How high can you fly?

[Mark]

Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
The electric motor and cabin are heated.

How high can you fly? 95,000ft?

This will soon be a real consideration.

---
Mark

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:24:05 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> ---
> Mark

*Soon? ROTFLMAO @ U.*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> How high can you fly? 95,000ft?

Gibberish.

Little airplanes aren't presurized because the seals to keep things like
doors and windows from leaking are heavy. A soda can can hold 100 psi.

And you bet the electric motor is heated, you will play hell keeping it
cool, even at altitude.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 1:37*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> Gibberish.

Eludication: my sentence ends in a question mark. The figure
was discriminate and taken from reference to U-2 heights.
Airfoils stop working in thin density. I asked when.

> Little airplanes aren't presurized because the seals to keep things like
> doors and windows from leaking are heavy. A soda can can hold 100 psi.

Little planes aren't pressurized because the ones I'm proposing
aren't currently able to reach anywhere near these elevations. Given
the heights I'm proposing, the airframe will buckle if the cabin is
pressurized. Fact.

> And you bet the electric motor is heated, you will play hell keeping it
> cool, even at altitude.

Brushless DC motors are different from conventional ones.
Brushless aka BLDC motors, or electronically commutated
motors are synchronous electric motors which have electronic
commutation systems rather than mechanical commutators
and brushes. The current-to-torque and voltage-to-speed
relationships are linear.

They are much more highly efficient, and eliminate ionizing
sparks from the commutator. They are not subjected to
centrifugal forces and can be cooled by conduction. This
allows them to be enclosed, which, protects them from dirt
and debris.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

Mark > wrote:
> Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,

Explode, not implode. Unless it is an underwater submersible?

> so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.

Your claims are absurd.

I was one of the technical reviewers for the 1999 text "Nanomedicine, Vol
I" by Robert A. Freitas Jr. One of the chapters I reviewed was Chapter 6 on
power for nanomachines. The energy density of storage devices that rely on
charge separation are limited by the dielectric strengths of materials.
They are typically one or two orders of magnitude smaller than chemical
energy storage Some references:

http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.2.3.htm
http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.2.4.htm
http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/Tables/6.1.jpg

> Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> The electric motor and cabin are heated.

That is much too powerful to maintain a sea level speed of under 120 kts at
continuous maximum power for LSA.

> How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> This will soon be a real consideration.

In 6 years? No.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 2:40*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>
> Explode, not implode. Unless it is an underwater submersible?

LOL! Ok Jim, and I hate to do this, but... the self
contained brushless motor and battery system are
sealed, so, yes, you will be
able to fly you Cessna 150 underwater down to
depths of 200 fathoms, which is 1,200 ft.

Otherwise, take it too high in the air and get splodiated.


> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
>
> Your claims are absurd.

And Galileo was thrown in jail.

> I was one of the technical reviewers for the 1999 text "Nanomedicine, Vol
> I" by Robert A. Freitas Jr. One of the chapters I reviewed was Chapter 6 on
> power for nanomachines. The energy density of storage devices that rely on
> charge separation are limited by the dielectric strengths of materials.
> They are typically one or two orders of magnitude smaller than chemical
> energy storage Some references:
>
> http://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.2.3.htmhttp://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/6.2.4.htmhttp://www.nanomedicine.com/NMI/Tables/6.1.jpg

Time constraints will certainly limit me from responding here until
I've read all articles and compared. Your link seems to be about
medicine though.

> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> That is much too powerful to maintain a sea level speed of under 120 kts at
> continuous maximum power for LSA.

Let me qualify then. 700hp in an airplane that weighs
1320lbs, was formerly limited to a stall speed of 51mph
and a continuous straight and level flight at sea level
of 138 mph, until I took the engine out and sold it on
barnstormers, then replaced it with my new brushless
electric motor and high tech battery system.

> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> > This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> In 6 years? No.

Sorry. 8.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 2:40*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>
> Explode, not implode. Unless it is an underwater submersible?
>
> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
>
> Your claims are absurd.

Also, current electric planes carry around a 200lb
battery pack. Actually I was thinking of multiple 20lb
batteries in series for a total of around 60lbs using
technology which is described today as viable for
production and can store much more electricity
per weight than lithium ion batteries and store it
longer.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:37Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
>> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
>> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
>> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
>> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
>> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
>> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>>
>> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>>
>> Gibberish.
>
> Eludication: my sentence ends in a question mark. The figure
> was discriminate and taken from reference to U-2 heights.
> Airfoils stop working in thin density. I asked when.

I wan't talking about the last sentence; your entire post is gibberish.

>> Little airplanes aren't presurized because the seals to keep things like
>> doors and windows from leaking are heavy. A soda can can hold 100 psi.
>
> Little planes aren't pressurized because the ones I'm proposing
> aren't currently able to reach anywhere near these elevations. Given
> the heights I'm proposing, the airframe will buckle if the cabin is
> pressurized. Fact.

If the airplane went into space and the interior were pressurized to sea
level, the pressure diffential would be about 14 psi.

The extremely thin aluminum in a soda can holds a pressure differential
of 100 psi.

The Apollo craft were pressurized and the skin on them is so thin the
average person could punch a hole through it bare handed.

You are full of crap.

>> And you bet the electric motor is heated, you will play hell keeping it
>> cool, even at altitude.
>
> Brushless DC motors are different from conventional ones.

All motors have loss and the loss shows up as heat.

Cooling things at altitude is a problem because even though the air is cold,
it is very thin and you have to move a lot of it.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 5:19*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 1:37*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> >> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> >> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> >> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> >> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> >> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> >> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> >> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> >> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> >> Gibberish.
>
> > Eludication: my sentence ends in a question mark. The figure
> > was discriminate and taken from reference to U-2 heights.
> > Airfoils stop working in thin density. I asked when.
>
> I wan't talking about the last sentence; your entire post is gibberish.
>
> >> Little airplanes aren't presurized because the seals to keep things like
> >> doors and windows from leaking are heavy. A soda can can hold 100 psi.
>
> > Little planes aren't pressurized because the ones I'm proposing
> > aren't currently able to reach anywhere near these elevations. Given
> > the heights I'm proposing, the airframe will buckle if the cabin is
> > pressurized. Fact.
>
> If the airplane went into space and the interior were pressurized to sea
> level, the pressure diffential would be about 14 psi.
>
> The extremely thin aluminum in a soda can holds a pressure differential
> of 100 psi.
>
> The Apollo craft were pressurized and the skin on them is so thin the
> average person could punch a hole through it bare handed.
>
> You are full of crap.
>
> >> And you bet the electric motor is heated, you will play hell keeping it
> >> cool, even at altitude.
>
> > Brushless DC motors are different from conventional ones.
>
> All motors have loss and the loss shows up as heat.
>
> Cooling things at altitude is a problem because even though the air is cold,
> it is very thin and you have to move a lot of it.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I studied the topic of service ceilings as well as ramifications
of what can occur at this elevation. Do the same and find
out about airframe distortion, pressure loss and break-ups.
It's aviation 101, not Coke can 101. You can stand on an
upright egg collection. You can stand on a coke can. Your
anologys are laughable. Spacecraft are made different
than Cessnas.

Read for content. Air density and cooling aren't relevant
to a sealed unit.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:19Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 18, 1:37Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
>> >> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>> >> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
>> >> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
>> >> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
>> >> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
>> >> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
>> >> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>>
>> >> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>>
>> >> Gibberish.
>>
>> > Eludication: my sentence ends in a question mark. The figure
>> > was discriminate and taken from reference to U-2 heights.
>> > Airfoils stop working in thin density. I asked when.
>>
>> I wan't talking about the last sentence; your entire post is gibberish.
>>
>> >> Little airplanes aren't presurized because the seals to keep things like
>> >> doors and windows from leaking are heavy. A soda can can hold 100 psi.
>>
>> > Little planes aren't pressurized because the ones I'm proposing
>> > aren't currently able to reach anywhere near these elevations. Given
>> > the heights I'm proposing, the airframe will buckle if the cabin is
>> > pressurized. Fact.
>>
>> If the airplane went into space and the interior were pressurized to sea
>> level, the pressure diffential would be about 14 psi.
>>
>> The extremely thin aluminum in a soda can holds a pressure differential
>> of 100 psi.
>>
>> The Apollo craft were pressurized and the skin on them is so thin the
>> average person could punch a hole through it bare handed.
>>
>> You are full of crap.
>>
>> >> And you bet the electric motor is heated, you will play hell keeping it
>> >> cool, even at altitude.
>>
>> > Brushless DC motors are different from conventional ones.
>>
>> All motors have loss and the loss shows up as heat.
>>
>> Cooling things at altitude is a problem because even though the air is cold,
>> it is very thin and you have to move a lot of it.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I studied the topic of service ceilings as well as ramifications
> of what can occur at this elevation. Do the same and find
> out about airframe distortion, pressure loss and break-ups.
> It's aviation 101, not Coke can 101. You can stand on an
> upright egg collection. You can stand on a coke can. Your
> anologys are laughable. Spacecraft are made different
> than Cessnas.

Babbling nonsense.

> Read for content. Air density and cooling aren't relevant
> to a sealed unit.

Cooling is especially relevant for heat producing sealed units.

Are you sure you aren't around 12 years old?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 6:08*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 5:19*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 18, 1:37*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> >> >> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> >> >> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> >> >> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> >> >> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> >> >> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> >> >> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> >> >> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> >> >> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> >> >> Gibberish.
>
> >> > Eludication: my sentence ends in a question mark. The figure
> >> > was discriminate and taken from reference to U-2 heights.
> >> > Airfoils stop working in thin density. I asked when.
>
> >> I wan't talking about the last sentence; your entire post is gibberish..
>
> >> >> Little airplanes aren't presurized because the seals to keep things like
> >> >> doors and windows from leaking are heavy. A soda can can hold 100 psi.
>
> >> > Little planes aren't pressurized because the ones I'm proposing
> >> > aren't currently able to reach anywhere near these elevations. Given
> >> > the heights I'm proposing, the airframe will buckle if the cabin is
> >> > pressurized. Fact.
>
> >> If the airplane went into space and the interior were pressurized to sea
> >> level, the pressure diffential would be about 14 psi.
>
> >> The extremely thin aluminum in a soda can holds a pressure differential
> >> of 100 psi.
>
> >> The Apollo craft were pressurized and the skin on them is so thin the
> >> average person could punch a hole through it bare handed.
>
> >> You are full of crap.
>
> >> >> And you bet the electric motor is heated, you will play hell keeping it
> >> >> cool, even at altitude.
>
> >> > Brushless DC motors are different from conventional ones.
>
> >> All motors have loss and the loss shows up as heat.
>
> >> Cooling things at altitude is a problem because even though the air is cold,
> >> it is very thin and you have to move a lot of it.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I studied the topic of service ceilings as well as ramifications
> > of what can occur at this elevation. Do the same and find
> > out about airframe distortion, pressure loss and break-ups.
> > It's aviation 101, not Coke can 101. You can stand on an
> > upright egg collection. You can stand on a coke can. Your
> > anologys are laughable. Spacecraft are made different
> > than Cessnas.
>
> Babbling nonsense.
>
> > Read for content. Air density and cooling aren't relevant
> > to a sealed unit.
>
> Cooling is especially relevant for heat producing sealed units.
>
> Are you sure you aren't around 12 years old?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Er, I'm trying to go do something else and rushing
answers.

Clarification: With regard to the cooling of a sealed brushless
motor, your concerns and comments about air density are
basically irrelevant. They cool differently than open typical
electric motors that rely on air circulation.

Better?

Allrighty then.

---
Mark

ps. If you think I'm 12 then why are you debating
with a child. And why is this child kicking your...
forget it. Think about these conversations next
May when you look at the car lot.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

> Clarification: With regard to the cooling of a sealed brushless
> motor, your concerns and comments about air density are
> basically irrelevant. They cool differently than open typical
> electric motors that rely on air circulation.

Yeah, how is that, magic?

There are only two ways to cool any motor, and it doesn't matter whether
it is an ICE or electric.

You either put a bunch of pipes in the motor, run a fluid through them,
and dump the heat with a radiator that has air flowing through it or you
put cooling fins on the motor and that have air flowing over them.

And air at altitude may be cold, but it is also thin which means you have
to move a lot more air at altitude than sea level to get the same cooling.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 6:55*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Clarification: With regard to the cooling of a sealed brushless
> > motor, your concerns and comments about air density are
> > basically irrelevant. They cool differently than open typical
> > electric motors that rely on air circulation.
>
> Yeah, how is that, magic?
>
> There are only two ways to cool any motor, and it doesn't matter whether
> it is an ICE or electric.
>
> You either put a bunch of pipes in the motor, run a fluid through them,
> and dump the heat with a radiator that has air flowing through it or you
> put cooling fins on the motor and that have air flowing over them.
>
> And air at altitude may be cold, but it is also thin which means you have
> to move a lot more air at altitude than sea level to get the same cooling..
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Correct. The higher you go, the harder it is to displace the heat.
I believe the topic of this post is..."How high *can* you go?"

This doesn't mean you cannot have electric airplanes, or that
at 20,000 ft. they aren't superior to internal combustion.

You say, "You'll play hell keeping it cool". Well, yes and no.
At 95,000ft...it very well may be impossible. IMHO, the motor at any
elevation needs to be cooled with circulating glycol through a
patented design that runs through the center. At what elevation
your radiator ceases to displace heat...I don't know.

So yes, the elevation is relevant to cooling as you said, but
I am asserting that for GA purposes between AGL and
20,000 ft., you won't "play hell keeping it cool". On the
other hand, try leaving the troposphere and you might
better pack dry ice.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 2:40*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>
> Explode, not implode. Unless it is an underwater submersible?
>
> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
>
> Your claims are absurd.

Ok, yes I'm just conceptualizing to paint my hypothetical
picture, and indiscriminately pulled out a number of 20lbs.,
and posters such as "a" have already explained the
parameters that must be analyzed to do the math. But
I keep running across new technologies and it takes time
to come up with hard data and numbers that would allow
me or anyone else to tell you what the new batteries
weigh or what their energy density and durations are.

I have however had them described to me in general
terms and you know what? 1) it's exciting 2) few people
have a clue what is on the horizon 3) the impetus has
already swung in this direction and lastly 4) we really
have no choice afa worldwide auto application goes.
5) I think most pilots would rather fly without vibration.

---
Mark

[Jim Logajan]

Mark > wrote:
> I keep running across new technologies and it takes time
> to come up with hard data and numbers that would allow
> me or anyone else to tell you what the new batteries
> weigh or what their energy density and durations are.

I'm trying to point out that some of us have some of idea of what is
possible within the next 10 years and what the ultimate physical limits are
of energy density.

Wikipedia has a table of energy densities for several battery technologies
compared with traditional energy storage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

So far as I can tell it appears roughly correct.

Avgas has an energy density of ~44MJ/kg.
The best _emerging_ battery technology has an energy density of ~3.6MJ/kg.

Ground vehicles can still be useful with low energy densities, but aircraft
rapidly decline in utility. Put another way, airlines will be flying jets
burning jet fuel for the forseeable future.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 6:55Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > Clarification: With regard to the cooling of a sealed brushless
>> > motor, your concerns and comments about air density are
>> > basically irrelevant. They cool differently than open typical
>> > electric motors that rely on air circulation.
>>
>> Yeah, how is that, magic?
>>
>> There are only two ways to cool any motor, and it doesn't matter whether
>> it is an ICE or electric.
>>
>> You either put a bunch of pipes in the motor, run a fluid through them,
>> and dump the heat with a radiator that has air flowing through it or you
>> put cooling fins on the motor and that have air flowing over them.
>>
>> And air at altitude may be cold, but it is also thin which means you have
>> to move a lot more air at altitude than sea level to get the same cooling.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Correct. The higher you go, the harder it is to displace the heat.
> I believe the topic of this post is..."How high *can* you go?"

So you are finally giving up on your assertion that a sealed brushless
motor is magic and won't need cooling?

> This doesn't mean you cannot have electric airplanes, or that
> at 20,000 ft. they aren't superior to internal combustion.

Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.

There are already GA aircraft that regularly fly at flight levels, though
most of them that go much over 20,000 feet don't use pistons in the engine.

There is no market for small, as in C172 size, airplanes that can get to the
flight levels or someone would already be making them powered by small
turbines.


<snip babble>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:08:59 -0000, wrote:

>>> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> I studied the topic of service ceilings as well as ramifications
>> of what can occur at this elevation. Do the same and find
>> out about airframe distortion, pressure loss and break-ups.
>> It's aviation 101, not Coke can 101. You can stand on an
>> upright egg collection. You can stand on a coke can. Your
>> anologys are laughable. Spacecraft are made different
>> than Cessnas.
>
> Babbling nonsense.
>
>> Read for content. Air density and cooling aren't relevant
>> to a sealed unit.
>
> Cooling is especially relevant for heat producing sealed units.
>
> Are you sure you aren't around 12 years old?

Are you sure you aren't 13? I have always wanted to blow an older boy.

Mark "Deep Throat"

[Ted Sherman]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:28:59 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Correct. The higher you go, the harder it is to displace the heat.
> I believe the topic of this post is..."How high *can* you go?"

> Me? When I take a triple does of my Xanax and follow it with a few
> Tequilas, I can maintain an altitde of 95.000 AGL.

ooooooooooooooK

[Ari Silverstein]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:12:54 -0000, wrote:

> So you are finally giving up on your assertion that a sealed brushless
> motor is magic and won't need cooling?
>
>> This doesn't mean you cannot have electric airplanes, or that
>> at 20,000 ft. they aren't superior to internal combustion.
>
> Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
> at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.

And that folks, is...

<eom>
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ted Sherman]

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 19:28:08 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Ok, yes I'm just conceptualizing to paint my hypothetical picture
> and you know what? 1) it's exciting 2) few people have a clue what
> is on the horizon so I should be called the Messiah Of Bull****
> 3) I think most pilots would rather fly without vibration. 4) Most
> women rave about vibration 5) I never get laid so I hate vibration
> 6) Go **** yourselves.

oooooooooooooooK

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 12:12*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 18, 6:55*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > Clarification: With regard to the cooling of a sealed brushless
> >> > motor, your concerns and comments about air density are
> >> > basically irrelevant. They cool differently than open typical
> >> > electric motors that rely on air circulation.
>
> >> Yeah, how is that, magic?
>
> >> There are only two ways to cool any motor, and it doesn't matter whether
> >> it is an ICE or electric.
>
> >> You either put a bunch of pipes in the motor, run a fluid through them,
> >> and dump the heat with a radiator that has air flowing through it or you
> >> put cooling fins on the motor and that have air flowing over them.
>
> >> And air at altitude may be cold, but it is also thin which means you have
> >> to move a lot more air at altitude than sea level to get the same cooling.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Correct. The higher you go, the harder it is to displace the heat.
> > I believe the topic of this post is..."How high *can* you go?"
>
> So you are finally giving up on your assertion that a sealed brushless
> motor is magic and won't need cooling?
>
> > This doesn't mean you cannot have electric airplanes, or that
> > at 20,000 ft. they aren't superior to internal combustion.
>
> Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
> at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.
>
> There are already GA aircraft that regularly fly at flight levels, though
> most of them that go much over 20,000 feet don't use pistons in the engine.
>
> There is no market for small, as in C172 size, airplanes that can get to the
> flight levels or someone would already be making them powered by small
> turbines.
>
> <snip babble>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks Jim.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 12:12*am, wrote:

> So you are finally giving up on your assertion that a sealed brushless
> motor is magic and won't need cooling?

Who ever said that a sealed brushless motor is magic
and won't need cooling? I certainly didn't. This is just another
example of your revisionistic debating style.

> > This doesn't mean you cannot have electric airplanes, or that
> > at 20,000 ft. they aren't superior to internal combustion.
>
> Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
> at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.

Most people are unable to see beyond today. I don't
envision heavy low-density batteries. No ICE dragster
can beat an electric one. That's real now. Yes, it's
short run. Yes gravity isn't a factor. But people are flying
electric planes today. That's real. Billions are being spent
on a better power technology...and I believe they're going
to make it and when they do...I will retrofit a plane
such as one that currently is an LSA.

> There are already GA aircraft that regularly fly at flight levels, though
> most of them that go much over 20,000 feet don't use pistons in the engine.

And if they didn't need oxygen for combustion...

> There is no market for small, as in C172 size, airplanes that can get to the
> flight levels or someone would already be making them powered by small
> turbines.

That's because it's too specialized. An electric plane can fly
at any elevation it want's to under the stratosphere until air
density prevents lift, or cooling is impossible. Therefore a cheap
retrofitted small plane would simply fly over inclement weather,
changing the paradigm of general aviation. And, the fun level
would be off the chart.

<snip your snip>

---

Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 19, 12:12Â*am, wrote:
>
>> So you are finally giving up on your assertion that a sealed brushless
>> motor is magic and won't need cooling?
>
> Who ever said that a sealed brushless motor is magic
> and won't need cooling? I certainly didn't. This is just another
> example of your revisionistic debating style.
>
>> > This doesn't mean you cannot have electric airplanes, or that
>> > at 20,000 ft. they aren't superior to internal combustion.
>>
>> Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
>> at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.
>
> Most people are unable to see beyond today. I don't
> envision heavy low-density batteries. No ICE dragster
> can beat an electric one. That's real now. Yes, it's
> short run. Yes gravity isn't a factor. But people are flying
> electric planes today. That's real. Billions are being spent
> on a better power technology...and I believe they're going
> to make it and when they do...I will retrofit a plane
> such as one that currently is an LSA.

Yeah, sure, and it is going to happen any day now along with controlled
fusion, a cure for the common cold, and artificial intelligence.

>> There are already GA aircraft that regularly fly at flight levels, though
>> most of them that go much over 20,000 feet don't use pistons in the engine.
>
> And if they didn't need oxygen for combustion...

No one would care.

>> There is no market for small, as in C172 size, airplanes that can get to the
>> flight levels or someone would already be making them powered by small
>> turbines.
>
> That's because it's too specialized. An electric plane can fly
> at any elevation it want's to under the stratosphere until air
> density prevents lift, or cooling is impossible.

Nope, doable today with either a turbocharger on a piston engine or a
turbine. A turbine would get you higher, but there is no market for even
a turbocharged C172 size airplane.

And it doesn't require magic batteries that don't exist.

> Therefore a cheap
> retrofitted small plane would simply fly over inclement weather,
> changing the paradigm of general aviation. And, the fun level
> would be off the chart.

Wet dream babble.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
>> I keep running across new technologies and it takes time
>> to come up with hard data and numbers that would allow
>> me or anyone else to tell you what the new batteries
>> weigh or what their energy density and durations are.
>
> I'm trying to point out that some of us have some of idea of what is
> possible within the next 10 years and what the ultimate physical limits are
> of energy density.
>
> Wikipedia has a table of energy densities for several battery technologies
> compared with traditional energy storage:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
>
> So far as I can tell it appears roughly correct.
>
> Avgas has an energy density of ~44MJ/kg.
> The best _emerging_ battery technology has an energy density of ~3.6MJ/kg.
>
> Ground vehicles can still be useful with low energy densities, but aircraft
> rapidly decline in utility. Put another way, airlines will be flying jets
> burning jet fuel for the forseeable future.

The only aviation market I can see for electric airplanes, if batteries
ever get good enough and cheap enough, is for self launched gliders.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:44:28 -0000, wrote:

> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>>> I keep running across new technologies and it takes time
>>> to come up with hard data and numbers that would allow
>>> me or anyone else to tell you what the new batteries
>>> weigh or what their energy density and durations are.
>>
>> I'm trying to point out that some of us have some of idea of what is
>> possible within the next 10 years and what the ultimate physical limits are
>> of energy density.
>>
>> Wikipedia has a table of energy densities for several battery technologies
>> compared with traditional energy storage:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
>>
>> So far as I can tell it appears roughly correct.
>>
>> Avgas has an energy density of ~44MJ/kg.
>> The best _emerging_ battery technology has an energy density of ~3.6MJ/kg.
>>
>> Ground vehicles can still be useful with low energy densities, but aircraft
>> rapidly decline in utility. Put another way, airlines will be flying jets
>> burning jet fuel for the forseeable future.
>
> The only aviation market I can see for electric airplanes, if batteries
> ever get good enough and cheap enough, is for self launched gliders.

Doesn't surprise me, you have no vision. Most
people don't which is why I am wealthy beyond
your imagination.

Get on board. I can make you loads of money.
You could afford to buy a hat for your pinhead.

Mark Of The Financial World

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 14:44:28 -0000, wrote:
>
>> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>>> Mark > wrote:
>>>> I keep running across new technologies and it takes time
>>>> to come up with hard data and numbers that would allow
>>>> me or anyone else to tell you what the new batteries
>>>> weigh or what their energy density and durations are.
>>>
>>> I'm trying to point out that some of us have some of idea of what is
>>> possible within the next 10 years and what the ultimate physical limits are
>>> of energy density.
>>>
>>> Wikipedia has a table of energy densities for several battery technologies
>>> compared with traditional energy storage:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
>>>
>>> So far as I can tell it appears roughly correct.
>>>
>>> Avgas has an energy density of ~44MJ/kg.
>>> The best _emerging_ battery technology has an energy density of ~3.6MJ/kg.
>>>
>>> Ground vehicles can still be useful with low energy densities, but aircraft
>>> rapidly decline in utility. Put another way, airlines will be flying jets
>>> burning jet fuel for the forseeable future.
>>
>> The only aviation market I can see for electric airplanes, if batteries
>> ever get good enough and cheap enough, is for self launched gliders.
>
> Doesn't surprise me, you have no vision. Most
> people don't which is why I am wealthy beyond
> your imagination.
>
> Get on board. I can make you loads of money.
> You could afford to buy a hat for your pinhead.
>
> Mark Of The Financial World

More like Mark the babbling child-man.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Logajan]

wrote:
> Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
> at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.

While I think Mark is starry eyed (at best,) you are technically mistaken
in the above assertion because in fact electric airplanes (actually solar-
electric airplanes) hold some world records:

When the solar-electric "Pathfinder" reached 80,000 ft in 1999 it set the
altitude record for highest altitude flown by prop-driven aircraft.

When the solar-electric "Helios" reached 96,863 ft in 2001 it set the
altitude record for highest altitude flown by non-rocket powered aircraft.

When the solar-electric "Zepher" stayed aloft for for over 2 weeks in 2010,
it set the endurance record for unmanned aircraft.

The common element of these is "solar-electric". None of them would have
been possible with batteries. They could not have gotten off the ground had
they used batteries. None of them would have been plausibly accomplished
with internal (or external) combustion engines. The latter gasp for breath
at high altitudes.

So electric (specifically solar-electric) is indeed superior for certain
applications. Just not general aviation.

[Chrissy Cruiser[_2_]]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 17:31:59 -0500, Jim Logajan wrote:

> While I think Mark is starry eyed (at best,)

If starry eyed means delusional fukknutzoind, yeah, you got it.
--

[[email protected]]

Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
>> at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.
>
> While I think Mark is starry eyed (at best,) you are technically mistaken
> in the above assertion because in fact electric airplanes (actually solar-
> electric airplanes) hold some world records:
>
> When the solar-electric "Pathfinder" reached 80,000 ft in 1999 it set the
> altitude record for highest altitude flown by prop-driven aircraft.
>
> When the solar-electric "Helios" reached 96,863 ft in 2001 it set the
> altitude record for highest altitude flown by non-rocket powered aircraft.
>
> When the solar-electric "Zepher" stayed aloft for for over 2 weeks in 2010,
> it set the endurance record for unmanned aircraft.
>
> The common element of these is "solar-electric". None of them would have
> been possible with batteries. They could not have gotten off the ground had
> they used batteries. None of them would have been plausibly accomplished
> with internal (or external) combustion engines. The latter gasp for breath
> at high altitudes.
>
> So electric (specifically solar-electric) is indeed superior for certain
> applications. Just not general aviation.

They hold records for R/C airplanes.

None of them had a human, or anything alive, on board.

One off research prototypes can be interesting, but that's about it.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ash Wyllie]

Mark opined

>Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
>You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
>an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
>powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
>carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
>Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
>The electric motor and cabin are heated.

>How high can you fly? 95,000ft?

>This will soon be a real consideration.

I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you what to
look for and what to do.

Find the Vs for a C152.

Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.

Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.


-ash
Elect Cthulhu!
Vote the greater evil.

[george]

I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

[Mark]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 22:15:29 -0700 (PDT), george wrote:

> I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

If you think you can make fun of me and get a Left seat
on the inaugural flight of my electric 747, you are
nutz.

Mark The Inventor

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 7:24*pm, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

> >How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
> >This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you what to
> look for and what to do.
>
> Find the Vs for a C152.
>
> Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.
>
> Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.


Thank you so much! Can't wait to run the numbers.

Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
new trophy.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 1:15*am, george > wrote:
> I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

That video doesn't show it in flight.
This video does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2IrNIExHbM&feature=related

Cruises...90% efficient, 10% heat.
Max. Climb...80% efficient, 20% heat.

Heat is not a factor.

Replacing the internal combustion engine which
yielded...85% noise and heat, 15% efficiency.

Flys 1 1/2 Hours. And it's beautiful.

Where do we send the check??

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 19, 6:31*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Electric airplanes are not and will not be superior to ICE airplanes
> > at any altitude any time in the foreseeable future.

> While I think Mark is starry eyed (at best,)

Heh.

prog·nos·ti·cate (prg-nst-kt)
tr.v. prog·nos·ti·cat·ed, prog·nos·ti·cat·ing, prog·nos·ti·cates
1. To predict according to present indications or signs; foretell. See
Synonyms at predict.
2. To foreshadow; portend


>you are technically mistaken
> in the above assertion because in fact electric airplanes (actually solar-
> electric airplanes) hold some world records:

That's not technically. That's actually.

> When the solar-electric "Helios" reached 96,863 ft in 2001 it set the
> altitude record for highest altitude flown by non-rocket powered aircraft..
> So electric (specifically solar-electric) is indeed superior for certain
> applications.

I estimated 95,000ft.

>Just not general aviation.

Just not general aviation today.

In 2055, you take off burning fossil fuel, "you go jail".

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

george > wrote:
>
> I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U

Compared to a real airplane, yes.

There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
might be useful but they are terribly fragile.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:44:23 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> In 2055

*LOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 11:44Â*am, wrote:
> george > wrote:
>
> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> Compared to a real airplane...

AIRPLANE:

engine-driven flying vehicle: a vehicle with wings and a jet engine or
propellers that is heavier than air and is able to fly
[ Late 19th century. < French aéroplane < aéro- (< Greek aēr "air") + -
plane ]

Any of various winged vehicles capable of flight, generally heavier
than air and driven by jet engines or propellers.

air·plane (er′pl�n′)

noun

a fixed-wing aircraft, heavier than air, that is kept aloft by the
aerodynamic forces of air as it is driven forward by a screw propeller
or by other means, as jet propulsion

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 11:44Â*am, wrote:
>> george > wrote:
>>
>> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
>> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>>
>> Compared to a real airplane...
>
> AIRPLANE:

<snip crap>

I think everyone but you knows what I mean.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Sep 21, 3:44*am, wrote:
> george > wrote:
>
> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>
> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.

And a range of 90 minutes....
That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.

[[email protected]]

george > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 3:44Â*am, wrote:
>> george > wrote:
>>
>> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
>> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>>
>> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>>
>> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
>> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>
> And a range of 90 minutes....
> That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
> If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
> The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.

I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
electric motor.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 1:18*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 11:44*am, wrote:
> >> george > wrote:
>
> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> >> Compared to a real airplane...
>
> > AIRPLANE:
>
<snip factual definition of airplane>
>
> I think everyone but you knows what I mean.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

An airplane is an airplane.

I consider many "real airplanes" to be fragile with their cloth
wings ( which i've flown ) and many electric airplanes such
as a Sonex or the electraflyer to be nice weatherproof planes
far superior to gas powered ultralights.

You're entitled to your opinion. But it's only that.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 5:23*pm, george > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 3:44*am, wrote:
>
> > george > wrote:
>
> > > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> > > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> > Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>
> > There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
> > might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>
> And a range of 90 minutes....
> That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
> If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
> The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.

Where do you put the luggage and dog?

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 6:00*pm, wrote:
> george > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 3:44*am, wrote:
> >> george > wrote:
>
> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> >> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>
> >> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
> >> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>
> > And a range of 90 minutes....
> > That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
> > If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
> > The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.
>
> I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
> because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
> electric motor.
>
Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.

They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
They also have the "electric advantage" of no oxygen requirement.

An LSA manned electric plane has the "no oxygen advantage" too.

LOL! And anybody can perform the FAA modifications on one.

---
Mark




--
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 1:18Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 11:44Â*am, wrote:
>> >> george > wrote:
>>
>> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
>> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>>
>> >> Compared to a real airplane...
>>
>> > AIRPLANE:
>>
> <snip factual definition of airplane>
>>
>> I think everyone but you knows what I mean.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> An airplane is an airplane.
>
> I consider many "real airplanes" to be fragile with their cloth
> wings

Clueless.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 6:25*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 1:18*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 20, 11:44*am, wrote:
> >> >> george > wrote:
>
> >> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy..
> >> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> >> >> Compared to a real airplane...
>
> >> > AIRPLANE:
>
> > *<snip factual definition of airplane>
>
> >> I think everyone but you knows what I mean.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > An airplane is an airplane.
>
> > I consider many "real airplanes" to be fragile with their cloth
> > wings
>
> Clueless.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?

I feel strange a mile up in
anything I can stick my finger through. My first trainer
was a J - 3 antique.

I also feel weird about buying something made 60 years
ago. Maybe there's something unseen.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 6:25Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 1:18Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 20, 11:44Â*am, wrote:
>> >> >> george > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
>> >> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>>
>> >> >> Compared to a real airplane...
>>
>> >> > AIRPLANE:
>>
>> > Â*<snip factual definition of airplane>
>>
>> >> I think everyone but you knows what I mean.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > An airplane is an airplane.
>>
>> > I consider many "real airplanes" to be fragile with their cloth
>> > wings
>>
>> Clueless.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?

Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.

> I feel strange a mile up in
> anything I can stick my finger through. My first trainer
> was a J - 3 antique.

It would take very close to the same abuse to stick your finger through
a fabric airplane as it would to do the same to the Apollo spacecraft.

> I also feel weird about buying something made 60 years
> ago. Maybe there's something unseen.

Not likely if it hasn't shown up in 60 years.

Does the phrase "annual inspection" mean anything to you?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
>> george > wrote:
>> > On Sep 21, 3:44Â*am, wrote:
>> >> george > wrote:
>>
>> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
>> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>>
>> >> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>>
>> >> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
>> >> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>>
>> > And a range of 90 minutes....
>> > That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
>> > If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
>> > The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.
>>
>> I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
>> because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
>> electric motor.
>>
> Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>
> They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.

No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
carry the weight of a person.

<snip nonsense>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 7:15*pm, wrote:

> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>
> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>
> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
> carry the weight of a person.

No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
them large enough to carry a man.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/index.html

Keep trying. Even a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 7:13*pm, wrote:

> >> Clueless.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>
> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.

Cite.

> > I feel strange a mile up in
> > anything I can stick my finger through. My first trainer
> > was a J - 3 antique.
>
> It would take very close to the same abuse to stick your finger through
> a fabric airplane as it would to do the same to the Apollo spacecraft.

I also feel strange flying Apollo spacecraft. So?

> > I also feel weird about buying something made 60 years
> > ago. *Maybe there's something unseen.
>
> Not likely if it hasn't shown up in 60 years.

Does the phrase, "metal fatigue" mean anything to you?

> Does the phrase "annual inspection" mean anything to you?

Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
to you?

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 7:13Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> >> Clueless.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>>
>> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.
>
> Cite.

Your last one.

<snip nonsense>

> Does the phrase, "metal fatigue" mean anything to you?
>
>> Does the phrase "annual inspection" mean anything to you?
>
> Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
> to you?

Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>>
>> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>>
>> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
>> carry the weight of a person.
>
> No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
> them large enough to carry a man.

Having comprehension problems?

If you want to be 100% anal-retentively correct, there was never any plan
for them to be other than unmanned, so they were designed to be just big
enough to be able to fly with what's in them.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 7:15*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 6:00*pm, wrote:
> >> george > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 21, 3:44*am, wrote:
> >> >> george > wrote:
>
> >> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy..
> >> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> >> >> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>
> >> >> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
> >> >> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>
> >> > And a range of 90 minutes....
> >> > That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
> >> > If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
> >> > The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.
>
> >> I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
> >> because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
> >> electric motor.
>
> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>
> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>
> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
> carry the weight of a person.

> --
> Jim Pennino

Actually you could carry 2 or 3 people. They are unmanned to set
records in duration and elevation.

"Payload: Up to 726 lb., including ballast, instrumentation,
experiments and a supplemental electrical energy system..."

---
Mark

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/index.html

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 7:52*pm, Mark > wrote:

> > > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>
> > No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
> > carry the weight of a person.
>
> No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
> them large enough to carry a man.
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/index.html
>
> Keep trying. Even a blind pig gets an acorn once in a while.
>
> ---
> Mark

I AM WRONG! They aren't unmanned because they didn't want
to make them large enough to carry a man.

I AM RIGHT! See my first answer. They are unmanned because
they wanted to set endurance and elevation records.

My mistake was in thinking I was wrong.

Like you.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 8:11*pm, wrote:

> >> > No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>
> >> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.
>
> > Cite.
>
> Your last one.

See corroberrating link which proves otherwise.


> > Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
> > to you?
>
> Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Ok. I'm listening.

You're saying an annual inspection of an antique plane
can verifiably determine all inner structures, cables, pulleys
(or push rods ) struts, etc. won't fail? (I'm not arguing here)

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 8:17*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 7:15*pm, wrote:
>
> >> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>
> >> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>
> >> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
> >> carry the weight of a person.
>
> > No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
> > them large enough to carry a man.
>
> Having comprehension problems?

No I am not. You are!

<gibberish snipped>

> ... there was never any plan
> for them to be other than unmanned, so they were designed to be just big
> enough to be able to fly with what's in them.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong

If you study the development of the design and it's mission
statement, you will see that these things are designed to
carry nearly an 800lb payload. Further study will explain
what that payload consists of, and what it will be used for.

No acorn for you.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> george > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 21, 3:44Â*am, wrote:
>> >> >> george > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
>> >> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>>
>> >> >> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>>
>> >> >> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
>> >> >> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>>
>> >> > And a range of 90 minutes....
>> >> > That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
>> >> > If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
>> >> > The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.
>>
>> >> I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
>> >> because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
>> >> electric motor.
>>
>> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>>
>> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>>
>> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
>> carry the weight of a person.
>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Actually you could carry 2 or 3 people. They are unmanned to set
> records in duration and elevation.

Where would you put them, strapped across the wing?

> "Payload: Up to 726 lb., including ballast, instrumentation,
> experiments and a supplemental electrical energy system..."

Or in other words, it was already full of junk.

BTW, this text isn't in your link.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 8:42*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 7:15*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 20, 6:00*pm, wrote:
> >> >> george > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 21, 3:44*am, wrote:
> >> >> >> george > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> >> >> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> >> >> >> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>
> >> >> >> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
> >> >> >> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>
> >> >> > And a range of 90 minutes....
> >> >> > That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
> >> >> > If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
> >> >> > The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.
>
> >> >> I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
> >> >> because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
> >> >> electric motor.
>
> >> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>
> >> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>
> >> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
> >> carry the weight of a person.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Actually you could carry 2 or 3 people. They are unmanned to set
> > records in duration and elevation.
>
> Where would you put them, strapped across the wing?

Well, since there's sufficient lift to carry them, you would
design accomodations. But they didn't build them to carry
people. They were trying to set records in endurance and
elevation, within the criteria of the original mission statement
which sought to display it's applications in mapping, etc.

> > "Payload: Up to 726 lb., including ballast, instrumentation,
> > experiments and a supplemental electrical energy system..."
>
> Or in other words, it was already full of junk.

There is sufficient lift to carry 3 really fat chicks. But
they were trying to set records in endurance and
elevation, plus market it's applications.

> BTW, this text isn't in your link.

Yesterday you called me stupid for not backtracking a site
to another site that wasn't even linked.

In this case, the text is on the *same* website I
just gave you. It's in the specification area. (Hint,
ya gotta click the little prompt icon).

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:11Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> >> > No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>>
>> >> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.
>>
>> > Cite.
>>
>> Your last one.
>
> See corroberrating link which proves otherwise.

Gibberish.

>> > Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
>> > to you?
>>
>> Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Ok. I'm listening.
>
> You're saying an annual inspection of an antique plane
> can verifiably determine all inner structures, cables, pulleys
> (or push rods ) struts, etc. won't fail? (I'm not arguing here)

Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
plates just so you can inspect them.

And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
plates or some other method of inspection.

Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
the fabric.

When tge fabric is replaced, the structure is (supposed to be) inspected for,
as appropriate, corrosion or rot. You did know many of those "antique"
airplanes have wood structures?

Also, there are high tech things like magnaflux inspection for starters.

Tell the truth; have you ever actually been on a GA airport?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:17Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>>
>> >> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>>
>> >> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
>> >> carry the weight of a person.
>>
>> > No they are unmanned because they didn't want to make
>> > them large enough to carry a man.
>>
>> Having comprehension problems?
>
> No I am not. You are!
>
> <gibberish snipped>
>
>> ... there was never any plan
>> for them to be other than unmanned, so they were designed to be just big
>> enough to be able to fly with what's in them.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong
>
> If you study the development of the design and it's mission
> statement, you will see that these things are designed to
> carry nearly an 800lb payload. Further study will explain
> what that payload consists of, and what it will be used for.
>
> No acorn for you.

Actually, the thing was designed to keep researchers employed.

They have otherwise no useful purpose any time in the foreseeable future.

They are too fragile to survive in the real world and too slow to be useful
for surveillance as they can't keep up with winds aloft.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 8:42Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 7:15Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 20, 6:00Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> george > wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sep 21, 3:44Â*am, wrote:
>> >> >> >> george > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
>> >> >> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>>
>> >> >> >> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>>
>> >> >> >> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
>> >> >> >> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>>
>> >> >> > And a range of 90 minutes....
>> >> >> > That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
>> >> >> > If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
>> >> >> > The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.
>>
>> >> >> I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
>> >> >> because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
>> >> >> electric motor.
>>
>> >> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>>
>> >> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>>
>> >> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
>> >> carry the weight of a person.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Actually you could carry 2 or 3 people. They are unmanned to set
>> > records in duration and elevation.
>>
>> Where would you put them, strapped across the wing?
>
> Well, since there's sufficient lift to carry them, you would
> design accomodations. But they didn't build them to carry
> people. They were trying to set records in endurance and
> elevation, within the criteria of the original mission statement
> which sought to display it's applications in mapping, etc.

Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.

They serve no other purpose.

As a UAV they are a dud.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:14:56 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> An airplane is an airplane.

And you're a mindless moron.

See we're bonding under truths.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 23:13:20 -0000, wrote:

>>> >> I think everyone but you knows what I mean.
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Jim Pennino
>>>
>>> > An airplane is an airplane.
>>>
>>> > I consider many "real airplanes" to be fragile with their cloth
>>> > wings
>>>
>>> Clueless.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>
> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.

rofl
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:59:26 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Yesterday you called me stupid

No no no it's been months now.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Where do you put the luggage and dog?

Under Tiger Boy's grave?
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 9:11*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 8:11*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> > No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>
> >> >> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.
>
> >> > Cite.
>
> >> Your last one.
>
> > See corroberrating link which proves otherwise.
>
> Gibberish.
>
> >> > Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
> >> > to you?
>
> >> Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Ok. I'm listening.
>
> > You're saying an annual inspection of an antique plane
> > can verifiably determine all inner structures, cables, pulleys
> > (or push rods ) struts, etc. won't fail? (I'm not arguing here)
>
> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
> plates just so you can inspect them.

I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
of where these access areas are.

> And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
> subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
> plates or some other method of inspection.

See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.

I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.

> Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
> the fabric.

I already know that.

Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.

> When tge fabric is replaced, the structure is (supposed to be) inspected for,
> as appropriate, corrosion or rot. You did know many of those "antique"
> airplanes have wood structures?

Yes. New homebuilts have wood as well.

> Also, there are high tech things like magnaflux inspection for starters.

Ok, finally, you're telling me something I'm not familiar with.

> Tell the truth; have you ever actually been on a GA airport?

Come on Jim, stop being such an ass. I belong to a flight
school. I've recounted here in this forum one of my flights
not so long ago where I brought my plane down several
thousand feet in a simulated power out, and specified the
procedures I took, as by the book. Then there was an
incident. My CFI neglected to instruct me to clear the
engine. (yes, I'm very inexperienced) As I set up pattern
over a field, and approached an emergency final, the
motor began to sputter and choke out. Blocking out all
else I continued to fly the plane in descent. Somehow
my CFI cleared the engine and I flew us out of there.
(yes I had on carb heat during descent)

So you see, I'm a newbee in the cockpit. But I have a
vast knowledge in other areas of aviation. And I have
flown tail draggers as well. ( i already told you, the J-3)

I'm in this group to learn, and discuss. Not be insulted.
You (if *you* aren't a phony) have far more experience
than I. On the other hand, I'm smarter than you are.(lol)
So we can help one another, and have a little fun too.

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 9:17*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 8:42*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 20, 7:15*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 20, 6:00*pm, wrote:
> >> >> >> george > wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sep 21, 3:44*am, wrote:
> >> >> >> >> george > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > I think the 'electric' powered aircraft is little more than a toy.
> >> >> >> >> > Seehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWoLsJz8J5U
>
> >> >> >> >> Compared to a real airplane, yes.
>
> >> >> >> >> There may be some niche applications, like unmanned surveillance, where they
> >> >> >> >> might be useful but they are terribly fragile.
>
> >> >> >> > And a range of 90 minutes....
> >> >> >> > That's barely enough to start a crosscountry.
> >> >> >> > If you want a fun machine that goes places cheaply
> >> >> >> > The Bantam B22 Microlight has a 4 hour range at 60+ knots.
>
> >> >> >> I was referring to the unmanned research things that stay up for days, mostly
> >> >> >> because they are little more than gliders covered with solar cells with an
> >> >> >> electric motor.
>
> >> >> > Correct. Those are aeronautical physics experiments.
>
> >> >> > They are unmanned to set records in duration and elevation.
>
> >> >> No they are unmanned because they would have to be many times bigger to
> >> >> carry the weight of a person.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Actually you could carry 2 or 3 people. They are unmanned to set
> >> > records in duration and elevation.
>
> >> Where would you put them, strapped across the wing?
>
> > Well, since there's sufficient lift to carry them, you would
> > design accomodations. But they didn't build them to carry
> > people. They were trying to set records in endurance and
> > elevation, within the criteria of the original mission statement
> > which sought to display it's applications in mapping, etc.
>
> Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.

Surrre they did, because obviously researchers cannot
find work, and no one really wanted to accomplish these
world records. LOL!

> They serve no other purpose.

It's called science. It works like building blocks. You
work your way up but not with little wooden squares,
but knowledge through discovery.

> As a UAV they are a dud.

I can't comment until further study. Form follows
function. This should tell you something.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 9:11Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 8:11Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>>
>> >> >> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.
>>
>> >> > Cite.
>>
>> >> Your last one.
>>
>> > See corroberrating link which proves otherwise.
>>
>> Gibberish.
>>
>> >> > Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
>> >> > to you?
>>
>> >> Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Ok. I'm listening.
>>
>> > You're saying an annual inspection of an antique plane
>> > can verifiably determine all inner structures, cables, pulleys
>> > (or push rods ) struts, etc. won't fail? (I'm not arguing here)
>>
>> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
>> plates just so you can inspect them.
>
> I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
> of where these access areas are.

Then why ask the question?

>> And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
>> subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
>> plates or some other method of inspection.
>
> See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.
>
> I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.

No Ercoupes fell out ot the sky before the AD to add inspection plates.

>> Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
>> the fabric.
>
> I already know that.

Then why ask the question?

> Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
> Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.

Bull****.

GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
stupid that exceeds design limits.

>> When tge fabric is replaced, the structure is (supposed to be) inspected for,
>> as appropriate, corrosion or rot. You did know many of those "antique"
>> airplanes have wood structures?
>
> Yes. New homebuilts have wood as well.
>
>> Also, there are high tech things like magnaflux inspection for starters.
>
> Ok, finally, you're telling me something I'm not familiar with.
>
>> Tell the truth; have you ever actually been on a GA airport?
>
> Come on Jim, stop being such an ass. I belong to a flight
> school.

Lord help us all.

> So you see, I'm a newbee in the cockpit

Obviuosly.

> vast knowledge in other areas of aviation. And I have

Not in evidence.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 9:17Â*pm, wrote:

>> Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.
>
> Surrre they did, because obviously researchers cannot
> find work, and no one really wanted to accomplish these
> world records. LOL!

Nope, as a matter of fact, you can't find work in research unless it is in
a politically correct area, or has a politically correct tie in these days.

Why do you think they hyped all the crap about hydrogen?

>> They serve no other purpose.
>
> It's called science. It works like building blocks. You
> work your way up but not with little wooden squares,
> but knowledge through discovery.

There was little to no science involved, just some engineering.

Bolt A to B, fly it, more study, i.e. money, needed.

>> As a UAV they are a dud.
>
> I can't comment until further study. Form follows
> function. This should tell you something.

Try looking at real, working UAV's.

They aren't electric.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 04:14:25 -0000, wrote:

>> Come on Jim, stop being such an ass. I belong to a flight
>> school.
>
> Lord help us all.

AAAAAAAAAAmen.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> I can't comment until further study. Form follows
> function. This should tell you something.

It tells me that you claims to be an "wealthy, accomplished abstract
artist" are as full of **** as you are.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 12:14*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 9:11*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 20, 8:11*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > No sir. That's just an opinion. May I have one?
>
> >> >> >> Sure, you can have a clueless opinion.
>
> >> >> > Cite.
>
> >> >> Your last one.
>
> >> > See corroberrating link which proves otherwise.
>
> >> Gibberish.
>
> >> >> > Does the phrase, "not visible to the naked eye" mean anything
> >> >> > to you?
>
> >> >> Maybe that's why things other than naked eye inspection are used.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Ok. I'm listening.
>
> >> > You're saying an annual inspection of an antique plane
> >> > can verifiably determine all inner structures, cables, pulleys
> >> > (or push rods ) struts, etc. won't fail? (I'm not arguing here)
>
> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>
> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
> > of where these access areas are.
>
> Then why ask the question?

That's different from understanding what may be hidden
on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.

> >> And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
> >> subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
> >> plates or some other method of inspection.
>
> > See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.
>
> > I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.
>
> No Ercoupes fell out ot the sky before the AD to add inspection plates.

I've not checked the accident statistics, but ok. And you're
willing to bank your life on inspection plates?

( A little aside here, I posed this same question one frosty morning
to my CFI during my preflight check. While doing the usual
check of control surfaces, their mobility and connections I
asked, "what about the stuff we can't see", and he said,
"during inspections use these access areas here". I asked,
"and what about the areas that aren't visible through those
holes?", and he replied, "Well, ya know, anyone that flys
has to take a chance and assume the rest is in good
condition." That was ok with me, and off I flew.)

> >> Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
> >> the fabric.
>
> > I already know that.
>
> Then why ask the question?

Frankly I was referring to the old metal planes, but I'm
glad you've mentioned this point. See, what it is, there have
been several people offer me good deals on some old
planes but I've shyed away, because they are old.

> > Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
> > Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.
>
> Bull****.

Whadda ya mean bull****? I may be a lot of things, but
a liar isn't one of them. One particular crash which comes
to mind was a businessman in Florida. So don't tell me
bulll**** unless you've read and memorized every single
Faa accident report. His plane broke up in mid-air. It was
some guy very popular.

> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
> stupid that exceeds design limits.

Or he bought a kit plane off someone, or he built it himself
and screwed up the epoxy, or...etc.

> >> When tge fabric is replaced, the structure is (supposed to be) inspected for,
> >> as appropriate, corrosion or rot. You did know many of those "antique"
> >> airplanes have wood structures?
>
> > Yes. New homebuilts have wood as well.
>
> >> Also, there are high tech things like magnaflux inspection for starters.
>
> > Ok, finally, you're telling me something I'm not familiar with.
>
> >> Tell the truth; have you ever actually been on a GA airport?
>
> > Come on Jim, stop being such an ass. I belong to a flight
> > school.
>
> Lord help us all.

Agreed.

> > So you see, I'm a newbee in the cockpit
>
> Obviuosly.

Hey, I'm not ashamed of that. You ( if you really fly) were
too once. We all gotta start somewhere. And for the record,
I get a lot of compliments on my flying.

I'm a natural.

> > vast knowledge in other areas of aviation. And I have
>
> Not in evidence.

Yes, once again I agree. We've not discussed these areas
here. But I've corrected you a time or two.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 12:19*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 9:17*pm, wrote:
> >> Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.
>
> > Surrre they did, because obviously researchers cannot
> > find work, and no one really wanted to accomplish these
> > world records. LOL!
>
> Nope, as a matter of fact, you can't find work in research unless it is in
> a politically correct area, or has a politically correct tie in these days.

Does the word, "medicine" mean anything to you?
Does the word, "military" mean anything to you?
Does the acronym "NASA" mean anything to you?

> Why do you think they hyped all the crap about hydrogen?

HELLO! Hydrogen will play a huge part of our future.
Or did my post on this application to turbine fans escape you?

Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_Fuel_Cell_Demonstrator_AB1.JPG

> >> They serve no other purpose.
>
> > It's called science. It works like building blocks. You
> > work your way up but not with little wooden squares,
> > but knowledge through discovery.
>
> There was little to no science involved, just some engineering.

Bull****

> Bolt A to B, fly it, more study, i.e. money, needed.

So cynical.

> >> As a UAV they are a dud.
>
> > I can't comment until further study. Form follows
> > function. This should tell you something.
>
> Try looking at real, working UAV's.

Know all about them. Apples and oranges here.
No one intends to put hellfire missles on them.

( awesome video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zg2A9M6QqY&feature=related

> They aren't electric.

a. electric: evolving technology
b. the military will use what works best when it's
available. then they will overpay to their friends.

I am one of them.

---
Mark

> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 12:19*am, wrote:

> Nope, as a matter of fact, you can't find work in research unless it is in
> a politically correct area, or has a politically correct tie in these days.
>
> Why do you think they hyped all the crap about hydrogen?

ITYM ethanol. You know, corn...Iowa...Iowa caucus...elections.

> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 12:54*am, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:51:36 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > I can't comment until further study. Form follows
> > function. This should tell you something.
>
> It tells me that you claims to be an "wealthy, accomplished abstract
> artist" are as full of **** as you are.
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

"WARNING: Using a fake name, Ari's premise is simple... "a lie is
as good as the truth if he can get someone to believe it." But
heed this warning; he has tried all of this before. Just look
back on the various newsgroups, and there he will be in all his
pathetic
ugliness. Yet, this time it is much worse. Out to undermine these
newsgroups to the point that seemingly he alone appears to be the
only authority on just about everything, and/or pretends he is trying
to
warn us of others, he not only fabricates all he says, but does much
of it
by stealing the identity of many others, including yours truly, as the
means
to this end (if a posting seems out of character or obscene, be sure
to
check the Headers - if it's from X-privat or Mixmin, it's a forged
post from
Ari)"

---

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 10:28*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 17:59:26 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Yesterday you called me stupid
>
> No no no it's been months now.
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 10:28*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:15:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Where do you put the luggage and dog?
>
> Under Tiger Boy's grave?
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

[Mark]

On Sep 20, 10:24*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:14:56 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > An airplane is an airplane.
>
> And you're a mindless moron.
>
> See we're bonding under truths.
> --
> A fireside chat not with Ari!http://tr.im/holj
> Motto: Live To Spooge It!

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 12:14Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 9:11Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 20, 8:11Â*pm, wrote:

>> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
>> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>>
>> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
>> > of where these access areas are.
>>
>> Then why ask the question?
>
> That's different from understanding what may be hidden
> on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.

That's what you pay a mechanic to look for.

>> >> And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
>> >> subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
>> >> plates or some other method of inspection.
>>
>> > See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.
>>
>> > I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.
>>
>> No Ercoupes fell out ot the sky before the AD to add inspection plates.
>
> I've not checked the accident statistics, but ok. And you're
> willing to bank your life on inspection plates?

Everyone that has ever flown in an aircraft is doing it.
>
> ( A little aside here, I posed this same question one frosty morning
> to my CFI during my preflight check. While doing the usual
> check of control surfaces, their mobility and connections I
> asked, "what about the stuff we can't see", and he said,
> "during inspections use these access areas here". I asked,
> "and what about the areas that aren't visible through those
> holes?", and he replied, "Well, ya know, anyone that flys
> has to take a chance and assume the rest is in good
> condition." That was ok with me, and off I flew.)

That was simplified crap to shut you up.

>> >> Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
>> >> the fabric.
>>
>> > I already know that.
>>
>> Then why ask the question?
>
> Frankly I was referring to the old metal planes, but I'm
> glad you've mentioned this point. See, what it is, there have
> been several people offer me good deals on some old
> planes but I've shyed away, because they are old.
>
>> > Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
>> > Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.
>>
>> Bull****.
>
> Whadda ya mean bull****? I may be a lot of things, but
> a liar isn't one of them. One particular crash which comes
> to mind was a businessman in Florida. So don't tell me
> bulll**** unless you've read and memorized every single
> Faa accident report. His plane broke up in mid-air. It was
> some guy very popular.

Arm waving nonsense.

GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
stupid that exceeds design limits.

>> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
>> stupid that exceeds design limits.
>
> Or he bought a kit plane off someone, or he built it himself
> and screwed up the epoxy, or...etc.

Most likely the pilot does something really stupid that exceeds design limits.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 12:19Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 20, 9:17Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> Nope, they built them to keep researchers employed.
>>
>> > Surrre they did, because obviously researchers cannot
>> > find work, and no one really wanted to accomplish these
>> > world records. LOL!
>>
>> Nope, as a matter of fact, you can't find work in research unless it is in
>> a politically correct area, or has a politically correct tie in these days.
>
> Does the word, "medicine" mean anything to you?
> Does the word, "military" mean anything to you?
> Does the acronym "NASA" mean anything to you?

Both NASA and military research spending are way down and have been that
way for a decade or so.

>> Why do you think they hyped all the crap about hydrogen?
>
> HELLO! Hydrogen will play a huge part of our future.
> Or did my post on this application to turbine fans escape you?

Nonsense.

Hydrogen has far too many practical problems to ever be useful as a general
purpose fuel like diesel even if you could get the cost down to something
realistic.

> Also,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boeing_Fuel_Cell_Demonstrator_AB1.JPG
>
>> >> They serve no other purpose.
>>
>> > It's called science. It works like building blocks. You
>> > work your way up but not with little wooden squares,
>> > but knowledge through discovery.
>>
>> There was little to no science involved, just some engineering.
>
> Bull****

If there was science involved, then some new basic principal must have been
discovered. What was it?

Or is it that you don't believe in engineering?

>> Bolt A to B, fly it, more study, i.e. money, needed.
>
> So cynical.

So true.

>> >> As a UAV they are a dud.
>>
>> > I can't comment until further study. Form follows
>> > function. This should tell you something.
>>
>> Try looking at real, working UAV's.
>
> Know all about them. Apples and oranges here.
> No one intends to put hellfire missles on them.

The vast majority of UAV aren't armed, so I guess you don't really "Know
all about them."

> a. electric: evolving technology

A very mature technology.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 1:37*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 12:14*am, wrote:

> >> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
> >> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>
> >> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
> >> > of where these access areas are.
>
> >> Then why ask the question?
>
> > That's different from understanding what may be hidden
> > on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.
>
> That's what you pay a mechanic to look for.

> --
> Jim Pennino

I keep hearing about this with regard to old planes:

Aluminum corrosion.(under paint)

"Aluminum, however, is readily corroded when in contact with most
metals in a moist atmosphere due to its highly negative potential.
This type of corrosion is caused by a galvanic action in which the
moisture, acting as an electrolyte, causes current to flow through the
contact of the two metals while an electron transfer causes the
aluminum to go into solution."

http://www.dossert.com/technicalinfo/aluminum.htm

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 1:37*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 12:14*am, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 20, 9:11*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 20, 8:11*pm, wrote:
> >> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
> >> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>
> >> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
> >> > of where these access areas are.
>
> >> Then why ask the question?
>
> > That's different from understanding what may be hidden
> > on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.
>
> That's what you pay a mechanic to look for.

I'll study up on this in depth and find out to what
extent an older model can be examined.

> >> >> And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
> >> >> subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
> >> >> plates or some other method of inspection.
>
> >> > See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.
>
> >> > I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.
>
> >> No Ercoupes fell out ot the sky before the AD to add inspection plates..
>
> > I've not checked the accident statistics, but ok. And you're
> > willing to bank your life on inspection plates?
>
> Everyone that has ever flown in an aircraft is doing it.

You're oversimplifying I'm sure. Yes good for the annual.
But for a prepurchase...I'll need a "fine tooth comb".

> > ( A little aside here, I posed this same question one frosty morning
> > *to my CFI during my preflight check. While doing the usual
> > *check of control surfaces, their mobility and connections I
> > *asked, "what about the stuff we can't see", and he said,
> > *"during inspections use these access areas here". *I asked,
> > * "and what about the areas that aren't visible through those
> > * *holes?", *and he replied, "Well, ya know, anyone that flys
> > * *has to take a chance and assume the rest is in good
> > * *condition." *That was ok with me, and off I flew.)
>
> That was simplified crap to shut you up.

Yes. You're probably right.

They fired his ass a few weeks later. Bad attitude.

>
>
> >> >> Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
> >> >> the fabric.
>
> >> > I already know that.
>
> >> Then why ask the question?
>
> > Frankly I was referring to the old metal planes, but I'm
> > glad you've mentioned this point. See, what it is, there have
> > been several people offer me good deals on some old
> > planes but I've shyed away, because they are old.
>
> >> > Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
> >> > Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.
>
> >> Bull****.
>
> > Whadda ya mean bull****? *I may be a lot of things, but
> > a liar isn't one of them. *One particular crash which comes
> > to mind was a businessman in Florida. *So don't tell me
> > bulll**** unless you've read and memorized every single
> > Faa accident report. His plane broke up in mid-air. It was
> > some guy very popular.
>
> Arm waving nonsense.

Just stating the facts. Shouldn't be too hard to find.
It's been within the last few years.

> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
> stupid that exceeds design limits.

ITYM GA airplanes that aren't compromised.

> >> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
> >> stupid that exceeds design limits.
>
> > Or he bought a kit plane off someone, or he built it himself
> > and screwed up the epoxy, or...etc.
>
> Most likely the pilot does something really stupid that exceeds design limits.

Since stupidity is more prevalent than compromised structures,
as a percentage, yes. Now, let's narrow that category down
to old planes people are trying to get rid of. Planes that have
been sitting neglected. Planes that haven't been hangered.
Planes that have painted over corrosion.

These are all the "bargain" planes. The ones that are for sale
because the owner "needs hanger space due to new project".

---
Mark


> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:37Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 21, 12:14Â*am, wrote:
>
>> >> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
>> >> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>>
>> >> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
>> >> > of where these access areas are.
>>
>> >> Then why ask the question?
>>
>> > That's different from understanding what may be hidden
>> > on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.
>>
>> That's what you pay a mechanic to look for.
>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> I keep hearing about this with regard to old planes:
>
> Aluminum corrosion.(under paint)
>
> "Aluminum, however, is readily corroded when in contact with most
> metals in a moist atmosphere due to its highly negative potential.
> This type of corrosion is caused by a galvanic action in which the
> moisture, acting as an electrolyte, causes current to flow through the
> contact of the two metals while an electron transfer causes the
> aluminum to go into solution."

Maybe you need to read some more, like how you can tell there is corrosion
under the paint and maybe why there is very little aluminum to another
metal contact in airplane construction.

And, once again, that's what you pay a mechanic to look for.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 11:53:46 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> I'll study up on this in depth and find out to what
> extent an older model can be examined.

Do that, take a day, a week, a year, the remainder of yor life. Get
back to us when you're stone cold dead.

Like the cat you admitted shooting, Tiger Boy.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:37Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 21, 12:14Â*am, wrote:
>> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> > On Sep 20, 9:11Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> Mark > wrote:
>> >> >> > On Sep 20, 8:11Â*pm, wrote:
>> >> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
>> >> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>>
>> >> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
>> >> > of where these access areas are.
>>
>> >> Then why ask the question?
>>
>> > That's different from understanding what may be hidden
>> > on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.
>>
>> That's what you pay a mechanic to look for.
>
> I'll study up on this in depth and find out to what
> extent an older model can be examined.

Typically, all of it.

You have heard of mirrors and borescopes?

FYI, one of the hardest places to get at in older airplanes is usually the
wing spar stuff on low wings.

>> >> >> And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
>> >> >> subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
>> >> >> plates or some other method of inspection.
>>
>> >> > See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.
>>
>> >> > I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.
>>
>> >> No Ercoupes fell out ot the sky before the AD to add inspection plates.
>>
>> > I've not checked the accident statistics, but ok. And you're
>> > willing to bank your life on inspection plates?
>>
>> Everyone that has ever flown in an aircraft is doing it.
>
> You're oversimplifying I'm sure. Yes good for the annual.
> But for a prepurchase...I'll need a "fine tooth comb".

And so does anyone with the slightest amount of common sense.

That's what you pay a mechanic to do.

>> > ( A little aside here, I posed this same question one frosty morning
>> > Â*to my CFI during my preflight check. While doing the usual
>> > Â*check of control surfaces, their mobility and connections I
>> > Â*asked, "what about the stuff we can't see", and he said,
>> > Â*"during inspections use these access areas here". Â*I asked,
>> > Â* "and what about the areas that aren't visible through those
>> > Â* Â*holes?", Â*and he replied, "Well, ya know, anyone that flys
>> > Â* Â*has to take a chance and assume the rest is in good
>> > Â* Â*condition." Â*That was ok with me, and off I flew.)
>>
>> That was simplified crap to shut you up.
>
> Yes. You're probably right.
>
> They fired his ass a few weeks later. Bad attitude.
>
>>
>>
>> >> >> Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
>> >> >> the fabric.
>>
>> >> > I already know that.
>>
>> >> Then why ask the question?
>>
>> > Frankly I was referring to the old metal planes, but I'm
>> > glad you've mentioned this point. See, what it is, there have
>> > been several people offer me good deals on some old
>> > planes but I've shyed away, because they are old.
>>
>> >> > Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
>> >> > Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.
>>
>> >> Bull****.
>>
>> > Whadda ya mean bull****? Â*I may be a lot of things, but
>> > a liar isn't one of them. Â*One particular crash which comes
>> > to mind was a businessman in Florida. Â*So don't tell me
>> > bulll**** unless you've read and memorized every single
>> > Faa accident report. His plane broke up in mid-air. It was
>> > some guy very popular.
>>
>> Arm waving nonsense.
>
> Just stating the facts. Shouldn't be too hard to find.
> It's been within the last few years.

Well, since one of the major aviation magazines ran an article about
in flight breakup a while back which came to the conclusion that such
doesn't happen unless the pilot does something stupid to over stress the
airplane, good luck to you.

>> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
>> stupid that exceeds design limits.
>
> ITYM GA airplanes that aren't compromised.
>
>> >> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
>> >> stupid that exceeds design limits.
>>
>> > Or he bought a kit plane off someone, or he built it himself
>> > and screwed up the epoxy, or...etc.
>>
>> Most likely the pilot does something really stupid that exceeds design limits.
>
> Since stupidity is more prevalent than compromised structures,
> as a percentage, yes. Now, let's narrow that category down
> to old planes people are trying to get rid of. Planes that have
> been sitting neglected. Planes that haven't been hangered.
> Planes that have painted over corrosion.

That's what you pay a mechanic to find.

It is called a prebuy inspection.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 3:05*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:

"Using a fake name, Ari's premise is simple... "a lie is
as good as the truth if he can get someone to believe it." But
heed this warning; he has tried all of this before. Just look
back on the various newsgroups, and there he will be in all his
pathetic ugliness."

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 3:00*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 1:37*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 21, 12:14*am, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
> >> >> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>
> >> >> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
> >> >> > of where these access areas are.
>
> >> >> Then why ask the question?
>
> >> > That's different from understanding what may be hidden
> >> > on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.
>
> >> That's what you pay a mechanic to look for.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > I keep hearing about this with regard to old planes:
>
> > Aluminum corrosion.(under paint)
>
> > "Aluminum, however, is readily corroded when in contact with most
> > metals in a moist atmosphere due to its highly negative potential.
> > This type of corrosion is caused by a galvanic action in which the
> > moisture, acting as an electrolyte, causes current to flow through the
> > contact of the two metals while an electron transfer causes the
> > aluminum to go into solution."
>
> Maybe you need to read some more, like how you can tell there is corrosion
> under the paint

Well, sure. I was only chatting here. Didn't claim to be an
expert. I know the paint may bubble. But worse would be
a hairline fracture within, or compromised rivets.

>and maybe why there is very little aluminum to another
> metal contact in airplane construction.

That was a hastily referenced link. I noticed after the fact
it was discussing contact with another metal. That isn't
a concern of mine. ( remember, I worked at Lockheed )

> And, once again, that's what you pay a mechanic to look for.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 3:13*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 1:37*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 21, 12:14*am, wrote:
> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> > On Sep 20, 9:11*pm, wrote:
> >> >> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Sep 20, 8:11*pm, wrote:
> >> >> >> Well, for starters, things like cables and pulleys have to have inspection
> >> >> >> plates just so you can inspect them.
>
> >> >> > I realize this. I fly Cessna airplanes, and am well aware
> >> >> > of where these access areas are.
>
> >> >> Then why ask the question?
>
> >> > That's different from understanding what may be hidden
> >> > on an old metal plane I'm not familiar with.
>
> >> That's what you pay a mechanic to look for.
>
> > I'll study up on this in depth and find out to what
> > extent an older model can be examined.
>
> Typically, all of it.
>
> You have heard of mirrors and borescopes?
>
> FYI, one of the hardest places to get at in older airplanes is usually the
> wing spar stuff on low wings.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> And in the cases where there is no inspection plate and "something bad" is
> >> >> >> subsequently discovered, there is usually an AD issued to add inspection
> >> >> >> plates or some other method of inspection.
>
> >> >> > See, that doesn't help when I'm dead.
>
> >> >> > I'm thinking about the Ercoupe here, as an example.
>
> >> >> No Ercoupes fell out ot the sky before the AD to add inspection plates.
>
> >> > I've not checked the accident statistics, but ok. And you're
> >> > willing to bank your life on inspection plates?
>
> >> Everyone that has ever flown in an aircraft is doing it.
>
> > You're oversimplifying I'm sure. Yes good for the annual.
> > But for a prepurchase...I'll need a "fine tooth comb".
>
> And so does anyone with the slightest amount of common sense.
>
> That's what you pay a mechanic to do.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > ( A little aside here, I posed this same question one frosty morning
> >> > *to my CFI during my preflight check. While doing the usual
> >> > *check of control surfaces, their mobility and connections I
> >> > *asked, "what about the stuff we can't see", and he said,
> >> > *"during inspections use these access areas here". *I asked,
> >> > * "and what about the areas that aren't visible through those
> >> > * *holes?", *and he replied, "Well, ya know, anyone that flys
> >> > * *has to take a chance and assume the rest is in good
> >> > * *condition." *That was ok with me, and off I flew.)
>
> >> That was simplified crap to shut you up.
>
> > Yes. You're probably right.
>
> > They fired his ass a few weeks later. Bad attitude.
>
> >> >> >> Fabric airplanes have limited fabric life and tests for the integrity of
> >> >> >> the fabric.
>
> >> >> > I already know that.
>
> >> >> Then why ask the question?
>
> >> > Frankly I was referring to the old metal planes, but I'm
> >> > glad you've mentioned this point. See, what it is, there have
> >> > been several people offer me good deals on some old
> >> > planes but I've shyed away, because they are old.
>
> >> >> > Look, I've read newsclips of planes breaking apart with fatalities.
> >> >> > Rotting fabric isn't what I had in mind.
>
> >> >> Bull****.
>
> >> > Whadda ya mean bull****? *I may be a lot of things, but
> >> > a liar isn't one of them. *One particular crash which comes
> >> > to mind was a businessman in Florida. *So don't tell me
> >> > bulll**** unless you've read and memorized every single
> >> > Faa accident report. His plane broke up in mid-air. It was
> >> > some guy very popular.
>
> >> Arm waving nonsense.
>
> > Just stating the facts. Shouldn't be too hard to find.
> > It's been within the last few years.
>
> Well, since one of the major aviation magazines ran an article about
> in flight breakup a while back which came to the conclusion that such
> doesn't happen unless the pilot does something stupid to over stress the
> airplane, good luck to you.

Oh, I'm not worried about it. They'll plant you
before they plant me.

> >> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
> >> stupid that exceeds design limits.
>
> > ITYM GA airplanes that aren't compromised.
>
> >> >> GA airplanes don't break apart unless the pilot does something really
> >> >> stupid that exceeds design limits.
>
> >> > Or he bought a kit plane off someone, or he built it himself
> >> > and screwed up the epoxy, or...etc.
>
> >> Most likely the pilot does something really stupid that exceeds design limits.
>
> > Since stupidity is more prevalent than compromised structures,
> > as a percentage, yes. *Now, let's narrow that category down
> > to old planes people are trying to get rid of. Planes that have
> > been sitting neglected. Planes that haven't been hangered.
> > Planes that have painted over corrosion.
>
> That's what you pay a mechanic to find.
>
> It is called a prebuy inspection.

No **** Sherlock.

I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
check their work. Period.

> --
> Jim Pennino

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:

> I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
> check their work. Period.

Like a prostate exam?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 3:13*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:

> You have heard of mirrors and borescopes?

Yes, I collect all their albums.

> FYI, one of the hardest places to get at in older airplanes is usually the
> wing spar stuff on low wings.

Noted.

> --
> Jim Pennino

[george]

On Sep 22, 7:44*am, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
> > check their work. Period.
>
> Like a prostate exam?
>
I was thinking the same :)
I'm coming to the conclusion that he's not a pilot and is actually
terrified of aeroplanes

[[email protected]]

george > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 7:44Â*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
>> > check their work. Period.
>>
>> Like a prostate exam?
>>
> I was thinking the same :)
> I'm coming to the conclusion that he's not a pilot and is actually
> terrified of aeroplanes

I get the feeling he is a student pilot that thinks he knows a lot more
than he actually does, i.e. he has little depth to his knowledge.

Hence a lot of posts that are close to accurate but no cigar.

Also he is a wild eyed dreamer, which is OK if you are very young, but just
makes one look naive if over 30.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 3:44*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
> > check their work. Period.
>
> Like a prostate exam?
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Boroscope.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 4:37*pm, george > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 7:44*am, wrote:> Mark > wrote:
> > > I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
> > > check their work. Period.
>
> > Like a prostate exam?
>
> I was thinking the same :)
> I'm coming to the conclusion that he's not a pilot and is actually
> terrified of aeroplanes

Well, I enjoy the thrill and relaxation of flying,
but I'm terrified of blowing 50 grand on a lawn
ornament. It'd prolly be an aviation fatality.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:07*pm, wrote:
> george > wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 7:44*am, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
> >> > check their work. Period.
>
> >> Like a prostate exam?
>
> > I was thinking the same :)
> > I'm coming to the conclusion that he's not a pilot and is actually
> > terrified of aeroplanes
>
> I get the feeling he is a student pilot that thinks he knows a lot more
> than he actually does, i.e. he has little depth to his knowledge.

No, I know what I do not know.

> Hence a lot of posts that are close to accurate but no cigar.

No, you can't differentiate between opinion and fact.

> Also he is a wild eyed dreamer, which is OK if you are very young, but just
> makes one look naive if over 30.

No, you just don't see beyond today, which makes you look
crotchety at any age.

> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:44:07 -0000, wrote:

> Mark > wrote:
>
>> I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
>> check their work. Period.
>
> Like a prostate exam?

He is anal.
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:44*pm, Ari Silverstein > wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 19:44:07 -0000, wrote:
> > Mark > wrote:
>
> >> I don't...

"Others are simply waiting and hopefully for a time when it is
safe to rejoin the various groups. Yet, to Ari, it doesn't matter...
he
simply continues to post and adds threads using the identities
of these others, saying and implying things that they would
never actually say."

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

[Mikey Lissack]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:37:53 -0700 (PDT), george wrote:

> On Sep 22, 7:44*am, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>>> I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
>>> check their work. Period.
>>
>> Like a prostate exam?
>>
> I was thinking the same :)
> I'm coming to the conclusion that he's not a pilot and is actually
> terrified of aeroplanes

There is no way he has a PPL that has been exposed here and on other
forums. He couldn't pass the medical because he has a self-admitted
history of bipolar depression and suicide. The drugs he admits to
taking alone would kick him out of a PPL qualifier.

When it was exposed that he was ready to lie to the FAA, he went all
ape**** so to get some kind of credibility, he pays to be flown around
translates that to his BS here.

Mark has been "buying an airplane" since 2006 for the "landing field
he is building on his estate." "Mark" which is not his real name lives
in a trailer out in the woods of eastern S.C and claims to have
installed his own "geostation" for Internet access.

Let me be perfectly clear. "Mark" is a troll, a complete whackjob, a
pathological liar with a advanced case of Münchausen Syndrome.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 14:17:48 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Well, I enjoy the thrill and relaxation of flying,
> but I'm terrified of blowing 50 grand on a lawn
> ornament

But, but you said "$500,000, that's not alot of money" only a month
ago.lol
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 3:44Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
>> > check their work. Period.
>>
>> Like a prostate exam?
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.
>
> Boroscope.

Once again close, but no cigar.

A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:55*pm, Mikey Lissack > wrote:

Ari TROLL LIAR

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

" ...he not only fabricates all he says,.."

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:56*pm, wrote:

> > Boroscope.
>
> Once again close, but no cigar.
>
> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
anal sphincter and what people stick up it.

Noted.

---

Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:55*pm, Mikey Lissack > wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:37:53 -0700 (PDT), george wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 7:44*am, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >>> I don't let anyone do anything for me that I cannot
> >>> check their work. Period.
>
> >> Like a prostate exam?
>
> > I was thinking the same :)
> > I'm coming to the conclusion that he's not a pilot and is actually
> > terrified of aeroplanes
>
> There is no way he...

<snip lies>

"WARNING: Using a fake name, Ari's premise is simple... "a lie is
as good as the truth if he can get someone to believe it." But
heed this warning; he has tried all of this before. Just look
back on the various newsgroups, and there he will be in all his
pathetic ugliness."

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 5:56Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> > Boroscope.
>>
>> Once again close, but no cigar.
>>
>> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
> anal sphincter and what people stick up it.

In other words, you are too young to have ever had one; what a surprise.

Either that or too poor to afford to get a physical.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 7:36*pm, wrote:

> >> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
> > anal sphincter and what people stick up it.
>
> In other words, you are too young to have ever had one; what a surprise.
>
> Either that or too poor to afford to get a physical.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

So...are these now "facts"?

LOL!

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 7:36Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> >> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
>> > anal sphincter and what people stick up it.
>>
>> In other words, you are too young to have ever had one; what a surprise.
>>
>> Either that or too poor to afford to get a physical.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> So...are these now "facts"?

You have no clue what is involved in a prostate exam, so obviously you've
never had one.

There can only be three reasons not to have had one:

1) Too young.

2) Old enough but too poor to afford an $80 physical.

3) Old enough but too blazingly stupid to get a physical.

Which is it?

Of course the other alternative is you are just a babbling troll.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 8:27*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 7:36*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
> >> > anal sphincter and what people stick up it.
>
> >> In other words, you are too young to have ever had one; what a surprise.
>
> >> Either that or too poor to afford to get a physical.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > So...are these now "facts"?
>
> You have no clue what is involved in a prostate exam, so obviously you've
> never had one.
>
> There can only be three reasons not to have had one:
>
> 1) Too young.
>
> 2) Old enough but too poor to afford an $80 physical.
>
> 3) Old enough but too blazingly stupid to get a physical.
>
> Which is it?
>
> Of course the other alternative is you are just a babbling troll.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

And you've constructed all this conjecture about me
due to my writing one silly word, "boroscope", on the heels of
a preceeding silly post wherein I joked about boroscope
being half of a musical band?

By the same logic, shouldn't you be inquiring about this
"mirrors and boroscope" musical group?

Wouldn't it be equal logic for me to question you about
your assertion that you fly a tiger? Everyone knows that
a 4 legged predatory feline doesn't accept passengers.

Therefore the only conclusion is:

1) You have zoo animal fantasies.

2) You take LSD before usenet posting

3) You're schizophrenic

4) You are Ari Silverstein

Which is it?

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:27Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 21, 7:36Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> >> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> >> > I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
>> >> > anal sphincter and what people stick up it.
>>
>> >> In other words, you are too young to have ever had one; what a surprise.
>>
>> >> Either that or too poor to afford to get a physical.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > So...are these now "facts"?
>>
>> You have no clue what is involved in a prostate exam, so obviously you've
>> never had one.
>>
>> There can only be three reasons not to have had one:
>>
>> 1) Too young.
>>
>> 2) Old enough but too poor to afford an $80 physical.
>>
>> 3) Old enough but too blazingly stupid to get a physical.
>>
>> Which is it?
>>
>> Of course the other alternative is you are just a babbling troll.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> And you've constructed all this conjecture about me
> due to my writing one silly word, "boroscope", on the heels of
> a preceeding silly post wherein I joked about boroscope
> being half of a musical band?
>
> By the same logic, shouldn't you be inquiring about this
> "mirrors and boroscope" musical group?
>
> Wouldn't it be equal logic for me to question you about
> your assertion that you fly a tiger? Everyone knows that
> a 4 legged predatory feline doesn't accept passengers.
>
> Therefore the only conclusion is:
>
> 1) You have zoo animal fantasies.
>
> 2) You take LSD before usenet posting
>
> 3) You're schizophrenic
>
> 4) You are Ari Silverstein
>
> Which is it?
>

Number 3, you are just a babbling troll.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 11:00*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 8:27*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 21, 7:36*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> > I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
> >> >> > anal sphincter and what people stick up it.
>
> >> >> In other words, you are too young to have ever had one; what a surprise.
>
> >> >> Either that or too poor to afford to get a physical.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > So...are these now "facts"?
>
> >> You have no clue what is involved in a prostate exam, so obviously you've
> >> never had one.
>
> >> There can only be three reasons not to have had one:
>
> >> 1) Too young.
>
> >> 2) Old enough but too poor to afford an $80 physical.
>
> >> 3) Old enough but too blazingly stupid to get a physical.
>
> >> Which is it?
>
> >> Of course the other alternative is you are just a babbling troll.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > And you've constructed all this conjecture about me
> > due to my writing one silly word, "boroscope", on the heels of
> > a preceeding silly post wherein I joked about boroscope
> > being half of a musical band?
>
> > By the same logic, shouldn't you be inquiring about this
> > "mirrors and boroscope" musical group?
>
> > Wouldn't it be equal logic for me to question you about
> > your assertion that you fly a tiger? *Everyone knows that
> > a 4 legged predatory feline doesn't accept passengers.
>
> > Therefore the only conclusion is:
>
> > 1) *You have zoo animal fantasies.
>
> > 2) *You take LSD before usenet posting
>
> > 3) *You're schizophrenic
>
> > 4) *You are Ari Silverstein
>
> > Which is it?
>
> Number 3,

Wrong. You are not schizophrenic.

> you are just a babbling troll.

Based on your use of the word babble as evidenced
in recent threads, the definition can only mean:

Babble: 1) to inform, to describe scenerios and technologies,
or to accurately counterpoint assertions and opinions
said to be facts.

2) any point of logic Jim cannot counterpoint

Furthermore, trolls primarily cross-post. Troll cannot stand upon
their words. Trolls are driven to garner the largest audience
possible. This is just you and me, and your desperate effort
to objectify me, to label me. Objectification is a specific
type of hate. To objectify is to dismiss reality.

---
Mark


---
> Jim Pennino

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:07*pm, wrote:

> I get the feeling he is a student pilot that thinks he knows a lot more
> than he actually does, i.e. he has little depth to his knowledge.

> --
> Jim Pennino

Yes, you are absolutely correct here, and I cannot deny
the truth. It's true...you have that feeling.

Now, let's talk about aviation, shall we?

While studying for my certification, I and you had to learn
the basics. Call it aviation 101 if you will. One of the essential
tools all pilots carry in their "bag of tricks" is interpolation.
You must know interpolation like the back of your hand.
Right?

So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.

Given a mean sea level designated as A,
if a distance of 1,173 ft is required for a
plane to take off when the temperature is
73 degrees F, and 1,356 ft when the temp.
is 86 degrees F, then what distance is required
when the temp. is 79.5 degrees, and given
a different elevation (B) in which a distance of
1,173 ft. is required for takeoff when the temp.
is 70 degrees F, and 1,356 ft.when the temp.
is 80 degrees, then at 75 degrees, what is
the difference in takeoff distance between
the two elevations?

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 11:00*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 8:27*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 21, 7:36*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> >> A prostate exam is not a visual inspection.
>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> >> > I must defer to your greater knowledge of the human
> >> >> > anal sphincter and what people stick up it.
>
> >> >> In other words, you are too young to have ever had one; what a surprise.
>
> >> >> Either that or too poor to afford to get a physical.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > So...are these now "facts"?
>
> >> You have no clue what is involved in a prostate exam, so obviously you've
> >> never had one.
>
> >> There can only be three reasons not to have had one:
>
> >> 1) Too young.
>
> >> 2) Old enough but too poor to afford an $80 physical.
>
> >> 3) Old enough but too blazingly stupid to get a physical.
>
> >> Which is it?
>
> >> Of course the other alternative is you are just a babbling troll.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > And you've constructed all this conjecture about me
> > due to my writing one silly word, "boroscope", on the heels of
> > a preceeding silly post wherein I joked about boroscope
> > being half of a musical band?
>
> > By the same logic, shouldn't you be inquiring about this
> > "mirrors and boroscope" musical group?
>
> > Wouldn't it be equal logic for me to question you about
> > your assertion that you fly a tiger? *Everyone knows that
> > a 4 legged predatory feline doesn't accept passengers.
>
> > Therefore the only conclusion is:
>
> > 1) *You have zoo animal fantasies.
>
> > 2) *You take LSD before usenet posting
>
> > 3) *You're schizophrenic
>
> > 4) *You are Ari Silverstein
>
> > Which is it?
>
> Number 3, you are just a babbling troll.

So then, you maintain your current positon that
you've accuately determined my age, income
level, and I.Q. by my utterance of one word in
a humor setting?

Are you able to determine the age, income level,
and I.Q. of other people when they say just one
word?

Shouldn't this "gift" enable you to become a
billionaire?

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Sep 21, 5:55*pm, Mikey Lissack aka/Ari trolled:

> he has a self-admitted history of suicide.

<snip>

Yes, I've killed myself dozens of times.

I'm now a ghost writer.

----

Ari, usenet liar/maggot:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 5:07Â*pm, wrote:
>
>> I get the feeling he is a student pilot that thinks he knows a lot more
>> than he actually does, i.e. he has little depth to his knowledge.
>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>
> Yes, you are absolutely correct here, and I cannot deny
> the truth. It's true...you have that feeling.
>
> Now, let's talk about aviation, shall we?
>
> While studying for my certification, I and you had to learn
> the basics. Call it aviation 101 if you will. One of the essential
> tools all pilots carry in their "bag of tricks" is interpolation.
> You must know interpolation like the back of your hand.
> Right?
>
> So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
> you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.
>
> Given a mean sea level designated as A,

The answer is you don't understand what "mean sea level" means.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 12:42*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 5:07*pm, wrote:
>
> >> I get the feeling he is a student pilot that thinks he knows a lot more
> >> than he actually does, i.e. he has little depth to his knowledge.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> > Yes, you are absolutely correct here, and I cannot deny
> > the truth. It's true...you have that feeling.
>
> > Now, let's talk about aviation, shall we?
>
> > While studying for my certification, I and you had to learn
> > the basics. Call it aviation 101 if you will. One of the essential
> > tools all pilots carry in their "bag of tricks" is interpolation.
> > You must know interpolation like the back of your hand.
> > Right?
>
> > So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
> > you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.
>
> > Given a mean sea level designated as A,
>
> The answer is you don't understand what "mean sea level" means.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ok, substitute the word "Elevation" then. Surely you
can do that baby problem in your head. I thought it
up without paper. If it isn't easy for you, then you're
at risk for running out of runway on your roll when
visiting unfamiliar airstrips.

---
Mark

[[email protected]]

Mark > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 12:42Â*pm, wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>> > On Sep 21, 5:07Â*pm, wrote:
>>
>> >> I get the feeling he is a student pilot that thinks he knows a lot more
>> >> than he actually does, i.e. he has little depth to his knowledge.
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Jim Pennino
>>
>> > Yes, you are absolutely correct here, and I cannot deny
>> > the truth. It's true...you have that feeling.
>>
>> > Now, let's talk about aviation, shall we?
>>
>> > While studying for my certification, I and you had to learn
>> > the basics. Call it aviation 101 if you will. One of the essential
>> > tools all pilots carry in their "bag of tricks" is interpolation.
>> > You must know interpolation like the back of your hand.
>> > Right?
>>
>> > So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
>> > you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.
>>
>> > Given a mean sea level designated as A,
>>
>> The answer is you don't understand what "mean sea level" means.
>>
>> --
>> Jim Pennino
>>
>> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ok, substitute the word "Elevation" then. Surely you
> can do that baby problem in your head. I thought it
> up without paper. If it isn't easy for you, then you're
> at risk for running out of runway on your roll when
> visiting unfamiliar airstrips.

Troll.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 1:24*pm, wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > On Sep 22, 12:42*pm, wrote:
> >> Mark > wrote:
> >> > On Sep 21, 5:07*pm, wrote:
>
> >> >> I get the feeling he is a student pilot that thinks he knows a lot more
> >> >> than he actually does, i.e. he has little depth to his knowledge.
>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> > Yes, you are absolutely correct here, and I cannot deny
> >> > the truth. It's true...you have that feeling.
>
> >> > Now, let's talk about aviation, shall we?
>
> >> > While studying for my certification, I and you had to learn
> >> > the basics. Call it aviation 101 if you will. One of the essential
> >> > tools all pilots carry in their "bag of tricks" is interpolation.
> >> > You must know interpolation like the back of your hand.
> >> > Right?
>
> >> > So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
> >> > you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.
>
> >> > Given a mean sea level designated as A,
>
> >> The answer is you don't understand what "mean sea level" means.
>
> >> --
> >> Jim Pennino
>
> >> Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Ok, substitute the word "Elevation" then. Surely you
> > can do that baby problem in your head. I thought it
> > up without paper. *If it isn't easy for you, then you're
> > at risk for running out of runway on your roll when
> > visiting unfamiliar airstrips.
>
> Troll.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino

And by saying "troll", we will all take that to mean...

"No Mark, I cannot figure out the answer to your simple
math problem, and no, I cannot calculate roll-out distances
at different elevatons. Basically, I just fly by the seat of my
pants and hope nobody gets killed".

---
Mark
"Nobody can modify a LSA!" - Jim Perrino
"Anybody can modify an LSA" - Federal Aviation Administration

[Ari Silverstein]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:24:03 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Now tell me, how many retards riding around on
> their bicycles at the airport, listening to imaginary
> control towers do you know?

Oh, say, the 70,000 that attended your fictional Led Zeppelin concert?
*LOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[george]

He gives a new meaning to density altitude by not naming it

[Mark]

On Sep 22, 4:44*pm, Ari the TROLL/maggot < wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:24:03 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Now tell me, how many retards riding around on
> > their bicycles at the airport, listening to imaginary
> > control towers do you know?
>
> Oh, say, the 70,000 that attended your fictional Led Zeppelin concert?
> *LOL*
> --


http://www.ledzeppelin.com/venue/atlanta-stadium

-----------------------

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

Ari Silverstein: The troll who went amuck

[...]

"Now we all know that this post and information will simply be
met with more lies, negative comments and innuendos by Ari,
staying true to form, with him possibly tying to add clout by
again taking on the identity of some of the other regulars. As
to his bashing of me personally (which in this case will be a
forgone conclusion) one only needs to look to the source. He
hasn't been accurate yet in anything he has said, so it is of
little consequence what he tries to makes up in this reference.
Nothing has changed on my end at all, but seemingly this is not
the case with some of the services he claims as leverage in his
dealings. Even they have a problem claiming something that he is
not, and using foul language to boot. What can be done in the
meantime until such antics can be stopped? On our part, that
answer is simple. Totally ignore everything Ari does and says,
don't believe a word of what he tells anyone, be suspicious of
others actually backing and endorsing such behavior (it is
probably just him anyway), and let's simply go about business as
before - minus Ari."

Smooth sailing to all...
John Sisker

---
And smooth sailing to you John.

Mark
..

[Mark]

On Sep 18, 2:40*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Mark > wrote:
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>
> Explode, not implode. Unless it is an underwater submersible?

LPL flying submarine, powered by 3 conventional piston engines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxyf3O_SyYQ&feature=grec_index

--
Mark

[Mark]

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:04:37 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On Sep 18, 2:40*pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Mark > wrote:
>>> Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
>>> You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
>>
>> Explode, not implode. Unless it is an underwater submersible?

Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play
a Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season
Regular season
Duration *September 16, 1973 - December 16, 1973*

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised
at what came next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the
turntable. this was the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of
"Stairway" took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool
breasts of my Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning".

<my son is a freak>

---
Mark

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:10:02 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> On Sep 19, 7:24*pm, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>
>>>How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>>>This will soon be a real consideration.
>>
>> I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you what to
>> look for and what to do.
>>
>> Find the Vs for a C152.
>>
>> Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.
>>
>> Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.
>>
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.
>
> Thank you so much! Can't wait to run the numbers.
>
> Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
> new trophy.
>
> ---
> Mark

How'd those numbers come out there, Mark(ie)? It's only been a week.

*ROFL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

On Sep 27, 11:43*am, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
> Ari Silverstein opined
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:10:02 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> >> On Sep 19, 7:24*pm, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>
> >>>>How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
> >>>>This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> >>> I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you what
> >>> to look for and what to do.
>
> >>> Find the Vs for a C152.
>
> >>> Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.
>
> >>> Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.
>
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.
>
> >> Thank you so much! *Can't wait to run the numbers.
>
> >> Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
> >> new trophy.
>
> >> ---
> >> Mark
> >How'd those numbers come out there, Mark(ie)? It's only been a week.
> >*ROFL*
>
> Markie seems to be too busy to do his homework.

I'm so sorry for my untimeliness in this matter. It slipped
my mind.

>Poor guy

Don't worry. I went to a fly-in Saturday, then we all
went out to dinner. And... there's nookie duty.
Busy, busy, busy.


> So I'll do it for him, and give him an F.

You're just wanting a second trophy.


> Formulae * *Units mks
>
> * * TAS = exp(alt/15150) * CAS
>
> * * Vsound = 340 * sqrt(1 - alt/86400)
>
> Assume a *Mmo of .6 and Vs of 25m/s (50kts) your coffin corner is about 28500m
> (95000').
>
> What the real figures for a C152, I don't know.
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

95,000 feet? That sounds familiar with respect to this
topic, within this thread. Now who mentioned that already?

Oh yeah, ME!

I already calculated this without paper.

What's that? A TROPHY?

Than kew! Than kew veri much!

---
Mark

[Mark]

ps, thanks for addressing me as "Markie".

My friends frequently do and I like it.

---
Markie

[Ash Wyllie]

Ari Silverstein opined

>On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:10:02 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

>> On Sep 19, 7:24*pm, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>>
>>>>How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>>>>This will soon be a real consideration.
>>>
>>> I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you what
>>> to look for and what to do.
>>>
>>> Find the Vs for a C152.
>>>
>>> Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.
>>>
>>> Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.
>>>
>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.
>>
>> Thank you so much! Can't wait to run the numbers.
>>
>> Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
>> new trophy.
>>
>> ---
>> Mark

>How'd those numbers come out there, Mark(ie)? It's only been a week.

>*ROFL*

Markie seems to be too busy to do his homework. Poor guy.

So I'll do it for him, and give him an F.

Formulae Units mks

TAS = exp(alt/15150) * CAS

Vsound = 340 * sqrt(1 - alt/86400)

Assume a Mmo of .6 and Vs of 25m/s (50kts) your coffin corner is about 28500m
(95000').

What the real figures for a C152, I don't know.

-ash
Elect Cthulhu!
Vote the greater evil.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

> Ari Silverstein opined
>
> >On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:10:02 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>
> >> On Sep 19, 7:24*pm, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>>How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
> >>>>This will soon be a real consideration.
> >>>
> >>> I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you what
> >>> to look for and what to do.
> >>>
> >>> Find the Vs for a C152.
> >>>
> >>> Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.
> >>>
> >>> Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.
> >>>
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.
> >>
> >> Thank you so much! Can't wait to run the numbers.
> >>
> >> Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
> >> new trophy.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Mark
>
> >How'd those numbers come out there, Mark(ie)? It's only been a week.
>
> >*ROFL*
>
> Markie seems to be too busy to do his homework. Poor guy.
>
> So I'll do it for him, and give him an F.
>
> Formulae Units mks
>
> TAS = exp(alt/15150) * CAS
>
> Vsound = 340 * sqrt(1 - alt/86400)
>
> Assume a Mmo of .6 and Vs of 25m/s (50kts) your coffin corner is about 28500m
> (95000').
>
> What the real figures for a C152, I don't know.


Ash,

I don't know where you got your formula, but MY "Elements of
Gasdynamics" book says that:

Vsound = sqrt(gamma*R*T),
where (for air):
gamma = 1.4 universal gas constant
R = 1715 ft-lb/slug-deg F
T = absolute temperature in Rankine

Nonetheless, the hypothetical C150 would encounter coffin corner before
it gets to 95Kft.

[Ari Silverstein]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:12:28 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

>>>> Thank you so much! *Can't wait to run the numbers.
>>
>>>> Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
>>>> new trophy.
>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Mark
>>>How'd those numbers come out there, Mark(ie)? It's only been a week.
>>>*ROFL*
>>
>> Markie seems to be too busy to do his homework.
>
> I'm so sorry for my untimeliness in this matter. It slipped
> my mind.
>
>>Poor guy
>
> Don't worry. I went to a fly-in Saturday, then we all
> went out to dinner. And... there's nookie duty.

Mother's visiting?
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!

[Mark]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:47:57 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

> In article >,
> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>
>> Ari Silverstein opined
>>
>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:10:02 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>
>>>> On Sep 19, 7:24*pm, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>>>>>>This will soon be a real consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you what
>>>>> to look for and what to do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Find the Vs for a C152.
>>>>>
>>>>> Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.
>>>>>
>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
>>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you so much! Can't wait to run the numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
>>>> new trophy.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Mark
>>
>>>How'd those numbers come out there, Mark(ie)? It's only been a week.
>>
>>>*ROFL*
>>
>> Markie seems to be too busy to do his homework. Poor guy.
>>
>> So I'll do it for him, and give him an F.
>>
>> Formulae Units mks
>>
>> TAS = exp(alt/15150) * CAS
>>
>> Vsound = 340 * sqrt(1 - alt/86400)
>>
>> Assume a Mmo of .6 and Vs of 25m/s (50kts) your coffin corner is about 28500m
>> (95000').
>>
>> What the real figures for a C152, I don't know.
>
> Ash,
>
> I don't know where you got your formula, but MY "Elements of
> Gasdynamics" book says that:
>
> Vsound = sqrt(gamma*R*T),
> where (for air):
> gamma = 1.4 universal gas constant
> R = 1715 ft-lb/slug-deg F
> T = absolute temperature in Rankine
>
> Nonetheless, the hypothetical C150 would encounter coffin corner before
> it gets to 95Kft.

Hardly, I have on my Mark Of The Universe designed spacesuit.

Ok, it's the year 2025. If man is still alive.
I am in a little Cessna 150.
My plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
so I'm wearing a pressurized body suit. I have
an oxygen mask. My plane is powered by a very
powerful hydrogen atom splitting energy source.

Supplied by a 20oz plutonium nanotube source that is
completely limitless that I designed. I plumbed and
wired my own trailer, too.
My powerplant is equivalent to 700000000Mhp in an LSA.

How high can I fly? End of the Milky Way?

This will soon be a real consideration.

Here's the space suit I invented.

http://tinyurl.com/2vg9h4f

Mark Of The Universe

[Ash Wyllie]

Orval Fairbairn opined

>In article >,
> "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:

>> Ari Silverstein opined
>>
>> >On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 06:10:02 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>
>> >> On Sep 19, 7:24*pm, "Ash Wyllie" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>> >>>>This will soon be a real consideration.
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't have the figures available at the moment, but I can tell you
>> >>> what to look for and what to do.
>> >>>
>> >>> Find the Vs for a C152.
>> >>>
>> >>> Find the Mmo, likely about M.75.
>> >>>
>> >>> Your max altitude is where the true Vs == Mmo.
>> >>>
>> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *-ash
>> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Elect Cthulhu!
>> >>> * * * * * * * * * * * * *Vote the greater evil.
>> >>
>> >> Thank you so much! Can't wait to run the numbers.
>> >>
>> >> Had this been a contest, you just walked off with a
>> >> new trophy.
>> >>
>> >> ---
>> >> Mark
>>
>> >How'd those numbers come out there, Mark(ie)? It's only been a week.
>>
>> >*ROFL*
>>
>> Markie seems to be too busy to do his homework. Poor guy.
>>
>> So I'll do it for him, and give him an F.
>>
>> Formulae Units mks
>>
>> TAS = exp(alt/15150) * CAS
>>
>> Vsound = 340 * sqrt(1 - alt/86400)
>>
>> Assume a Mmo of .6 and Vs of 25m/s (50kts) your coffin corner is about
>> 28500m
>> (95000').
>>
>> What the real figures for a C152, I don't know.


>Ash,

>I don't know where you got your formula, but MY "Elements of
>Gasdynamics" book says that:

>Vsound = sqrt(gamma*R*T),
>where (for air):
>gamma = 1.4 universal gas constant
>R = 1715 ft-lb/slug-deg F
>T = absolute temperature in Rankine

>Nonetheless, the hypothetical C150 would encounter coffin corner before
>it gets to 95Kft.

I love your units.

Vsound = 340 * sqrt(273 + t)/sqrt(273 + 15)

where t = 15 - 2*alt/300
^
oops, I left out a 2 (Temp decreases by 2 degrees / 1000' or ~300m)

That changes the max altitude to 77,000'.


-ash
Elect Cthulhu!
Vote the greater evil.

[Ash Wyllie]

Ooops again.

For Vs = 25m/s and Mmo = .6 the critical altitude is 83,000'.

I've got to remember when I've changed the spreadsheet.

Hope I got it right this time ;).


-ash
Elect Cthulhu!
Vote the greater evil.

[george]

On Oct 11, 4:32*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> Mark > wrote in news:d7c5d9c3-f55a-40c4-8732-
> :
>
> > So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
> > you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.
>
> > Given a mean sea level designated as A,
> > if a distance of 1,173 ft is required for a
>
> * Funny how copying and pasting will change the point at which the line
> breaks are placed. *Next time, if you want to convince anyone that you
> actually wrote it, fix the line breaks so they match the native line breaks
> of your newsgroup client.
>
I'm impressed with the exact footage..
What happens at either 1,171 or 1,175 ?
Is the alphabet large enough to cope ? :-)

[Brian Whatcott]

On 9/18/2010 10:24 AM, Mark wrote:
> Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> ---
> Mark

This note resulted in a very long thread, most of which called the
practicality of the postulates into question.

But here's another response, from an engineering viewpoint.
*IF* you could put a 750HP electric motor with limitless power supply
into a C-150 airframe, and hold onto the 1600 lb max gross, the
propeller, given high efficiency, would take the airframe straight up at
about 100 MPH until the prop ran out of air for traction, when the prop-
tips would be exceeding the local speed of sound handily.

Hope this helps!

Brian W

[a[_3_]]

On Oct 10, 10:12*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> On 9/18/2010 10:24 AM, Mark wrote:
>
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> > This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> This note resulted in a very long thread, most of which called the
> practicality of the postulates into question.
>
> But here's another response, from an engineering viewpoint.
> *IF* you could put a 750HP electric motor with limitless power supply
> into a C-150 airframe, and hold onto the 1600 lb max gross, the
> propeller, given high efficiency, would take the airframe straight up at
> about 100 MPH until the prop ran out of air for traction, when the prop-
> tips would be exceeding the local speed of sound handily.
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> Brian W

Perhaps the wrong engineering model, Brian. Swing wing would not work
as well as using the prop to provide thrust and airflow over the
wings, so the airframe slides up the hill, not hauled up hand over
hand! Helicopters don't get to go as high!

The thrust limitation you mention is a good one -- there simply are
not that many pounds of air to push around within the propeller's
reach. Now, if you attached a big balloon to the 152 and used it as
the basket in a hot air format I expect you could get very high.

[Richard[_11_]]

On Sep 18, 10:24*am, Mark > wrote:
> Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> ---
> Mark

At U-2 altitudes it's running (IIRC) close to mach 1 and just barely
above stall speed so I'd venture it's a function of the wing area and
speed + altitude.

[Mark]

On Oct 10, 11:32*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:
> Mark > wrote in news:d7c5d9c3-f55a-40c4-8732-
> :
>
> > So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
> > you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.
>
> > Given a mean sea level designated as A,
> > if a distance of 1,173 ft is required for a
>
> * Funny how copying and pasting will change the point at which the line
> breaks are placed. *Next time, if you want to convince anyone that you
> actually wrote it, fix the line breaks so they match the native line breaks
> of your newsgroup client.
>
> --
> RCOS #7
> IBA# 11465http://imagesdesavions.com

Oh, I wrote it all right. I originally posted it in
misc.writing to see if someone would quickly
shoot back the right answer, as there was a
fellow there claiming to be a genius. He failed.
Also, Ari the idiot troll jumped into the
conversation pretending to be me so as to
confuse the participants. I pasted my post
from there, here.

You cannot find that problem anywhere else
on the face of this earth except where I
wrote it, or copied myself for another group.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Oct 10, 10:12*pm, brian whatcott > wrote:
> On 9/18/2010 10:24 AM, Mark wrote:
>
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> > This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> This note resulted in a very long thread, most of which called the
> practicality of the postulates into question.

Exactly my mission statement. To examine the
practicality, especially in light of current developements
which (I already know) make this possible.

> But here's another response, from an engineering viewpoint.
> *IF* you could put a 750HP electric motor with limitless power supply
> into a C-150 airframe, and hold onto the 1600 lb max gross, the
> propeller, given high efficiency, would take the airframe straight up at
> about 100 MPH until the prop ran out of air for traction, when the prop-
> tips would be exceeding the local speed of sound handily.
>
> Hope this helps!

Yes, thanks. I recommend Vr + 10%, while holding back
all that power. Climb expeditiously V4 + 20%. Your Vx
and Vy are no longer a consideration when you can climb
straight up. Don't. Attain straight and level just below the
tropopause to utilize the thermal boundry. You now have the
luxury of a Vbe and a Vbr that doesn't have to factor in
oxygen for combustion.

--Mark



> Brian W

[Mark]

On Oct 12, 1:01*pm, Richard > wrote:
> On Sep 18, 10:24*am, Mark > wrote:
>
> > Ok, it's the year 2016. You are in a little Cessna 150.
> > You're plane isn't pressurized because it will implode,
> > so you're wearing a pressurized body suit. You have
> > an oxygen mask. You plane is powered by a very
> > powerful brushless electric motor supplied by a 20lb
> > carbon nanotube source that is basically limitless.
> > Your powerplant is equivalent to 700hp in an LSA.
> > The electric motor and cabin are heated.
>
> > How high can you fly? 95,000ft?
>
> > This will soon be a real consideration.
>
> > ---
> > Mark
>
> At U-2 altitudes it's running (IIRC) close to mach 1 and just barely
> above stall speed so I'd venture it's a function of the wing area and
> speed + altitude.

"The coffin corner or Q-Corner is the altitude at or near which an
aircraft's stall speed is equal to the critical Mach number, at a
given gross weight and G loading. At this altitude the aircraft
becomes nearly impossible to keep in stable flight. Since the stall
speed is the minimum speed required to maintain level flight, any
reduction in speed will cause the airplane to stall and lose altitude.
Since the critical Mach number is the maximum speed at which air can
travel over the wings without losing lift due to flow separation and
shock waves, any increase in speed will cause the airplane to lose
lift, or to pitch heavily nose-down, and lose altitude. The "corner"
refers to the triangular shape at the top of a flight envelope chart
where the stall speed and critical Mach number lines come together."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation)

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Oct 10, 3:32*pm, george > wrote:
> On Oct 11, 4:32*am, "Stephen!" > wrote:> Mark > wrote in news:d7c5d9c3-f55a-40c4-8732-
> > :
>
> > > So I mused up this simple aviation interpolation, which
> > > you no doubt, will immediately know the answer.
>
> > > Given a mean sea level designated as A,
> > > if a distance of 1,173 ft is required for a
>
> > * Funny how copying and pasting will change the point at which the line
> > breaks are placed. *Next time, if you want to convince anyone that you
> > actually wrote it, fix the line breaks so they match the native line breaks
> > of your newsgroup client.
>
> I'm impressed with the exact footage..
> What happens at either 1,171 or 1,175 ?
> Is the alphabet large enough to cope ? :-)

Simple. Just go back within this thread where
I actually explained my math, plug in the
different numbers and get your roll out length.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:

> Exactly my mission statement. To examine the
> practicality, especially in light of current developements
> which (I already know) make this possible.

> Mark Nver Returning to Usenet

Here's my complete mission statement.

http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/

There will be more coming since more Mark is better than Less Mark. So
I have been constantly told.

Mark The More

[Mark]

On Oct 15, 10:25*am, Mark > wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
> > Exactly my mission statement. To examine the
> > practicality, especially in light of current developements
> > which (I already know) make this possible.
> > Mark Nver Returning to Usenet
>
> Here's my complete mission statement.
>
> http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/
>
> There will be more coming since more Mark is better than Less Mark. So
> I have been constantly told.
>
> Mark The More

Since you are Ari the asshole troll, as accurately
explained by this intelligent fellow:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.piloting/2010-07/msg00204.html

And since put viruses in your links, and are
unable to use your own on-line identity,

We'll pass.

---
Mark

[Mark]

On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:25:32 -0400, Mark wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>
>> Exactly my mission statement. To examine the
>> practicality, especially in light of current developements
>> which (I already know) make this possible.
>
>> Mark Nver Returning to Usenet
>
> Here's my complete mission statement.
>
> http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/
>
> There will be more coming since more Mark is better than Less Mark. So
> I have been constantly told.
>
> Mark The More

Since I am Mark the asshole troll, as accurately
explained by me, a self-proclaimed, intelligent fellow:

http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/

And since I no longer use Usenet (due to the stressful
demands of my job installing solar panels), and are
unable to post due to malfunctions in my fukknutzoid brain.

I'll lie.

---
Mark

[bert]

On Oct 16, 1:32*pm, Mark > wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:25:32 -0400, Mark wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>
> >> Exactly my mission statement. To examine the
> >> practicality, especially in light of current developements
> >> which (I already know) make this possible.
>
> >> Mark Nver Returning to Usenet
>
> > Here's my complete mission statement.
>
> >http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/
>
> > There will be more coming since more Mark is better than Less Mark. So
> > I have been constantly told.
>
> > Mark The More
>
> Since I am Mark the asshole troll, as accurately
> explained by me, a self-proclaimed, intelligent fellow:
>
> http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/
>
> And since I no longer use Usenet (due to the stressful
> demands of my job installing solar panels), and are
> unable to post due to malfunctions in my fukknutzoid brain.
>
> I'll lie.
>
> ---
> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

People on good poppie drugs can fly sky high. Afghan war proves this.
TreBert

[Mark]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:59:31 -0700 (PDT), bert wrote:

> On Oct 16, 1:32*pm, Mark > wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:25:32 -0400, Mark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:17:47 -0700 (PDT), Mark wrote:
>>
>>>> Exactly my mission statement. To examine the
>>>> practicality, especially in light of current developements
>>>> which (I already know) make this possible.
>>
>>>> Mark Nver Returning to Usenet
>>
>>> Here's my complete mission statement.
>>
>>>http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/
>>
>>> There will be more coming since more Mark is better than Less Mark. So
>>> I have been constantly told.
>>
>>> Mark The More
>>
>> Since I am Mark the asshole troll, as accurately
>> explained by me, a self-proclaimed, intelligent fellow:
>>
>> http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/
>>
>> And since I no longer use Usenet (due to the stressful
>> demands of my job installing solar panels), and are
>> unable to post due to malfunctions in my fukknutzoid brain.
>>
>> I'll lie.
>>
>> ---
>> Mark- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> People on good poppie drugs can fly sky high.

Yeah, what a memory. There we were, shoulder to shoulder my hands in
my pants, on the football field, even though it was before a baseball
game, packed in like sardines. Me, my teddy bear and soon-to-be-dead
Tiger Boy, my pussycat.

The smell of cannabis filled the air. I don't smoke, it draws out my
manic depression.

This special night was different from the Grand Funk Railroad or the
Three Dog Night or Liberace concerts I never attended there. In my
mind, I was. On the football field, where they were awaiting to play
a Braves game. In May when NFL football didn't play.

1973 National Football League season
Regular season
Duration *September 16, 1973 - December 16, 1973*

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/1973_NFL_season

At one point the lights went total black-out, then suddenly the entire
room and immediate area (closet) were drenched in blue light. I began
to sing "My Room" by the Beach Boys because I sure as **** wasn't at
Fulton County Stadium on May 4th, 1973.

Nothing but blue. Next came the "smoke" of dry ice. It was like London
fog in blue. I guess, never been out of South Carolina, The
Mississippi of the East.

Yes it was "Stairway to Heaven" time. Boy was I suprised
at what came next. Tiger Boy jumped on my Philco and killed the
turntable. this was the day I decided to kill him.

Suddenly I released hundreds and hundreds of white fleas! It didn't
quite work out as planned. Except for the few that momentarilly
circled, they basically just flew away. **** me again.

But there was no disappointment. Those first few notes of
"Stairway" took us where I needed to be. Up the stairs to the cool
breasts of my Mommy.

There, in the moment listening to the most famous song in the world. I
turned and looked at my Mommy, Judy ( "Judy blue eyes"), and she
said...

"Mark, get your goddamned hands off my tits and go to sleep. You have
school in the morning".

<my son is a freak>

---
Mark