Text 8649, 123 rader
Skriven 2009-01-01 14:11:06 av BOB KLAHN (1:135/382)
   Kommentar till text 8597 av EARL CROASMUN (1:124/311)
Ärende: Nits and proper harve
=============================
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC> My conclusion was that the plane lost airspeed in the turn.
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC>  Ceppa's conclusion was that the plane lost airspeed in the
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC>  turn.

~>>  And, at that point, no where in your postings did it say he lost
~>>  speed in the turn. You came to the conclusion that he had.

 EC> You are once again spinning your wheels, tossing up empty
 EC> verbiage as cover.

~>>  I pointed out that your conclusion was unsupported.

 EC> No, actually you said it was "not necessarily so."  You got

 What do you think "not necessarily so" means? May I suggest a
 consultation with an English teacher?

 EC> all puffed up with self-importance and offered your opinion

 So, now anyone who disagrees with you, or even offers a minor
 correction, has to be all puffed up to do so? You have an
 inflated opinion of your own significance.

 EC> about whether a pilot "had to" lose airspeed in a turn.  I
 EC> tried to get you to elaborate on how that would happen.
 EC> You refused to answer,  Finally, several weeks later, you

 How what would happen? How he would not have to lose airspeed in
 the turn? How much elaboration do you need?

 This was my comment, and it elaborates enough for anyone with
 any understanding of aerodynamics. If you didn't understand that
 you could have asked for further education. Instead you just
 argued from your position of ignorance.

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

 You blathered further on with this erroneous commentary. And I
 corrected you again.

 **************************************************************************
 EC> plane's lift - not the engine - stalling.  The engine quit
 EC> providing sufficient lift, which from the pilot's

 Engines don't provide lift. Unless you are going up at such an
 angle you are being pulled up by the engine, such as a
 helicopter, a moveable engine plane, or a fixed wing plane
 standing on it's tail. Like a rocket.

 EC> perspective would have the same effect as the engine
 EC> stopping.

 No, it would not. With the engine stopped the plane is still
 capable of gliding, and being landed. Or restarted. With the
 plane in a stall, gliding or any other sort of flight is not
 possible until the plane gets out of the stall.
 **************************************************************************

 EC> offered your answer: a pilot could adjust the elevators to
 EC> offset the turn's effect on airspeed.  Of the two options I

 That was a response to another question, not and elaboration on
 the original point. And the question was how he could maintain
 his airspeed, not how he could make a proper turn. Had you asked
 that I would have said he needed to use all three control
 surfaces and adjust his power. But you didn't ask that.

 EC> offered you, you picked a worse THIRD option that would
 EC> lose even more vertical lift.

 Which did not contradict anything in your question. I answered
 the question you asked, not the question you meant to ask.

~>>  All you had to do was admit it was possible he did not lose
~>>  airspeed

 EC> All you had to do was admit that his power setting was "too
 EC> low to maintain level flight in a turn."  The option you

 That question was not asked.

 EC> chose would have put him into a descending turn rather than
 EC> a stall in a level turn, and it would be due to his actions
 EC> on the elevators rather than his inaction.  The report

 Again, the question you asked was not the question you appear to
 have wanted to ask.

 EC> would be criticizing him for flying into the bay during
 EC> descent, instead of for stalling and dropping into the bay.

 Since I have not seen the report I do not know what the report
 actually criticized him for. I do know the newspapers quoted
 parts where he flew into the bay, rather than stalled and
 crashed. They also referred to stall speed, but do not say the
 stall held until the crash. You do understand about recovering
 from a stall, don't you?

 I just did a google search on this. I found only one source that
 mentioned stall speed, the WaPo Fact Checker article. All others
 hits were references to that article. I did not find one other
 article that mentioned a stall.

 EC>  And the report would not be criticizing him for NOT
 EC>  keeping track of his airspeed if he had in fact adjusted
 EC>  to MAINTAIN his airspeed!!

 Uh... Earl, if he didn't maintain an airspeed above the stall
 speed he had to *INCREASE* his airspeed in the turn. If his
 airspeed was high enough to begin with all he would have had to
 do was maintain his previous airspeed and he would have been ok.



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

... Where the truth is known the truth is preferred.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)