, and still not made a level turn. He might have
 increase his power, just not enough. There is nothing you have
 posted to exclude that.

 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 required 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.

 ...

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

 EC> And by now you know that it was not a descending turn,
 EC> which would have lowered the stall speed.  It was an

 How would it do that?

 EC> attempted level turn during which he used, according to the
 EC> Navy inquiry: "a power setting too low to maintain level
 EC> flight in a turn."  Since you didn't understand what
 EC> "maintain" means before, you might want to finally check it.

 I'm waiting to see if you can figure out how he could increase
 his power setting and still have a power setting too low to
 maintain level flight in a turn.

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

 Which does *NOT* exactly fit what you posted above.

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

 Nothing you posted said he stalled. Where is that in the report?
 It said he did not maintain a speed above the stall speed, but
 even that could lead to a decending turn before the stall.

~>>  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> The plane stalled and dropped.  It did not go into a
 EC> descending turn,

 The reports in the papers described both scenarios.

 EC> and in fact if it had that would have
 EC> CHANGED THE STALL SPEED!

 How does that work?

 EC> He compensated with the controls,
 EC> but didn't increase his power to offset the increased drag
 EC> that was cutting his speed!

 What increased the drag? Where does it say he compensated with
 the controls? And it doesn't say he didn't increase his power,
 it only makes it clear he didn't increase power enough.

 As above, in a 45degree bank the lift required increases by 40%.
 So, if he increased his power and speed by enough to gain 20%,
 he still did not have enough lift to maintain level flight in a
 turn. As per your post from the report.

 That part I would have to give you... if you had said it.



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

... A day without baseball is like ... er, well, not all that different.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)