Text 8651, 149 rader
Skriven 2009-01-01 15:47:48 av BOB KLAHN (1:135/382)
   Kommentar till text 8608 av EARL CROASMUN (1:124/311)
Ärende: Excellent summation
===========================
~>> ~>>  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.

 EC> From almost six weeks ago: "So why don't you explain to him
 EC> exactly how a plane can be flying level at a given airspeed
 EC> and a given power setting, and then make a level turn, at
 EC> the same power setting, and NOT lose any airspeed?"

 EC> See that punctuation mark at the end of the sentence, Bob?
 EC> Do you know WHAT IT IS CALLED?

 Yes, it identifies the question, which is, " "So why don't you
 explain to him". There was no question asked *IF* " 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?"

 You asked me why I didn't explain it.  Your question above is
 not how it could happen, but why I didn't explain it. I didn't
 explain it because it was *NEVER* my claim. It was yours. And I
 won't explain how it could happen because that was *NOT* in
 your original post. You added things later and demanded I
 explain them. You explain it, it's your claim.

~>>  I responded shortly thereafter, and concisely and directly on
~>>  topic.

 EC> No, Bob, actually you didn't answer for about a month.
 EC> Prior to that you ducked it with a non-response that
 EC> started with "Here's the error in your reasoning."  That is

 I not only did respond, but I did so in my next msg.

 Here is it again. I'll save it so when you try to pretend I
 didn't reply I'll just repost it.

 **************************************************************************
 EC> with it.  So why don't you explain to him exactly how a
 EC> plane can be flying level at a given airspeed and a given
 EC> power setting, and then make a level turn, at the same
 EC> power setting, and NOT lose any airspeed?  Be sure to show

 Now you are truly begging the question.

 Here's the error in your reasoning: IF he had been flying level,
 and made a *LEVEL* turn, he would not have crashed as he did.
 The fact that he crashed is the evidence he did not fly level.
 He flew into the water.

 So, he could well fly straight and level, and go into a turn
 without losing airspeed. However, he will then be losing
 altitude to do it, and, if not corrected, find himself in the
 water. Sound familiar?
 **************************************************************************

 EC> like someone asking you what road he should turn on to get
 EC> to Akron, and you starting your non-response with "here's
 EC> the error with your desire to go to Akron."

 Strawman! That is completely irrelevant to the thread.

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

 EC> If you consider a month "shortly," then okay.

 The above repost was originally within a couple days, and was my
 first response to your strawman question.

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

 EC> Untrue again, Bob.  You gave an abstract tangent that had

 Uh... it is true. Look at what you said. As reposted by me
 above.

 Oh, maybe you are admitting it was your strawman from beginning
 to end.

 EC> nothing to do with what actually happened to McCain, and I

 It was referring to what you said. So far I haven't seen the
 actual report on what happened to McCain.

 EC> tried to get you to explain it.  The question, like your
 EC> comment that prompted it, was not about McCain.

 The you are going off on a tangent. So, you just admitted it was
 a strawman. Thanks.

~>>  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.

 EC> A plane is an "it," not a "he."

 And you are a nit picker, not a discusser. However, my entire
 thread is on McCain, and what you said about him.

 And technically, a plane is a she.

 EC> And eventually you said it
 EC> COULD be done by adjusting the elevators!  You are all over
 EC> the lot, Bob!

 Again, you give a false claim. I said a plane could make a turn
 without losing speed by adjusting his elevators. I did not say
 it could make a level turn. Actually, it is possible to make a
 level turn by adjusting the elevators, but that's too
 complicated to explain to someone who is not willing to be
 educated on the subject.

 It's also a trick answer, so be sure you read carefully befor
 responding.

~>>  Nothing you posted said he stalled. Where is that in the report?
~>>  It said he did not maintain a speed above the stall speed

 EC> Ha ha ha!!!

 Again, your lack of knowledge of aerodynamics is matched by
 unfamiliarity with English usage. Please consult with a
 grammarian on this.

 And read what the report said, and what I said, very carefully.
 That was a trap, you have been warned.



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

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