Question to Mxmanic

[Mark Hansen]

On 04/17/07 11:40, Judah wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote in
> :
>
>> Many of the MSFS developers are pilots, for better or for worse.
>
> Name 3

It's funny. Anthony's always said that real pilots don't know what they
are talking about, yet he seems to feel the ones that worked on the MSFS
game do.

[Kev]

On Apr 17, 12:24 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Kev" > wrote in message
> >http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/jul-au...
>
> > "Cruise altitude vortices usually level off at about 1000 feet below
> > the altitude of the aircraft as their density comes into equilibrium
> > with that of the surrounding air. Decay processes then take over. "
>
> Don't underestimate the value of the words "usually" and "about" in that
> sentence. You are still trying to absolutely describe something that is very
> dynamic.

True. So I guess we could all agree that where the wake goes, depends
on the surrounding atmosphere and aircraft profile...

Still... if it stayed at the same altitude most of the time (contrary
to NASA reports), or was over 100' tall (as some tried to claim at
first), then EVERY student pilot could hit their own wake all the time
<grin>.

Kev

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Water is not breathable; only the oxygen (or other gases) contained in
> it is.

The same can be said of air. And you may have forgotten water vapor.

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

[Maxwell]

"Kev" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Apr 17, 12:24 am, "Maxwell" > wrote:
>> "Kev" > wrote in message
>> >http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/jul-au...
>>
>> > "Cruise altitude vortices usually level off at about 1000 feet below
>> > the altitude of the aircraft as their density comes into equilibrium
>> > with that of the surrounding air. Decay processes then take over. "
>>
>> Don't underestimate the value of the words "usually" and "about" in that
>> sentence. You are still trying to absolutely describe something that is
>> very
>> dynamic.
>
> True. So I guess we could all agree that where the wake goes, depends
> on the surrounding atmosphere and aircraft profile...
>
> Still... if it stayed at the same altitude most of the time (contrary
> to NASA reports), or was over 100' tall (as some tried to claim at
> first), then EVERY student pilot could hit their own wake all the time
> <grin>.
>


But if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, it would be Christimas every
day.

If you can hit your own wake doing 60/360s and holding altitude, keep
practacing. You are more than likely doing something wrong.

[Maxwell]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you can hit your own wake doing 60/360s and holding altitude, keep
> practacing. You are more than likely doing something wrong.
>

Correction, if you CAN'T hit your own wake

[Tom L.]

On 16 Apr 2007 19:26:17 -0700, Kev > wrote:

>On Apr 16, 3:59 pm, Tom L. > wrote:
>> The big question is "why does the wake turbulence descend?"
>> Is the air volume inside the vortices denser than surrounding air?
>
>Found it, Tom. Ref:
>
>http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/jul-aug/carten.html
>
>"Cruise altitude vortices usually level off at about 1000 feet below
>the altitude of the aircraft as their density comes into equilibrium
>with that of the surrounding air. Decay processes then take over. "
>
>Regards, Kev
>

Great! Thanks for the effort.

Now I have a new question -- where is this extra air coming from, and
how?
The vortices grab some additional air molecules and then take them
down. Theere is now a volume of air with missing molecules (if I'm
allowed to speak in K-grade language). These molecules have to be
replaced, and the only source is lower -- in the more dense air that
is in addition getting the extra particles. So there must exist an
additional upward moving air flow outside the vortices.

The pictures showing jets right on top of clouds do seem to indicate
this. The vortices seem to suck in clouds from below and then spin
them.
So there is this secondary air movement starting at 1000' below an
aircraft, moving upwards on both sides of the aircraft and filling the
low density areas left by the vortices and wing downwash.
Interesting.

- Tom

[Tom L.]

Ahah! This is great information. If it is not qualified with "on
certain days" or "at low altitudes" it would mean that rising air has
nothing to do with it. Inclusion of the phenomenon in the simulators
tends to indicate the same thing.

Now, if we combine this with the information from the article that Kev
found that lists descent rates and vortex radii, we have a reason to
be really puzzled!
(The article is here:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1971/jul-aug/carten.html)

According to that article, the vortex descent rate for B-2707 (is it
the same as 707?) is over 700 fpm and the vortex radius is only 11'.
If this is true, by the time the arcraft finishes it's full turn the
vortices are hundreds of feet away.
So what causes the bump? What else is going on here?
Or are the vortices data incomplete or wrong?

- Tom


On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:46:16 GMT, rq3 >
wrote:

>Yes, they do. I just asked a friend with 26,000 hours. He confirmed that
>DC-8's and 707's do get a bump as they cross their own wake in a 360
>degree constant altitude turn. He also said that some Category D
>simulators include this effect in their motion repertoire.
>
>Rip
>
>Tom L. wrote:
>> ...
>> Does anyone know whether big aircraft experience the bump at the
>> conclusion of their steep 360s?
>>
>> - Tom

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:

> > Water is not breathable; only the oxygen (or other gases) contained in
> > it is.

> The same can be said of air. And you may have forgotten water vapor.

Thereby crowning you King of Semantic Word Games.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Tom L.]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:19:02 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Tom L. writes:
>
>> It doesn't have to continue to sink forever. It can stabilize its
>> position at some point.
>
>It will sink indefinitely unless some other force acts to stop it. In theory,
>it will sink until it reaches the ground.

This is not happening in vacuum, the force that acts to stop it is
encountered as soon as the disturbance is created. The questions is
how long does it take for that force to stop disturbed air. That would
be related to how much energy is in the vortices (in their rotation).
Smaller aircraft probably creates vortices with less energy.

>
>> E.g. if the vertex radius is 15 feet and sink rate 20 fpm, we hit the
>> wake after a 30 second turn.
>
>Twenty feet per minute is too slow. The downwash will move at at least a few
>knots, and even three knots is 300 fpm.

I've seen numbers from flight tests indicating several hundreds feet
per minute for big aircraft, but I've never seen any numbers for small
aircraft nor I've ever seen a theory that could explain or calculate
everything measured in the flight tests.

Can you point to such test results or a complete theory? It seems that
you have access to at least one of them. Thx

- Tom

[george]

On Apr 18, 4:45 am, wrote:
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> > Thomas Borchert writes:
> > > Can't follow you there. That's as useful a statement as "airplanes tend to
> > > be stationary objects..."
> > In a turn, a portion of the lift produced by the wings must be used to
> > accelerate the aircraft laterally, and this portion of the lift is no longer
> > available to maintain the aircraft's altitude. Thus, without any adjustment
> > of pitch or power to compensate, any turn will result in a loss of altitude.
>
> Yet another true but worthless statement.
>
> One of the first things real pilots are taught in real training in
> real airplanes is how to maintain a constant altitude in a turn.
>
> Ergo any real turns by real airplanes will be constant altitude
> unless the PILOT has a reason to do otherwise.
>
> Since most 360 turns are done as practice to establish and maintain
> the skill, most 360 turns will be at a constant altitude +/- 100 feet.
>

Consider the plight of the average ag pilot if he can't maintain
altitude in a steep turn if mad mixedups crazy claim is correct.....
and the brievity of his working life

[Judah]

Mark Hansen > wrote in news:132a5ke4urbdub5
@corp.supernews.com:

> It's funny. Anthony's always said that real pilots don't know what they
> are talking about, yet he seems to feel the ones that worked on the MSFS
> game do.

He plays word games so that he can say he was right.

My daughter does the same thing, but she [usually] does it specifically to be
a smart-ass.

Oh, and she's 8.

[Mxsmanic]

Tim writes:

> Yes, it will. Try it - if you're good enough you will see it happen. If
> not, you have to practice your 360s.

It doesn't happen. I did try it, in perfect weather, at 2500' MSL over
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, using the autopilot to make a perfect turn
with a constant altitude. No bump.

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

[Judah]

wrote in :

> Thereby crowning you King of Semantic Word Games.

Nonono. He was right the first time.

"He's Henery the Eighth he is..."
"Henery the Eighth he is he is..."

"Second verse same as the first!"

[ad nauseum]

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tim writes:

> > Yes, it will. Try it - if you're good enough you will see it happen. If
> > not, you have to practice your 360s.

> It doesn't happen. I did try it, in perfect weather, at 2500' MSL over
> Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, using the autopilot to make a perfect turn
> with a constant altitude. No bump.

Why would anyone need an autopilot to do a 360 in CAVU?

You mean your chair didn't bump?

What a surprise.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Why would anyone need an autopilot to do a 360 in CAVU?

So that no one would be able to tell me that I didn't do a perfect turn.

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

[Rip]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> writes:
>
>
>>Why would anyone need an autopilot to do a 360 in CAVU?
>
>
> So that no one would be able to tell me that I didn't do a perfect turn.
>
You didn't, dear boy, because your autopilot hasn't a clue where it is
in any axis. Microsoft Flight Simulator is a game, always has been,
always will be. You may as well ponder why your apartment isn't full of
gold coins and Elvin weaponry after a long bout with "Dungeons and
Dragons". Both games are equally representative of reality.

Rip

[Peter Dohm]

>
> The only dynamic is between the pilots on the group, certainly not with
> MX. But, as I mentioned, the thread forced me to ask myself just what it
> was I am "running over" when I hit my own wake turbulence. Does it
> matter? Probably not, but this enquiring mind wants to know. I still
> don't have the answer. Rising wingtip vortices in warm air? Prop wash?
> "Burbles" from the passage of non-lifting surfaces like the fuselage?
>
> We all know it happens. I'm just one of those weirdos that wants to know
> WHY it happens. As a result of this thread, it appears that nobody
> knows. It's an unstudied regime of flight. I find THAT interesting!
> Perhaps it could lead to some super-terrific drag reduction technique,
> like surfing on your own wake? After all, that's why geese fly in "V"
> formation.
>
> Rip

As you correctly point out, we all know that it happens because we have all
done it; and when we flew eights around pilons, we hit our own wake quite
decisively each time we crossed the center point.

Thus, clearly, it doesn't matter whether we might have found a more
impressive bump lower down; the salient point is that a portion of the wake
was above the flight path when we returned to that place in the atmosphere.

Actually, most of the writings about wakes and sinking air, insofar as I can
tell, only discuss the motion of the central portion of the wake.
Additional writings, regarding the (very reall) potential for upset discuss
the central area of the vorticies--which settle at a lesser rate and expand
as they settle. Our actual experience strongly implies that the vortices
expand at least as rapidly as they settle.

I see that Snowbird has already posted links to my favorite illustration of
this, plus quite a few more, so I'll stop.

Peter

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> Now, the induced drag is
>> creating the tip vortices, which presumably descend, but parasite
>> drag has no vertical component, so in theory it should stay in place.
>> So according to this, the higher the airplane's relative speed, the
>> slower the wake will descend (if at all).
>
> The entire air mass behind the aircraft is descending.

No,m it isn't., fjukktard.

you're wrong... again..


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Snowbird writes:
>
>> I guess Mxmanic uses the FAA AIM as his main source in his
>> "research".
>
> That is only one of many sources. They all say the same thing.
>
>> a) "Flight tests have shown that the vortices from larger (transport
>> category) aircraft sink at a rate of several hundred feet per minute,
>> slowing their descent and diminishing in strength with time and
>> distance behind the generating aircraft."
>>
>> Note the explicit reference to large aircraft. In fact, it seems all
>> actual wake turbulence safety studies have involved large aircraft,
>> i.e. B707 and larger. This is in fact quite natural, as there was no
>> real safety issue before the large jetliners appeared.
>
> The wakes of smaller aircraft descend as well.
>
>> b) "Test data have shown that vortices can rise with the air mass in
>> which they are embedded."
>>
>> There you are, official proof to the statements of several of our
>> contributors.
>
> Including myself.
>
>> c) "The greatest vortex strength occurs when the generating aircraft
>> is HEAVY, CLEAN, and SLOW."
>
> Yes. Although the downwash itself should be strongest when the
> aircraft is dirty and slow. The reason clean and slow produces
> stronger _vortices_ is that it only produces one pair, whereas flaps
> and other control surfaces can produce multiple vortices of smaller
> size that tend to interfere with each other and reduce overall
> turbulence.
>
>> In contrast, a light aircraft doing a 360 is usually LIGHT, CLEAN and
>> (relatively speaking) FAST. Very different conditions, especially
>> regarding two major sources of wake: the AoA of the wing (which
>> affects the tip vortices) and the power setting (which affects the
>> propwash strength).
>
> Which makes it all the more difficult to understand how a pilot could
> feel his own wake in a level 360-degree turn.
>
>> The interesting study question here, for the light airplane case,
>> would be the relation between the tip vortices (which presumably
>> sink, as for large aircraft) and the propwash (which is basically
>> horizontal). I think glider pilots can testify that the propwash is
>> the dominant one, at least close behind the tug airplane - any
>> soarers out there who can comment?
>
> You're neglecting the downwash, which is present in all aircraft.
> Downwash tends to pull all turbulence behind the aircraft down with
> it.
>

No, it doesn't, fjukkwit. Only most of it.

Send me fifty bucks and I'll explain why to you


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> *Every* pilot (at least in the US) learns steep turns
>> in the context of the FAA's practical test standard.
>> That's a steep turn while holding your altitude +/- 100
>> feet.
>
> If you meet your wake, you're descending.
>

Not neccesarily, moron.


You're an idiot.

Bertie

[Peter Dohm]

-------preceding post snipped-------
>
> The big question is "why does the wake turbulence descend?"
> Is the air volume inside the vortices denser than surrounding air?
> Probably not. So the descent is probably not due to gravitational
> force.
>
------much snipped for brevity------

First of all, what this thread really proves is that it is not necessary for
a pilot to understand this well enough to explain it to a lay person, or
even to another pilot.

I think that the bigger question is: Why have so many people, who should
all know better, taken Mxsmanic's statement regarding the central downwash
portion of an aircraft's wake, which he extrapolated as applicable to the
motion of the entire wake, and simply accepted it as possibly disproving
what *all* of us have consistently observed.

I really don't think that Mxsmanic is an intentional troll, in the usual
sense--but, however inadvertently, he surely is damned good at it!

Peter

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> The entire air mass behind the aircraft is descending. The downwash
> descends,
> and air from above moves down to replace it. While parasitic drag is not
> associated with lift and thus has no vertical component of its own, any
> turbulence it creates will still drift downward with the downwash,
> although
> perhaps less quickly than the downwash itself, depending on where the
> turbulence leaves the aircraft.
>

Blazing generalizations,,,,bull****.

You can hit your wake at the same altitude, people do it everyday. The
answer is simple and right in front of you. You are just too stupid to see
it.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

>
> I don't fly the Cessna, and I fly only at airports with hard, smooth
> runways that won't bounce the aircraft around.
>

You don't fly at all


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> rq3 writes:
>
>> Still fixated on the idea that the downwash is the only component of
>> wake, huh, Anthony?
>
> I've never been fixated on such a notion. All of the wake behind an
> aircraft descends, including the downwash.

no, it doesn't, moron


Berti e

[Mxsmanic]

Peter Dohm writes:

> I think that the bigger question is: Why have so many people, who should
> all know better, taken Mxsmanic's statement regarding the central downwash
> portion of an aircraft's wake, which he extrapolated as applicable to the
> motion of the entire wake, and simply accepted it as possibly disproving
> what *all* of us have consistently observed.

Maybe some of them read books, as I do.

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

[Peter Dohm]

> > I always maintained altitude and rate of turn in steep turns with the
> > end result being hitting my own slipstream.
>
> As have we all on nice days, and students like to brag about it. Yet
> Mx is correct, in theory we should not be able to do this.
>
-------some snipped for brevity-------

No, Mx is not correct. Mx has restated a *partial* explanation of wakes as
complete, and many here are accepting it--even though their own actual
experience proves otherwise...

[Peter Dohm]

"Maxwell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The entire air mass behind the aircraft is descending. The downwash
> > descends,
> > and air from above moves down to replace it. While parasitic drag is
not
> > associated with lift and thus has no vertical component of its own, any
> > turbulence it creates will still drift downward with the downwash,
> > although
> > perhaps less quickly than the downwash itself, depending on where the
> > turbulence leaves the aircraft.
> >
>
> Blazing generalizations,,,,bull****.
>
> You can hit your wake at the same altitude, people do it everyday. The
> answer is simple and right in front of you. You are just too stupid to see
> it.
>
>
Thank God a few are still awake here!

[Tim[_4_]]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote...
> Tim writes:
>
>> Yes, it will. Try it - if you're good enough you will see it happen. If
>> not, you have to practice your 360s.
>
> It doesn't happen. I did try it, in perfect weather, at 2500' MSL over
> Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, using the autopilot to make a perfect
> turn
> with a constant altitude. No bump.

Then you did something wrong because it definitely does happen.

BDS

[Rip]

Tim wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" > wrote...
>
>>Tim writes:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, it will. Try it - if you're good enough you will see it happen. If
>>>not, you have to practice your 360s.
>>
>>It doesn't happen. I did try it, in perfect weather, at 2500' MSL over
>>Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, using the autopilot to make a perfect
>>turn
>>with a constant altitude. No bump.
>
>
> Then you did something wrong because it definitely does happen.
>
> BDS
>
>
Tim, get with the program, man. Mxsmanic has never flown anything other
than Microsoft Flight Simulator. Seriously.

Rip

[swag]

On Apr 17, 5:18 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tim writes:
> > Yes, it will. Try it - if you're good enough you will see it happen. If
> > not, you have to practice your 360s.
>
> It doesn't happen. I did try it, in perfect weather, at 2500' MSL over
> Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, using the autopilot to make a perfect turn
> with a constant altitude. No bump.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Can you set an autopilot to do a 60 degree bank angle turn? Mine
won't do that.

[Mxsmanic]

swag writes:

> Can you set an autopilot to do a 60 degree bank angle turn? Mine
> won't do that.

It depends on the autopilot. On large aircraft you can, although they usually
won't go to 60 degrees.

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

[[email protected]]

On Apr 17, 5:09 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Air does not behave very much like an imcompressible fluid at low air
> > speeds. Not even close.
>
> That's not what the engineers say.

Maybe only the ones that drives locomotives.

>
> > Under some conditions, low air speeds is one of them, air can be
> > treated like it is an imcompressible fluid.
>

>
> Obviously air, being a gas, can be compressed, but taking that into account at
> low speeds greatly complicates the calculations, and the final result isn't
> significantly different.
>

Duh.


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

[mike regish]

Actually, there is a liquid formula that deep sea divers can breathe.
Flourine something or other.

But you can breathe water, too. You only get to inhale once, though.

mike

> wrote in message
...
> In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
> And no, it is not possible to breathe water, you can only breathe
> gases, if you want to be pendantically, semantically correct.
>
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[mike regish]

Actually, he doesn't.

mike

"rq3" > wrote in message
. net...
> Anthony, you've got the issue of compressibility precisely backwards. No
> surprise.
>
> Rip

[mike regish]

Again, actually he doesn't.

mike

"rq3" > wrote in message
et...
> Anthony, my boy, your interpretation is incorrect. At Mach, the air has
> compressed as much as it can, which is why it takes so much energy to
> force a solid object through Mach. You have the concepts reversed in your
> head.
>
> Rip
>>
>> If you look in books on aerodynamics, you'll find that air is effectively
>> an
>> incompressible fluid at low speeds, such as those encountered in small
>> aircraft. It isn't until you get to the transonic range that compression
>> starts to be an issue, and the rules change substantially at and beyond
>> the
>> speed of sound.
>>

[Tim[_4_]]

"Rip" > wrote

> Tim, get with the program, man. Mxsmanic has never flown anything other
> than Microsoft Flight Simulator. Seriously.

That's what we are talking about.

Even in MSFS you can see the effect of flying back through your own
turbulence when doing a proper 360.

BDS

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> Duh.

The clock on your aircraft runs slower as you accelerate, due to relativistic
effects. But then it also runs faster as you climb, again due to relativistic
effects. Do you take these effects into account in your on-board
calculations?

[And while they may be trivial for aircraft, they are not in all cases--the
GPS has to be adjusted for these effects to maintain accuracy, for example.]

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

[mike regish]

It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do. I
doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic effects at
our speeds.

And climbing has nothing to do with relativity.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> writes:
>
>> Duh.
>
> The clock on your aircraft runs slower as you accelerate, due to
> relativistic
> effects. But then it also runs faster as you climb, again due to
> relativistic
> effects. Do you take these effects into account in your on-board
> calculations?
>
> [And while they may be trivial for aircraft, they are not in all
> cases--the
> GPS has to be adjusted for these effects to maintain accuracy, for
> example.]
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[swag]

On Apr 17, 11:39 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> swag writes:
> > Can you set an autopilot to do a 60 degree bank angle turn? Mine
> > won't do that.
>
> It depends on the autopilot. On large aircraft you can, although they usually
> won't go to 60 degrees.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

so didyou when you did your "test flight?" You won't encounter a bump
from wake turbulence unless you are doing a steep turn ( like 45
degree bank angle which should take 19 seconds to go 360)

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Not without descending. The wake _must_ descend. This means that you cannot
> catch it unless you descend, also. If you can explain how this rule can be
> broken, I'm listening.
>

Nope. If you've completed a 360 turn, and you're at the same altitude
(within a few feet), you wil go over it. The first time you do it
yourself (not your smartass CFI that can just do it as if it were easy)
it's pretty great. Kind of like running over a dog in a car, not hard
like a speed bump, but soft and squishy.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Gary writes:
>
>
>>What part of "maintaining our altitude" sounds like "descending" to
>>you?
>
>
> The part that is combined with rising air.
>

I'm new here and junk. I've read a boatload of these posts and I've
started to empathize with you. Why are these people calling you names?
Jeesh, they're just mean.

Except that I run into posts like this and go, "ah, I see."

Rising air and maintaining altitude does not decsending make. Bringing
your altitude closer to the ground makes a decsent. You can't maintain
altitude and decsend at the same time. I think that's one of the
questions in the written. Or it's in some FAR. They'll suspend your
cert for 5 years if you decsend whilst maintaining altitude.

Do yourself a big favor. Get out there and spend the $50-60 and get an
intro flight. Take some damn lessons. Hell, even get a CFI just to get
out there and do some of this. You'll see how vastly different it is
from MS's Flight sim.

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> JB writes:
>
>
>>You are such an idiot! Probably every GA pilot-in-training with a
>>C152/172 or something similar has experienced hitting their own wake
>>when performing their first steep turn with an instructor.
>
>
> Steep turns tend to be descending turns.
>

See, this is one of those posts. That's why you practice. A steep turn
is not supposed to be a descending turn.

I don't know why. It seems that the argument that you're not supposed
to hit your own wake seems to be pretty valid. You can also bring
evidence that supports the theory that the sky is not blue, but there it
is, blue as hell.

[Mxsmanic]

mike regish writes:

> It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do.

No. There are nearly half a dozen relativistic effects that must be
compensated for in the GPS. The nominal clock frequencies, for example, must
be adjusted by slightly less than one part in two billion in order to adjust
for the cumulative relativistic effects.

> I doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic effects at
> our speeds.

Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic
effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate.

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

[Mxsmanic]

swag writes:

> so didyou when you did your "test flight?"

In the sim? No, there was no bump.

> You won't encounter a bump from wake turbulence unless you are
> doing a steep turn ( like 45 degree bank angle which should
> take 19 seconds to go 360)

Why would the steepness of a turn matter?

A 2-G turn is rather close to the load limits for many types of aircraft.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do.
>
> No. There are nearly half a dozen relativistic effects that must be
> compensated for in the GPS. The nominal clock frequencies, for example,
> must
> be adjusted by slightly less than one part in two billion in order to
> adjust
> for the cumulative relativistic effects.
>
>> I doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic
>> effects at
>> our speeds.
>
> Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic
> effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate.
>

Wow! That's useful information!

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> swag writes:
>
>> so didyou when you did your "test flight?"
>
> In the sim? No, there was no bump.
>
>> You won't encounter a bump from wake turbulence unless you are
>> doing a steep turn ( like 45 degree bank angle which should
>> take 19 seconds to go 360)
>
> Why would the steepness of a turn matter?
>
> A 2-G turn is rather close to the load limits for many types of aircraft.
>

What a dumb ****! Are you kidding???

If someone rolled your brain up in to a ball, and rolled it down a razor
blade -
it would look like a B-B rolling down a four lane highway.

[Maxwell]

"Nomen Nescio" > wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
>>A 2-G turn is rather close to the load limits for many types of aircraft.
>
> Yea, that puts you about 35% of the way to airframe damage.
> Pretty damned reckless to only leave yourself a 180% margin.
>
> With that level of fear, I'm surprised that you ever leave your room.
>
> Er......Um................................Nevermin d.
>

I wonder if he has ever analyzed how much stress his fat butt is putting on
the floor joices in his bedroom. If he fell out of his computer chair from
18" or so, he might not have a 180% margin.

[ManhattanMan]

Maxwell wrote:
> I wonder if he has ever analyzed how much stress his fat butt is
> putting on the floor joices in his bedroom. If he fell out of his
> computer chair from 18" or so, he might not have a 180% margin.

He'd just land on his ass and suffer a concussion........ :)

[george]

On Apr 19, 9:00 am, Nomen Nescio > wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: Mxsmanic >
>
> >The clock on your aircraft runs slower as you accelerate, due to relativistic
> >effects. But then it also runs faster as you climb, again due to relativistic
> >effects. Do you take these effects into account in your on-board
> >calculations?
>
> Only if I'm approaching light speed.
> I also have to do a new weight & balance.

When you slow down you get heavy speed so the W&B shouldn't change
ROTFL

[Mxsmanic]

Nomen Nescio writes:

> Only if I'm approaching light speed.

And I only worry about compressibility if I'm approaching Mach 1, which
doesn't happen often in a Baron. QED.

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

[Mxsmanic]

Maxwell writes:

> What a dumb ****! Are you kidding???

No.

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

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Only if I'm approaching light speed.
>
> And I only worry about compressibility if I'm approaching Mach 1, which
> doesn't happen often in a Baron. QED.
>

Or flying a desk.

[Maxwell]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Maxwell writes:
>
>> What a dumb ****! Are you kidding???
>

Well you should have been. Do a little research.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_2_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>> Only if I'm approaching light speed.
>
> And I only worry about compressibility if I'm approaching Mach 1, which
> doesn't happen often in a Baron. QED.


You wouldn't know what al that menat if it hit you on the head, fjukkwit.


bertie

[[email protected]]

On Apr 18, 7:04 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > Duh.
>
> The clock on your aircraft runs slower as you accelerate, due to relativistic
> effects. But then it also runs faster as you climb, again due to relativistic
> effects. Do you take these effects into account in your on-board
> calculations?
>

Sure I do. I have to since I'm close to a Lightspeed in my C150.

-Kees

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do.
>

Actually, in the case of GPS, it's not only speed, but also the
gravitation of the earth - or, IOW, general relativity rather than only
special relativity.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Erik,

> Rising air and maintaining altitude does not decsending make.

It's all in the definitions - in this case of the word "descending". And MX
is a master at shifting definitions in mid-discussion to evade his many
mistakes.

> Do yourself a big favor. Get out there and spend the $50-60 and get an
> intro flight. Take some damn lessons. Hell, even get a CFI just to get
> out there and do some of this. You'll see how vastly different it is
> from MS's Flight sim.

If you have read MS threads, I'm sure you realize you'r falling into the
same trap many of us have fallen into: MX does not at all want to learn. He
wants to make trouble here. He is deadly afraid of flying. Yet you still
take him seriously.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mxsmanic,

> Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic
> effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate.
>

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about. First, you are dodging
the subject, since the GPS measurements have nothing to do with the
aircraft's flight or climb. Second, the accurate clocks in GPS are not at
all in the receivers, but rather in the satellites. The receiver clock is
"told" by the satellites what time it is.

Your attempts at being an expert (or even a decent researcher) in every
field are pathetic and only serve to show how very little you really know.
Not knowing stuff is not a problem at all - until you claim to be a
know-it-all, like you do.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[mike regish]

And those miniscule adjustments are only required at the speeds of the GPS
satellites, which are many thousands of miles per hour-not several tens of
miles per hour.

mike

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish writes:
>
>> It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do.
>
> No. There are nearly half a dozen relativistic effects that must be
> compensated for in the GPS. The nominal clock frequencies, for example,
> must
> be adjusted by slightly less than one part in two billion in order to
> adjust
> for the cumulative relativistic effects.
>
>> I doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic
>> effects at
>> our speeds.
>
> Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic
> effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[mike regish]

True. Making general relativity even less significant in aircraft. And the
act of climbing itself, has no effect. The different altitudes will, but not
the acceleration of climbing.

mike

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do.
>>
>
> Actually, in the case of GPS, it's not only speed, but also the
> gravitation of the earth - or, IOW, general relativity rather than only
> special relativity.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Erik]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Erik,
> If you have read MS threads, I'm sure you realize you'r falling into the
> same trap many of us have fallen into: MX does not at all want to learn. He
> wants to make trouble here. He is deadly afraid of flying. Yet you still
> take him seriously.
>

What's really sad is I subscribed to this yesterday. I started
reading through posts and empathizing with the poor *******.

It took about 12 minutes of reading and some replies to lose that
empathy.

I still like to pretend I have faith in people :(

[Erik]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Nomen Nescio writes:
>
>
>>Only if I'm approaching light speed.
>
>
> And I only worry about compressibility if I'm approaching Mach 1, which
> doesn't happen often in a Baron. QED.
>

Yes, what if you're approaching mach 1 and suddenly your CFI unplugs
your computer to simulate an engine failure?

[swag]

On Apr 18, 2:45 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> swag writes:
> > so didyou when you did your "test flight?"
>
> In the sim? No, there was no bump.
>
> > You won't encounter a bump from wake turbulence unless you are
> > doing a steep turn ( like 45 degree bank angle which should
> > take 19 seconds to go 360)
>
> Why would the steepness of a turn matter?
>
> A 2-G turn is rather close to the load limits for many types of aircraft.
>
> --
> Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

The steepness matters for two reasons
1. the time of the turn matters to whether the wake turbulance is
dissipating
2. the bank angle changes the rate of descent of the wake
So if you are doing a standard rate turn that takes two minutes, you
will not hit youur wake. But if you do a 2g turn (around 45 degrees)
it should take 19 seconds and you will hit your wake.
3. a 2 g turn should not be close to the load limits of any airplane
certificated in the standard (let alone the utility) category. My
airplane ( a P337) is certificated as standard, not utility. the load
limits ar +3.8 flaps up. And is approved for turns up to 60 degrees.

[mike regish]

A 60 degree bank produces 2 G's. A 45 degree bank produces 1.414 G's.

mike

"swag" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> 2. the bank angle changes the rate of descent of the wake
> So if you are doing a standard rate turn that takes two minutes, you
> will not hit youur wake. But if you do a 2g turn (around 45 degrees)
> it should take 19 seconds and you will hit your wake.