Mark Levin writes:

> As was pointed out to me the Beechcraft Baron does not use contra-rotating
> propellers. A bit of research showed me that most U.S. built light twins do
> not use them either.
>
> My question is why?

My guess is that the market for mirror-image engines (the most
straightforward implementation) is too small. If you don't use mirror
images, you have asymmetries in the powerplant engineering.

I do wish that things were different. I consider the effects of
P-factor and torque to be design defects.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Mark Levin writes:
>
>> As was pointed out to me the Beechcraft Baron does not use
>> contra-rotating propellers. A bit of research showed me that most
>> U.S. built light twins do not use them either.
>>
>> My question is why?
>
> My guess is that the market for mirror-image engines (the most
> straightforward implementation) is too small. If you don't use mirror
> images, you have asymmetries in the powerplant engineering.
>
Probably not the market, but the cost of maintenance, quantity of
available parts, and other things mentioned in this thread are reason
enough to warrant the practice.

> I do wish that things were different. I consider the effects of
> P-factor and torque to be design defects.
>
A design defect is a problem caused by some aspect of the design. I don't
know why you would consider the effects of propeller propulsion to be
"design defects". They are simply aspects of that type of propulsion.

Neil

Mxsmanic wrote:
> I do wish that things were different. I consider the effects of
> P-factor and torque to be design defects.

You can't design out P-factor or torque, but I don't think they're that
critical anyway in flight for most low-powered GA craft. The propeller
slipstream has more effect on both the rudder and elevator, and that
can be reduced with canted tailfin, and more or less fixed with dual
booms and T-tail.

There are centerline push-pull twins, like the Cessna Skymaster or the
current Adam A500. They eliminate the engine-out yaw problem. As
long as both are running, torque etc should cancel out since the
engines essentially counter-rotate because of their facing fore and
aft.

Kev

> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>>I do wish that things were different. I consider the effects of
>>P-factor and torque to be design defects.


Christ your an idiot. Until you change the laws of physics you're stuck
with those 'design defects'.

Neil Gould writes:

> A design defect is a problem caused by some aspect of the design. I don't
> know why you would consider the effects of propeller propulsion to be
> "design defects". They are simply aspects of that type of propulsion.

An aspect of propulsion that constantly pulls the aircraft to one side
sounds like a defect to me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

> Christ your an idiot. Until you change the laws of physics you're stuck
> with those 'design defects'.

Then twins with propellers that turn in opposite directions would seem
to have already violated the laws of physics.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:40:00 +0100, Mxsmanic > wrote:

>Neil Gould writes:
>
>> A design defect is a problem caused by some aspect of the design. I don't
>> know why you would consider the effects of propeller propulsion to be
>> "design defects". They are simply aspects of that type of propulsion.
>
>An aspect of propulsion that constantly pulls the aircraft to one side
>sounds like a defect to me.

No more than the fact that you can't pull the nose of a General Aviation up to a
90 degree angle and keep climbing. Designers *can* build airplanes that will do
this, but the cost/benefit tradeoffs usually preclude it. Similarly, the
P-factor effect is accepted in some cases in order to minimize the production
cost. A design defect is something unexpected that becomes apparent AFTER the
aircraft flies, not something that is known and recognized while the plane is
still on the drawing board.

Ron Wanttaja

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> A design defect is a problem caused by some aspect of the design. I
>> don't know why you would consider the effects of propeller
>> propulsion to be "design defects". They are simply aspects of that
>> type of propulsion.
>
> An aspect of propulsion that constantly pulls the aircraft to one side
> sounds like a defect to me.
>
It is a simple matter accounted for by Newtonian physics. Apparently, the
"designer" of that aspect of the real world doesn't see a problem with it,
as "real world version 2.0 has yet to be released, AFAIK. BTW, pilots of
propeller-driven aircraft don't see a problem with it either.

TANSTAAFL.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Newps writes:
>
>> Christ your an idiot. Until you change the laws of physics you're
>> stuck with those 'design defects'.
>
> Then twins with propellers that turn in opposite directions would seem
> to have already violated the laws of physics.
>
There is no violation at all. Such twins are designed to take advantage of
the laws of physics.

Neil

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> I consider the effects of
> P-factor and torque to be design defects.

By your standards, are bicycles poorly designed because they are unstable at
slow speeds?

Newps schrieb:

>>> I consider the effects of P-factor and torque to be design defects.

> Christ your an idiot. Until you change the laws of physics you're stuck
> with those 'design defects'.

Be extra careful before calling names! Even when you don't like the poster.

Of course the effects of the P-factor can be overcome by appropriate
design. The most simple solution would be the possibility to trim all
three axis. As this seems to be a pretty straight forward and cheap
solution, I've never understood why this isn't offered in all airplaes.
Sure would make flying a light single more enjoyably. Yes, I even agree
that this avoidance could be called a design defect.

On the more expensive level (much more expensive, I would guess), you
can overcome the P-factor effects by using two contra-rotating coaxial
propellors. This would not only overcome the effects of the P-factor,
but also those caused by torque. Kamov helicopters are an example of
such a design.

Contra-rotating coaxial propellors not only solve the P-factor and
torque, but they make the propellor more efficient, too. Probably too
little effect compared to the additional cost and complexity, so it has
been realized only rarely. Tupolev 114 is an example. (In marine
applications, you find contra-rotating coaxial propellors more often.)

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
>
> Of course the effects of the P-factor can be overcome by appropriate
> design. The most simple solution would be the possibility to trim all
> three axis.

Yaw damping does wonders in the Pilatus. Of course your typical GA
aircraft doesn't have 1200hp - and doesn't cost $3.5M.

> On the more expensive level (much more expensive, I would guess), you
> can overcome the P-factor effects by using two contra-rotating coaxial
> propellors. This would not only overcome the effects of the P-factor,
> but also those caused by torque. Kamov helicopters are an example of
> such a design.

Effective, yes, but very complex, heavy and expensive. I recall seeing
an ad for Breitling watches that had a P-51 with contra-rotating props.
I think it was a one-off aircraft with a RR Griffon engine?

> Contra-rotating coaxial propellors not only solve the P-factor and
> torque, but they make the propellor more efficient, too. Probably too
> little effect compared to the additional cost and complexity, so it has
> been realized only rarely. Tupolev 114 is an example.

IIRC Tu-95/114 was the fastest prop aircraft of its category. I think
the cruise speed was near 500mph? I think that was a combination of
high-shp Kuznetsov turboshafts and the efficiency of the contra props.
Pretty amazing aircraft IMO.

In article >,
T o d d P a t t i s t > wrote:

> "Kev" > wrote:
>
> >You can't design out P-factor or torque,
>
> Actually, if you really needed to, you probably could design
> them out, or at least reduce them significantly. But only
> if you wanted an aircraft that was so expensive no one could
> afford to maintain or buy. As usual, the cost/benefit says
> it isn't worth it and you'd probably add a host of other
> problems. (Kill P-factor by sensing relative wind and
> pivoting the engine to keep it aligned, kill torque effects
> by contra-rotating props)

You could design out P-factor by using a prop with a cyclic pitch control,
like on a chopper. Wouldn't be worth doing, but it's possible.

That's the hard part of engineering. Not figuring out what's possible, but
differentiating between the possible and the useful.

Recently, Stefan > posted:

> Newps schrieb:
>
>>>> I consider the effects of P-factor and torque to be design defects.
>
>> Christ your an idiot. Until you change the laws of physics you're
>> stuck with those 'design defects'.
>
> Be extra careful before calling names! Even when you don't like the
> poster.
>
> Of course the effects of the P-factor can be overcome by appropriate
> design. The most simple solution would be the possibility to trim all
> three axis. As this seems to be a pretty straight forward and cheap
> solution, I've never understood why this isn't offered in all
> airplaes. Sure would make flying a light single more enjoyably. Yes,
> I even agree that this avoidance could be called a design defect.
>
I think it would be a good idea to distinguish between design defects and
design _trade-offs_ in this kind of discussion. Many GA planes have 3-axis
trim, but, as in other areas, this option comes at a cost. The question
becomes which options a buyer might find more attractive, for example
would you prefer 3-axis trim or better avionics and moving map GPS?

Neil

Neil Gould schrieb:

> distinguish between design defects and design _trade-offs_

Agreed.

> for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better avionics and
> moving map GPS?

Personally, I'd choose the trim without having to contemplate one
second. That's why I actually think that the lack of a three axis trim
is a defect. But then, I also think that an engine which has a
dispacement of 360 cubic inch and burns 10 US gallons per hour only to
produce a mere 180 hp (actually much less in cruse) should be called
defect in the 21th century. But I'm getting OT.

Stefan

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> A design defect is a problem caused by some aspect of the design. I don't
>> know why you would consider the effects of propeller propulsion to be
>> "design defects". They are simply aspects of that type of propulsion.
>
> An aspect of propulsion that constantly pulls the aircraft to one side
> sounds like a defect to me.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

You could say the same thing about lift, it has a "defective" component
called drag. Why don't you simply design that out? Why would anyone deliver
a defective airplane that came with drag?

The answer, of course, is that we have all done what we could, with what we
have. All real world design is a result of compromises, we don't have a
registry where the drag can be turned off, the p-factor zeroed without other
side effects.

Al G

Recently, Stefan > posted:

> Neil Gould schrieb:
>
>> distinguish between design defects and design _trade-offs_
>
> Agreed.
>
>> for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better avionics and
>> moving map GPS?
>
> Personally, I'd choose the trim without having to contemplate one
> second. That's why I actually think that the lack of a three axis trim
> is a defect. But then, I also think that an engine which has a
> dispacement of 360 cubic inch and burns 10 US gallons per hour only to
> produce a mere 180 hp (actually much less in cruse) should be called
> defect in the 21th century. But I'm getting OT.
>
Then, I guess we disagree on the meaning of the term "defect". It may be a
defect if it is an unintentional outcome, but I fail to see how simply
being a different choice or priority qualifies under the definitions I
know of. For example:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) - Cite This Source
defect /n. Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[n. dee-fekt,
di-fekt; v. di-fekt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection: a defect in an argument; a
defect in a machine.
2. lack or want, esp. of something essential to perfection or
completeness; deficiency: a defect in hearing.
(rest snipped)
----------

#2 might seem closer to your usage, but if that is gauge, then all
manufactured items are defective, and the term becomes meaningless or at
least redundant.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

> It is a simple matter accounted for by Newtonian physics. Apparently, the
> "designer" of that aspect of the real world doesn't see a problem with it,
> as "real world version 2.0 has yet to be released, AFAIK.

It is more likely that nobody wants to pay to fix it.

> BTW, pilots of propeller-driven aircraft don't see a problem with it either.

So if they had a choice between two otherwise identical aircraft, with
identical prices, they'd just flip a coin to choose between the one
with P-factor and torque and the one without?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Al G writes:

> You could say the same thing about lift, it has a "defective" component
> called drag. Why don't you simply design that out?

Modern airfoils attempt to do exactly that, with varying amounts of
success.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Neil Gould writes:

> There is no violation at all. Such twins are designed to take advantage of
> the laws of physics.

Then the design defect of propellers that rotate in the same direction
is not a violation of the laws of physics, QED.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Stefan writes:

> The most simple solution would be the possibility to trim all
> three axis.

Hmm ... is trim in all three axes uncommon? The Baron has aileron,
elevator, and rudder trim.

> On the more expensive level (much more expensive, I would guess), you
> can overcome the P-factor effects by using two contra-rotating coaxial
> propellors. This would not only overcome the effects of the P-factor,
> but also those caused by torque. Kamov helicopters are an example of
> such a design.

With a single powerplant turning in one direction, there would still
be some residual torque from the engine itself.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Neil Gould writes:

> The question becomes which options a buyer might find more attractive,
> for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better avionics and moving
> map GPS?

How about a three-axis autopilot with three-axis trim?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley writes:

> By your standards, are bicycles poorly designed because they are unstable at
> slow speeds?

They aren't unstable at slow speeds.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> By your standards, are bicycles poorly designed because they are unstable
>> at
>> slow speeds?
>
> They aren't unstable at slow speeds.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

I see you know about as much about bicycles as you do about airplanes

Steve Foley writes:

> I see you know about as much about bicycles as you do about airplanes

I think I know slightly more about airplanes, but I do know the basic
principles of bicycles.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> It is a simple matter accounted for by Newtonian physics.
>> Apparently, the "designer" of that aspect of the real world doesn't
>> see a problem with it, as "real world version 2.0 has yet to be
>> released, AFAIK.
>
> It is more likely that nobody wants to pay to fix it.
>
Who (or what) is in the position to "fix" Real World 1.0 that couldn't
easily afford the cost?

>> BTW, pilots of propeller-driven aircraft don't see a problem with it
>> either.
>
> So if they had a choice between two otherwise identical aircraft, with
> identical prices, they'd just flip a coin to choose between the one
> with P-factor and torque and the one without?
>
Sorry, I prefer the Real World, the one in which such choices are unlikely
and the market has chosen their preferences.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> There is no violation at all. Such twins are designed to take
>> advantage of the laws of physics.
>
> Then the design defect of propellers that rotate in the same direction
> is not a violation of the laws of physics, QED.
>
Your paraphrase is incorrect. It should be, "The design using propellers
that rotate in the same direction is not a defect".

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> The question becomes which options a buyer might find more
>> attractive, for example would you prefer 3-axis trim or better
>> avionics and moving map GPS?
>
> How about a three-axis autopilot with three-axis trim?
>
On your salary? You must be joking.

Neil

Mxsmanic schrieb:

> Hmm ... is trim in all three axes uncommon? The Baron has aileron,
> elevator, and rudder trim.

We were talking about singles. Of course, you can always fly the baron
on one engine...

> With a single powerplant turning in one direction, there would still
> be some residual torque from the engine itself.

Yawn. You're talking to a former Moto Guzzi driver.

Stefan

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> I see you know about as much about bicycles as you do about airplanes
>
> I think I know slightly more about airplanes, but I do know the basic
> principles of bicycles.
>

When you approach stop, a bicycle will fall over to one side or the other.
(unless yours still has training wheels).

- Note - MXX is intended as a flag to anyone wishing to block my responses
to Anthony.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>
> So if they had a choice between two otherwise identical aircraft, with
> identical prices, they'd just flip a coin to choose between the one
> with P-factor and torque and the one without?


I'd take the "P" factor airplane. It helps in controlling the airplane in
certain circumstances.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

Neil Gould writes:

> On your salary? You must be joking.

How many people here have bought their own Barons on their salaries?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley writes:

> When you approach stop, a bicycle will fall over to one side or the other.
> (unless yours still has training wheels).

As long as the rear wheel is powered and both wheels have traction,
the bicycle cannot fall over. The usual reasons for a bicycle falling
over are a loss of traction or a complete absence of propulsive power
to the rear wheel.

Exactly the same principle applies to motorcycles, scooters, etc.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

karl gruber writes:

> I'd take the "P" factor airplane. It helps in controlling the airplane in
> certain circumstances.

Hmm ... what sort of circumstances? It just seems like a nuisance to
me.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Steve Foley writes:
>
>> When you approach stop, a bicycle will fall over to one side or the other.
>> (unless yours still has training wheels).
>
>As long as the rear wheel is powered and both wheels have traction,
>the bicycle cannot fall over. The usual reasons for a bicycle falling
>over are a loss of traction or a complete absence of propulsive power
>to the rear wheel.
>
>Exactly the same principle applies to motorcycles, scooters, etc.
>


And what, precisely, do you expect the "propulsive power" to be accomplishing
if the bicycle is stopped?

Do we reject, then, the notion that the gyroscopic stability provided by the
wheels in motion helps to keep the bicycle upright? It is only a question of
"propulsive power" available to the rear wheel (specifically) while both wheels
must have "traction". As long as this is present the bicycle "cannot" fall
over.

Have I resumed your argument correctly?

Mxsmanic wrote:
>> On your salary? You must be joking.
>
> How many people here have bought their own Barons on their salaries?

If any here, 100% of them. What's the point of such ridiculous
posts anyway? Except to antagonize.

F--

Greg Farris writes:

> And what, precisely, do you expect the "propulsive power" to be accomplishing
> if the bicycle is stopped?

He said "when you approach stop." If the bicycle is still moving and
there is power to the wheel, it won't fall.

> Do we reject, then, the notion that the gyroscopic stability provided by the
> wheels in motion helps to keep the bicycle upright?

No, but kinetic energy in the bicycle keeps it from falling over. In
order to fall over, it has to have no kinetic energy--it has to stop.
But as long as there is power to the wheel and traction, it cannot
stop, therefore it cannot fall over (which would require a loss of
energy that cannot occur).

> It is only a question of
> "propulsive power" available to the rear wheel (specifically) while both wheels
> must have "traction". As long as this is present the bicycle "cannot" fall
> over.

Right. It should apply to both wheels, actually, but I haven't
considered that possibility.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

TxSrv writes:

> If any here, 100% of them.

I doubt that. Barons are expensive, and most salaries wouldn't pay
for them. Other sources of income would probably come into play, such
as passive investments, etc.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> TxSrv writes:
>
>> If any here, 100% of them.
>
> I doubt that. Barons are expensive, and most salaries wouldn't pay
> for them. Other sources of income would probably come into play, such
> as passive investments, etc.

More pointless jibberish. When after-tax income, minus
personal-living needs, exceeds the annual acquisition/maintenance
costs of a Baron, buy one if you want. Or a real nice house.
There's a real world out there, not a simulated one.

F--

Mxsmanic wrote:

>
>
> As long as the rear wheel is powered and both wheels have traction,
> the bicycle cannot fall over.


It most certainly can.


The usual reasons for a bicycle falling
> over are a loss of traction or a complete absence of propulsive power
> to the rear wheel.

The main reason is the rider loses his balance.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Greg Farris writes:
>
>
>>And what, precisely, do you expect the "propulsive power" to be accomplishing
>>if the bicycle is stopped?
>
>
> He said "when you approach stop." If the bicycle is still moving and
> there is power to the wheel, it won't fall.

One has nothing to do with the other. The rider is solely responsible
for keeping it upright.

I've killfiled certain French residing trolls- but I assure you that I
purchased my own 1980 Baron. It actually costs around the same as a
comparable Bonanza of the same era. It has a moving map, stormscope, radar,
known ice, and a three axis autopilot.

I can assure you that it is a real one, not a sim, and that I work for a
living and did not inherit the funds. This is just more pointless and
irrational gibberish from the troll in France, who should go back to the sim
newsgroups.

I still don't understand why all of his initial questions are reasonable,
and then he goes off on these unsubstantiated and irrational tangents. He
should get a life and deal with people in person rather than hiding on the
internet.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> TxSrv writes:
>
>
>>If any here, 100% of them.
>
>
> I doubt that. Barons are expensive, and most salaries wouldn't pay
> for them. Other sources of income would probably come into play, such
> as passive investments, etc.


Beyond all belief you say dumber and dumber stuff. A used Baron can be
had for a wide variety of prices. It's easy to find a Baron for less
than $100K, not much more than I paid for my Bonanza.

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message news:Ks2ch.5710

> I still don't understand why all of his initial questions are reasonable,
> and then he goes off on these unsubstantiated and irrational tangents. He
> should get a life and deal with people in person rather than hiding on the
> internet.

Ever gone fishing? You use bait, something the fish will bite. As soon as
they do, you pull real hard, and pull them in.

Anthony is a great fisherman.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message

> The usual reasons for a bicycle falling
> over are a loss of traction or a complete absence of propulsive power
> to the rear wheel.

Well, that sounds like your definintion if design flaw. It falls down due
to a loss of traction.

Newps writes:

> One has nothing to do with the other. The rider is solely responsible
> for keeping it upright.

It will stay up by itself as long as it has traction and power (or
momentum).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

> It most certainly can.

No, it can't. Watch closely. The bicycle always falls because the
tires slip or because it comes to a stop.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Steve Foley writes:

> Well, that sounds like your definintion if design flaw. It falls down due
> to a loss of traction.

Yes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

> A used Baron can be had for a wide variety of prices.

Oh. I forgot that some people buy used.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Every crosswind takeoff with wind from the right.............is one







"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> karl gruber writes:
>
>> I'd take the "P" factor airplane. It helps in controlling the airplane in
>> certain circumstances.
>
> Hmm ... what sort of circumstances? It just seems like a nuisance to
> me.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> A used Baron can be had for a wide variety of prices.
>
> Oh. I forgot that some people buy used.
>

And others buy make-believe.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> One has nothing to do with the other. The rider is solely responsible
>> for keeping it upright.
>
> It will stay up by itself as long as it has traction and power (or
> momentum).

So, according to your statement above, if I stand off to the side, give it a
good hard shove, and let go of it, the bicycle won't fall over until it
comes to a stop.

You lost the argument a long time ago so now all you have left is to display
your moronity.

Try this one: While riding a bicycle on a flat, level surface which way do
you move the right handle bar to initiate a left turn?

"N2310D" > wrote in message
news:zG3ch.52$Qa7.13@trnddc03...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Newps writes:
>>
>>> One has nothing to do with the other. The rider is solely responsible
>>> for keeping it upright.
>>
>> It will stay up by itself as long as it has traction and power (or
>> momentum).
>
> So, according to your statement above, if I stand off to the side, give it
> a good hard shove, and let go of it, the bicycle won't fall over until it
> comes to a stop.
>
> You lost the argument a long time ago so now all you have left is to
> display your moronity.
>
> Try this one: While riding a bicycle on a flat, level surface which way do
> you move the right handle bar to initiate a left turn?
>

I was fourty years old before I learned that one. (Motorcycle Safety
Foundation Rider's Class)

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Foley writes:
>
>> Well, that sounds like your definintion if design flaw. It falls down
>> due
>> to a loss of traction.
>
> Yes.
>

Are there any machines without design flaws?

N2310D writes:

> So, according to your statement above, if I stand off to the side, give it a
> good hard shove, and let go of it, the bicycle won't fall over until it
> comes to a stop.

Correct, as long as the wheels don't slip.

> You lost the argument a long time ago so now all you have left is to display
> your moronity.

I stand on the shoulders of giants.

> Try this one: While riding a bicycle on a flat, level surface which way do
> you move the right handle bar to initiate a left turn?

The handlebars must be turned slightly to the right.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

karl gruber writes:

> Every crosswind takeoff with wind from the right.............is one

But the wind is blowing from the right only half the time. What
happens when it is blowing from the left?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In article >,
Mxsmanic > wrote:

> karl gruber writes:
>
> > Every crosswind takeoff with wind from the right.............is one
>
> But the wind is blowing from the right only half the time. What
> happens when it is blowing from the left?

Take off in the other direction.

Roy Smith writes:

> Take off in the other direction.

OK. What if it is blowing parallel to the runway?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Newps writes:
>
>
>>One has nothing to do with the other. The rider is solely responsible
>>for keeping it upright.
>
>
> It will stay up by itself as long as it has traction and power (or
> momentum).


No, it will not. That's ridiculous.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>It most certainly can.
>
>
> No, it can't. Watch closely. The bicycle always falls because the
> tires slip or because it comes to a stop.

Ridiculous assertion.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>A used Baron can be had for a wide variety of prices.
>
>
> Oh. I forgot that some people buy used.

Irrelavant to the discussion whether or not you buy new or used.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> karl gruber writes:
>
>
>>Every crosswind takeoff with wind from the right.............is one
>
>
> But the wind is blowing from the right only half the time.


Where did you come up with that statistic? At my airport the wind blows
from the left probably over 90% of the time.

Receptionist
(Rita Davies) Yes, sir?
Man I'd like to have an argument please.
Receptionist Certainly, sir. Have you been here before...?
Man No, this is my first time.
Receptionist I see. Do you want to have the full argument, or were
you thinking of taking a course?
Man Well, what would be the cost?
Receptionist Yes, it's one pound for a five-minute argument, but only
eight pounds for a course of ten.
Man Well, I think it's probably best if I start with the one and see
how it goes from there. OK?
Receptionist Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment ... Mr.
Du-Bakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory ... yes, try Mr.
Barnard - Room 12.
Man Thank you.
The man walks down a corridor. He opens door 12. There is a man at a
desk.
Mr Barnard (shouting) What do you want?
Man Well I was told outside ...
Mr Barnard Don't give me that you snotty-faced heap of parrot
droppings!
Man What!
Mr Barnard Shut your festering gob you tit! Your type makes me puke!
You vacuous toffee-nosed malodorous pervert!
Man Look! I came here for an argument.
Mr Barnard (calmly) Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
Man Oh I see, that explains it.
Mr Barnard No, you want room 12A next door.
Man I see - sorry. (exits)
Mr Barnard Not at all. (as he goes) Stupid git.
Outside 12A. The man knocks on the door.
Mr Vibrating (from within) Come in.
The man enters the room. Mr Vibrating is sitting at a desk.
Man Is this the right room for an argument?
Mr Vibrating I've told you once.
Man No you haven't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I have.
Man When?
Mr Vibrating Just now!
Man No you didn't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did!
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating Did.
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating I'm telling you I did!
Man You did not!
Mr Vibrating I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full
half hour?
Man Oh ... Just a five-minute one.
Mr Vibrating Fine (makes a note of it; the man sists down) thank you.
Anyway, I did.
Man You most certainly did not.
Mr Vibrating Now, let's get one thing quite clear. I most definitely
told you!
Man You did not.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did.
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did.
Man Didn't.
Mr Vibrating Yes I did!!
Man Look, this isn't an argument.
Mr Vibrating Yes it is.
Man No it isn't, it's just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating It is not.
Man It is. You just contradicted me.
Mr Vibrating No I didn't.
Man Ooh, you did!
Mr Vibrating No, no, no, no, no.
Man You did, just then.
Mr Vibrating No, nonsense!
Man Oh, look this is futile.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
Man Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
Mr Vibrating It can be.
Man No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to
establish a definite proposition.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary
position.
Man But it isn't just saying 'No it isn't'.
Mr Vibrating Yes it is.
Man No it isn't, Argument is an intellectual process ...
contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person
says.
Mr Vibrating No it isn't.
Man Yes it is.
Mr Vibrating Not at all.
Man Now look!
Mr Vibrating (pressing the bell on his desk) That's it. Good morning.
Man But I was just getting interested.
Mr Vibrating Sorry the five minutes is up.
Man That was never five minutes just now!
Mr Vibrating I'm afraid it was.
Man No it wasn't.
Mr Vibrating I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
Man What!?
Mr Vibrating If you want me to go on arguing you'll have to pay for
another five minutes.
Man But that was never five minutes just now ... oh Come on!
(Vibrating looks round as though man was not there) This is ridiculous.
Mr Vibrating I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue
unless you've paid.
Man Oh. all right. (pays) There you are.
Mr Vibrating Thank you.
Man Well?.
Mr Vibrating Well what?
Man That was never five minutes just now.
Mr Vibrating I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
Man I've just paid.
Mr Vibrating No you didn't.
Man I did! I did! I did!
Mr Vibrating No you didn't.
Man Look I don't want to argue about that.
Mr Vibrating Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.
Man Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing ... got you!
Mr Vibrating No you haven't.
Man Yes I have ... if you're arguing I must have paid.
Mr Vibrating Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
Man I've had enough of this.
Mr Vibrating No you haven't.
Man Oh shut up! (he leaves and sees a door marked complaints; he goes
in) I want to complain.
Man in charge You want to complain ... look at these shoes ... I've
only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
Man No, I want to complain about ...
Man in charge If you complain nothing happens ... you might just as
well not bother. My back hurts and ... (the man exits, walks down the
corridor and enters a room)
Man I want to complain. ('Spreaders' who is just inside the door hits
man on the head with a mallet) Ooh!
Spreaders No, no, no, hold your head like this, and then go 'waaagh'!
Try it again. (he hits him again)
Man Waaghh!
Spreaders Better. Better. But 'waaaaaghh'! 'Waaaagh'! Hold your hands
here ...
Man No!
Spreaders Now. (hits him)
Man Waagh!
Spreaders That's it. That's it. Good.
Man Stop hitting me!
Spreaders What?
Man Stop hitting me.
Spreaders Stop hitting you?
Man Yes.
Spreaders What did you come in here for then?
Man I came here to complain.
Spreaders Oh I'm sorry, that's next door. It's being hit on the head
lessons in here.
Man What a stupid concept.
Detective Inspector Fox enters
Fox Right. Hold it there.
Man and Spreaders What?
Fox Allow me to introduce myself. I'm Inspector Fox of the Light
Entertainment Police, Comedy Division, Special Flying Squad.
Man and Spreaders Flying Fox of the Yard.
Fox Shut up! (he hits the man with a truncheon)
Man Ooooh?
Spreaders No, no, no - Waagh!
Fox And you. (he hits Spreaders)
Spreaders Waagh!
Fox He's good! You could learn a thing or two from him. Right now you
two me old beauties, you are nicked.
Man What for?
Fox I'm charging you under Section 21 of the Strange Sketch Act.
Man The what?
Fox You are hereby charged that you did wilfully take part in a
strange sketch, that is, a skit, spoof or humorous vignette of an
unconventional nature with intent to cause grievous mental confusion to the
Great British Public. (to camera) Evening all.
Spreaders It's a fair cop.
Fox And you tosh. (hits the man)
Man WAAAGH!
Fox That's excellent! Right, come on down the Yard.
Another inspector arrives.
Inspector Hold it. Hold it. Allow me to introduce myself. I'm
Inspector Thompson's Gazelle of the Programme Planning Police, Light
Entertainment Division, Special Flying Squad.
Fox Flying Thompson's Gazelle of the Yard!
Inspector Shut up! (he hits him)
Fox Waaaagh!
Spreaders He's good.
Inspector Shut up! (hits Spreaders)
Spreaders WAAGH!
Man Rotten. (he gets hit) WAAAGH!
Inspector Good. Now I'm arrestin' this entire show on three counts:
one, acts of self-conscious behaviour contrary to the 'Not in front of the
children' Act, two, always saying 'It's so and so of the Yard' every time
the fuzz arrives and, three, and this is the cruncher, offenses against the
'Getting out of sketches without using a proper punchline' Act, four,
namely, simply ending every bleedin' sketch by just having a policeman come
in and... wait a minute.
Another policeman enters.
Policeman Hold it. (puts his hand on Inspector Thompson's Gazelle's
shoulder)
Inspector It's a fair cop.
A large hairy hand appears through the door and claps him on the
shoulder.


Bicycles are open loop unstable at all speeds.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.
..

Monty Python wrote:
> Inspector: Good. Now I'm arrestin' this entire show on three counts:
> one, acts of self-conscious behaviour contrary to the 'Not in front of
> the children' Act, two, always saying 'It's so and so of the Yard'
> every time the fuzz arrives and, three, and this is the cruncher,
> offenses against the 'Getting out of sketches without using a proper
> punchline' Act, four, namely, simply ending every bleedin' sketch by
> just having a policeman come in and... wait a minute.
> (Another policeman enters.)
> Policeman: Hold it. (puts his hand on Inspector Thompson's
> Gazelle's shoulder)
> Inspector: It's a fair cop.
> (A large hairy hand appears through the door and claps him on the
> shoulder.)

And now for something completely different:
A man with a tape recorder up his nose.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> karl gruber writes:
>>
>>
>>>Every crosswind takeoff with wind from the right.............is one
>>
>>
>> But the wind is blowing from the right only half the time.
>
>
> Where did you come up with that statistic? At my airport the wind blows
> from the left probably over 90% of the time.
>
ROFL! Newps, my local patch suffers left crosswind about 10%. That
probably how the munchkin devolved his idiotic theory.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> Try this one: While riding a bicycle on a flat, level surface which way
>> do
>> you move the right handle bar to initiate a left turn?
>
> The handlebars must be turned slightly to the right.
>
Why?

N2310D writes:

> Why?

To force the bicycle's momentum to carry it to the left. The wheel
will then turn on its own to the left to restore the equilibrium, and
so will the bicycle.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

> No, it will not. That's ridiculous.

Try it and see.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

> Ridiculous assertion.

Try it and see.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Newps writes:

> Where did you come up with that statistic?

It's statistically inevitable.

> At my airport the wind blows from the left probably over 90% of the time.

But there are other airports in the world.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:
> But the wind is blowing from the right only half the time.

Another pronouncement from the all-knowing. I can guarantee such
is not the case at my airport, with its 2 intersecting rwys.

F--

TxSrv writes:

> Another pronouncement from the all-knowing. I can guarantee such
> is not the case at my airport, with its 2 intersecting rwys.

I can guarantee that there are other airports besides yours.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> Why?
>
> To force the bicycle's momentum to carry it to the left. The wheel
> will then turn on its own to the left to restore the equilibrium, and
> so will the bicycle.
>
Wrong. Guess again -- or use one of those fabulous references you claim
to have.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> One has nothing to do with the other. The rider is solely responsible
>> for keeping it upright.
>
> It will stay up by itself as long as it has traction and power (or
> momentum).
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

And we have another Twilight Zone program thanks to.............

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Monty Python wrote:
>> Inspector: Good. Now I'm arrestin' this entire show on three counts:
>> one, acts of self-conscious behaviour contrary to the 'Not in front of
>> the children' Act, two, always saying 'It's so and so of the Yard'
>> every time the fuzz arrives and, three, and this is the cruncher,
>> offenses against the 'Getting out of sketches without using a proper
>> punchline' Act, four, namely, simply ending every bleedin' sketch by
>> just having a policeman come in and... wait a minute.
>> (Another policeman enters.)
>> Policeman: Hold it. (puts his hand on Inspector Thompson's
>> Gazelle's shoulder)
>> Inspector: It's a fair cop.
>> (A large hairy hand appears through the door and claps him on the
>> shoulder.)
>
> And now for something completely different:
> A man with a tape recorder up his nose.

A Man With Three Buttocks...

Jay B

In article >,
says...

>
>I stand on the shoulders of giants.
>

And they are groaning about the extraneous noise level in their ears!


"Power" is unrelated to the gyroscopic stability in the equation. Bicycles
travel a large propoortion of the time without application of power to either
wheel. That you would list power to the rear wheel as one of a set of two
exclusive conditions required for the bicycle to remain upright proves that you
haven't really looked at the question very closely, and neither have any
sources you may be quoting.

GF

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Newps writes:
>
>> Where did you come up with that statistic?
>
> It's statistically inevitable.
>
Not on this planet, it isn't.

Neil

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> TxSrv writes:
>
>> Another pronouncement from the all-knowing. I can guarantee such
>> is not the case at my airport, with its 2 intersecting rwys.
>
> I can guarantee that there are other airports besides yours.
>
I can guarantee that those other airports are designed with knowledge of
the prevailing winds in the area.

Neil

Neil Gould writes:

> I can guarantee that those other airports are designed with knowledge of
> the prevailing winds in the area.

I can guarantee that prevailing winds are not in the same direction
for every airport.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Greg Farris writes:

> "Power" is unrelated to the gyroscopic stability in the equation. Bicycles
> travel a large propoortion of the time without application of power to either
> wheel.

Yes, through momentum. But this momentum is eroded by irreversible
effects such as friction with the ground and air. Eventually none is
left, and the bicycle stops.

As long as there is power to the wheel, it will compensate for any
losses, and the bicycle will continue to move. Similarly, as long as
the bicycle has momentum, it will continue to move. In both cases, as
long as the wheels retain their traction with the ground, the bicycle
will not fall.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Recently, Mxsmanic > posted:

> Neil Gould writes:
>
>> I can guarantee that those other airports are designed with
>> knowledge of the prevailing winds in the area.
>
> I can guarantee that prevailing winds are not in the same direction
> for every airport.
>
It doesn't matter, in Real World 1.0 airport design results in an
asymmetrical distribution of x-wind factors, so your assertion that
x-winds would be statistically 50% R/L at any airport is just wrong.

Neil

Answer this.....

First some background. For times of bad weather they make a device you
can put your bicycle on to "train" indoors called "Rollers" They
consist of three rollers about 18 to 24 inches long, 2 are close
together and the back wheel rests between them the third is positioned
under the front wheel. See photo here....
http://www.nashbar.com/nashbar_photos/medium/TX-SPT.gif

In this situation the bicycle is obviously not moving forward. How does
it stay upright?


--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

"Chris W" > wrote in message
...
> Answer this.....
>
> First some background. For times of bad weather they make a device you
> can put your bicycle on to "train" indoors called "Rollers" They consist
> of three rollers about 18 to 24 inches long, 2 are close together and the
> back wheel rests between them the third is positioned under the front
> wheel. See photo here....
> http://www.nashbar.com/nashbar_photos/medium/TX-SPT.gif
>
> In this situation the bicycle is obviously not moving forward. How does
> it stay upright?
>

A bicycle is an open loop unstable "plant" that is stabilized by an organic
neural net closed loop controller.

Some aircraft are like that too. e.g. taildraggers on the ground. (how's
that for an attempt to drag this back to an aviation related thread?)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

Chris W writes:

> In this situation the bicycle is obviously not moving forward. How does
> it stay upright?

The cyclist balances it, assisted by the gyroscopic stabilizing effect
of the turning wheel (the heavier it is and the faster it turns, the
better).

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Greg Farris writes:

>
>
> THIS :
>
> Yes, through momentum. But this momentum is eroded by irreversible
> effects such as friction with the ground and air. Eventually none is
> left, and the bicycle stops.
>
> PLUS THIS:
>
> >The cyclist balances it, assisted by the gyroscopic stabilizing effect
> >of the turning wheel (the heavier it is and the faster it turns, the
> >better).
>
>
> EQUALS THIS :
>
> "Yes, I was completely wrong, and everything I wrote was complete bull****,
> based on a complete lack of understanding of the facts. . ."

No. If the bicycle cannot turn, it will fall over. It cannot turn on
rollers. It can turn on flat pavement.

You see, the bicycle stays up because it turns. As long as it has
momentum or power and traction, it will continue to turn or roll
straight. It can only stop when it has no propulsive power or
momentum.

This is more obvious in motorcycles than bicycles, but it applies to
both.

Similar principles apply to aircraft, which is why you generally
cannot simply push the yoke forward to descend or pull it back to
climb.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>No, it will not. That's ridiculous.
>
>
> Try it and see.

I've got lots of hours on bikes. I am perfectly capable of making a
bike fall over. Any kid can do that.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>Where did you come up with that statistic?
>
>
> It's statistically inevitable.

No, it's not.


>
>
>>At my airport the wind blows from the left probably over 90% of the time.
>
>
> But there are other airports in the world.

What a genius. All the airports align their runways into the prevailing
wind. You will find the predominant crosswind comes from the same side
nearly every time.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> No. If the bicycle cannot turn, it will fall over. It cannot turn on
> rollers. It can turn on flat pavement.
>
> You see, the bicycle stays up because it turns. As long as it has
> momentum or power and traction, it will continue to turn or roll
> straight. It can only stop when it has no propulsive power or
> momentum.
>
> This is more obvious in motorcycles than bicycles, but it applies to
> both.
>
> Similar principles apply to aircraft, which is why you generally
> cannot simply push the yoke forward to descend or pull it back to
> climb.
>

I'm curious, do you have brown eyes?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...

> Similar principles apply to aircraft, which is why you generally
> cannot simply push the yoke forward to descend or pull it back to
> climb.

Horsefeathers!!! You are such an idiot. I can descend by pushing the yoke
forward or pulling it back.
^^ ^^
[AKA BS]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Similar principles apply to aircraft, which is why you generally
> cannot simply push the yoke forward to descend or pull it back to
> climb.

MX the Great Oracle has spoken. Why, millenia ago Delphi was
overrated. Yellow Book dot commmmm......

F--

N2310D wrote:
>> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
>> ....

> I'm curious, do you have brown eyes?

In truth, no. But he's just a quart low.

F--

In article <OOlch.1815$QC.115@trnddc02>, "N2310D" > wrote:

> Horsefeathers!!! You are such an idiot. I can descend by pushing the yoke
> forward or pulling it back.


Push the stick forward, the houses get bigger.

Pull the stick back, the houses get smaller.

Keep pulling the stick back, the houses get bigger.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

In article >, Greg Farris >
wrote:

> THIS GUY IS INSANITY IN DISTILLED FORM - 110 PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!

His MO is malapropisms (not just aviation related).

Usenet's equivalent to Bill Crosby.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

N2310D writes:

> Horsefeathers!!! You are such an idiot. I can descend by pushing the yoke
> forward or pulling it back.

So when it's time to land, you just push the yoke forward until you
touchdown on the runway?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Greg Farris writes:

> "You see . . ."
> No - I'm afraid I don't "see"?

Well, this is an aviation forum, so I'll just leave it at that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

>"Kingfish" wrote in message
> Effective, yes, but very complex, heavy and expensive. I recall seeing
> an ad for Breitling watches that had a P-51 with contra-rotating props.
> I think it was a one-off aircraft with a RR Griffon engine?

That aircraft was modified for Unlimited racing at Reno. It also had the
bobbed canopy and clipped wings.

D.

110 proof is, after all, only 55% pure, and I give him higher scores
than that!


On Dec 3, 1:17 am, Greg Farris > wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>
> >No. If the bicycle cannot turn, it will fall over. It cannot turn on
> >rollers. It can turn on flat pavement.
>
> >You see, the bicycle stays up because it turns. "You see . . ."
> No - I'm afraid I don't "see"?
> Ten minuites ago, the bicycle satyed upright due to "power" to the rear wheel,
> and "traction" on both wheels. Now, the bicycle stays upright because it
> "turns". . .
>
> In your most recent posts, the bicycle "cannot" fall unless it stops or loses
> "traction". Now, the bicycle "stays upright because it turns" . . .
>
> THIS GUY IS INSANITY IN DISTILLED FORM - 110 PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bob Noel wrote:


>
> Usenet's equivalent to Bill Crosby.

Bing's brother?

Mxsmanic wrote:

> N2310D writes:
>
>
>>Horsefeathers!!! You are such an idiot. I can descend by pushing the yoke
>>forward or pulling it back.
>
>
> So when it's time to land, you just push the yoke forward until you
> touchdown on the runway?



You could do it that way.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> Horsefeathers!!! You are such an idiot. I can descend by pushing the
>> yoke
>> forward or pulling it back.
>
> So when it's time to land, you just push the yoke forward until you
> touchdown on the runway?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

As a matter of fact for some landings I do exactly that.

Newps writes:

> You could do it that way.

How? The more you push the yoke forward, the more the aircraft wants
to rise.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Stadt writes:

> As a matter of fact for some landings I do exactly that.

From what altitude?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> Horsefeathers!!! You are such an idiot. I can descend by pushing the
>> yoke
>> forward or pulling it back.
>
> So when it's time to land, you just push the yoke forward until you
> touchdown on the runway?
>

Hey moron, your statement was, here's the quote:

> Similar principles apply to aircraft, which is why you generally
> cannot simply push the yoke forward to descend or pull it back to
> climb.

Nothing in that refers to landing.

But, yes, I have on occasion pushed the yoke forward to touch down.

Why you keep wanting to flaunt your stupidity is beyond my comprehension.

If you would simply ask a question and take the answer at face value rather
than challenge the cadre of experts who are polite enough to respond, you
would be ever so much better off. Some of your questions have evoked
interesting discussions. Then you stir in the merde and everyone loses
respect for you.

Quit being an idiot.

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Newps writes:
>
>
>>You could do it that way.
>
>
> How? The more you push the yoke forward, the more the aircraft wants
> to rise.




Think trim, dumbass.

Newps writes:

> Think trim, dumbass.

All the trim does is move the yoke for you. The same problem still
exists. You have to push forward more and more, and eventually you
run out of travel.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

N2310D writes:

> But, yes, I have on occasion pushed the yoke forward to touch down.

How do you normally change your altitude?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 00:43:16 GMT, "N2310D" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Hey moron,
>
> He's a moron, but your tail number- is revoked? <G>

N2310D is in rememberance of my father-in-law who went missing in his
C-170B between Anchorage and Northway, Alaska. Thanks for asking.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> Think trim, dumbass.
>
> All the trim does is move the yoke for you. The same problem still
> exists. You have to push forward more and more, and eventually you
> run out of travel.
>

NOT in an airplane, ignoramus.

Do you deliberately hold yourself out for abuse?

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> N2310D writes:
>
>> But, yes, I have on occasion pushed the yoke forward to touch down.
>
> How do you normally change your altitude?
>
With either the throttle or the spoilers when on final approach to
land. When in cruise with the throttle, spoilers, or elevator trim depending
on what my planned descent profile is. Note that the spoilers, in my case,
are applicable to a glider.

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Usenet's equivalent to Bill Crosby.
>
> Bing's brother?

Norm's.

N2310D wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Newps writes:
>>
>>> Think trim, dumbass.
>> All the trim does is move the yoke for you. The same problem still
>> exists. You have to push forward more and more, and eventually you
>> run out of travel.
>>
>
> NOT in an airplane, ignoramus.
>
> Do you deliberately hold yourself out for abuse?
>

To you and the others that keep responding to Mx: I'm on your side, but
don't you see that he's just pulling your chain, enjoying the act of
aggravating you? IMHO, take a deep breath and let him rant on solo.

THIS :

Yes, through momentum. But this momentum is eroded by irreversible
effects such as friction with the ground and air. Eventually none is
left, and the bicycle stops.

PLUS THIS:

>The cyclist balances it, assisted by the gyroscopic stabilizing effect
>of the turning wheel (the heavier it is and the faster it turns, the
>better).


EQUALS THIS :

"Yes, I was completely wrong, and everything I wrote was complete bull****,
based on a complete lack of understanding of the facts. . ."

Signed : Mad Max



You stated that power to the rear wheel and "traction" were the two requisite
conditions for stability. You specifically and obstinantly discounted
momentum and ANY effet induced by the cyclist.




The giants' shoulders are abraded, and becoming prurient through this abuse.
How much longer do we have to endure it? When will you send us a benediction
and say you have simply decided to give up on us, because we're all too
stupid to deserve your attention, and you have decided to focus your efforts
on alt.medicine.insanity. . .

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt writes:
>
>> As a matter of fact for some landings I do exactly that.
>
> From what altitude?
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

What altitude would you like?

In article >,
says...

>
>No. If the bicycle cannot turn, it will fall over. It cannot turn on
>rollers. It can turn on flat pavement.
>
>You see, the bicycle stays up because it turns.


"You see . . ."
No - I'm afraid I don't "see"?
Ten minuites ago, the bicycle satyed upright due to "power" to the rear wheel,
and "traction" on both wheels. Now, the bicycle stays upright because it
"turns". . .

In your most recent posts, the bicycle "cannot" fall unless it stops or loses
"traction". Now, the bicycle "stays upright because it turns" . . .

THIS GUY IS INSANITY IN DISTILLED FORM - 110 PROOF!!!!!!!!!!!!

In article >,
says...
>
>
>Greg Farris writes:
>
>> "You see . . ."
>> No - I'm afraid I don't "see"?
>
>Well, this is an aviation forum, so I'll just leave it at that.
>


Why don't you just leave . . .

N2310D writes:

> NOT in an airplane, ignoramus.

An airplane is the specific case in which it won't work.

> Do you deliberately hold yourself out for abuse?

No, but I do allow others to dig their own holes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Dave Stadt writes:

> What altitude would you like?

Straight and level flight at 10,000 feet to an airfield at 1800 feet
MSL.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

N2310D writes:

> With either the throttle or the spoilers when on final approach to
> land.

Why do you use these if pushing the yoke forward is sufficient?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Newps writes:
>
>> Ridiculous assertion.
>
> Try it and see.
>

You mean perform an actual "real world" experiment?

Why not simulate it?

Al G

Al G writes:

> You mean perform an actual "real world" experiment?

Yes.

> Why not simulate it?

Simulation is of no use if you're not willing to trust the simulation.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Al G writes:
>
>> You mean perform an actual "real world" experiment?
>
> Yes.
>
>> Why not simulate it?
>
> Simulation is of no use if you're not willing to trust the simulation.
>

And, other than the bicycle, you are. ("willing to trust the
simulation")

The prosecution rests...

Al G