Why airplanes fly [Archive]

Cecil E. Chapman

February 3rd 08, 08:37 PM

They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and thrust.....
:)

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil E. Chapman

Certificated Flight Instructor
Commercial Pilot, ASEL - Instrument Rated
Reid-Hillview Airport, San Jose, California

Member of:
National Association of Flight Instructors (NAFI)
Airplane Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
Experimental Pilots Association (EAA)

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they move
> forward
> through the air.

gpaleo[_2_]

February 3rd 08, 09:01 PM

Troll

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 3rd 08, 09:20 PM

"gpaleo" > wrote in news:1202072499.83365@athprx04:

> Troll
>

He wishes.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 3rd 08, 09:22 PM

Clark > wrote in news:Xns9A3991E30ED6Dch2uswestnet@
64.209.0.81:

> Tina > wrote in news:92f5b03a-df36-467d-b2fe-
> :
>
>> I actually thought someone had generated an email address that would
>> look like MX's to write spoof postings, but if you click on the handle
>> it comes back to the artest we know.
>>
>> It must be so lonely in Paris. . . .
>>
>> And somehow his 'I have a life" simulator must have failed. too.
>>
>> Bertie, was 'nope' the best you could do? Do you expect a woman to do
>> a man's work here?
>>
> Of course he does. Why would things be any different here?
>
>

Thenkew.

Honestly.

Bertie

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

February 3rd 08, 09:49 PM

John Ousterhout wrote:
> Why airplanes fly:
>
> What they teach: http://www.ousterhout.net/gallery/4_forces_theory.jpg
>
> The reality: http://www.ousterhout.net/gallery/4_forces_reality.jpg

Well, that's good for the US registration. But what about the rest of them?

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 3rd 08, 09:50 PM

Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and thrust.....
> :)
>
THIS is the real reason.

And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Paul Tomblin

February 3rd 08, 10:11 PM

In a previous article, William Hung > said:
>Dude was doing just fine having a conversation with himself. He asked
>the question, and he answered it. We all intrued into his
>conversation. We should have left him alone to talk to himself.

I suspect he'd bet somebody that he couldn't post a single thing here
without a long thread starting with dozens of people jumping on him to
tell him how he's wrong.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://blog.xcski.com/
Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned
in school. -- A. Einstein

Jim Logajan

February 3rd 08, 10:15 PM

Jacques: Hi Tony. What's new with you?

Tony: I've made myself the center of attention on an online discussion
group. I can post the most obvious, innocuous statement and it will draw
dozens of responses.

Jacques: That seems unlikely. People are much smarter than that. What is
the nature of this discussion group?

Tony: It's a discussion group for pilots. I think they are full of
themselves. I could post something like "aircraft fly because their wings
generate lift" and I am certain that because I was the one who posted it
that it would create at least 30 responses.

Jacques: Pilots have to be pretty smart to get where they are. I can't see
how that would generate any responses. Okay, I could see maybe two or three
but dozens seems entirely out of the question. You aren't that important.
Pilots are trained to exercise good judgement.

Tony: Ha! I'm willing to bet you 20 euro that if I post the sentence
"Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they move
forward through the air," I will get at least 30 responses.

Jacques: Nonsense! That would not be worthy of response. Tell you what - if
you get more than 5 responses, I'll pay out 1 euro for every response over
that count - but not over 25 euros. If you get 5 or less responses, you owe
me 25 euros. And no cheating! That seem fair?

Tony: You're on!

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 3rd 08, 10:17 PM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Jacques: Hi Tony. What's new with you?
>
> Tony: I've made myself the center of attention on an online discussion
> group. I can post the most obvious, innocuous statement and it will
> draw dozens of responses.
>
> Jacques: That seems unlikely. People are much smarter than that. What
> is the nature of this discussion group?
>
> Tony: It's a discussion group for pilots. I think they are full of
> themselves. I could post something like "aircraft fly because their
> wings generate lift" and I am certain that because I was the one who
> posted it that it would create at least 30 responses.
>
> Jacques: Pilots have to be pretty smart to get where they are. I can't
> see how that would generate any responses. Okay, I could see maybe two
> or three but dozens seems entirely out of the question. You aren't
> that important. Pilots are trained to exercise good judgement.
>
> Tony: Ha! I'm willing to bet you 20 euro that if I post the sentence
> "Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they
> move forward through the air," I will get at least 30 responses.
>
> Jacques: Nonsense! That would not be worthy of response. Tell you what
> - if you get more than 5 responses, I'll pay out 1 euro for every
> response over that count - but not over 25 euros. If you get 5 or less
> responses, you owe me 25 euros. And no cheating! That seem fair?
>
> Tony: You're on!
>

No begging on Amazn this week eh?

Bertie

Thomas Borchert

February 3rd 08, 10:22 PM

John,

Hey, you forgot the lift fairy in there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[email protected]

February 4th 08, 12:17 AM

On Feb 3, 4:50*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>
Like they say, it only takes two things to fly: airspeed and money.

(mostly money).

[email protected]

February 4th 08, 12:54 AM

On Feb 3, 2:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> THIS is the real reason.
>
> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I thought lift and thrust were a function of the square root of
the amount of money spent. For helicopters, it's the cube root.

Dan

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 4th 08, 12:59 AM

wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> THIS is the real reason.
>>
>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I thought lift and thrust were a function of the square root of
> the amount of money spent. For helicopters, it's the cube root.
>
> Dan
>

Lift Demons!

--
Dudley Henriques

Vaughn Simon

February 4th 08, 01:29 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Nope.

Of course not. Everybody knows that it is lift fairies that make airplanes
fly. Good thing we have to lift fairies too, otherwise we would have nothing to
fight the drag demons.

Vaughn

Michael Ash

February 4th 08, 06:21 AM

In rec.aviation.student Paul Tomblin > wrote:
> In a previous article, William Hung > said:
>>Dude was doing just fine having a conversation with himself. He asked
>>the question, and he answered it. We all intrued into his
>>conversation. We should have left him alone to talk to himself.
>
> I suspect he'd bet somebody that he couldn't post a single thing here
> without a long thread starting with dozens of people jumping on him to
> tell him how he's wrong.

Well, it's true, but only because MX is incapable of posting a message
which isn't worded in such a way that people don't feel strangely
compelled to respond.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Roger[_4_]

February 4th 08, 10:45 AM

On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:59:11 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>
>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> I thought lift and thrust were a function of the square root of
>> the amount of money spent. For helicopters, it's the cube root.
>>

I'd been ignoring this thread until I see some of the pilots who know
what's going on had chimed in and it seems I wasn't disappointed.

Of course Cecil has the basics correct in that essentially there is
only one thing that makes an airplane fly and that is money and it's
easily proven. Start with a design: if you want it to go farther it
costs more money. If you want it to go faster it costs a lot more
money. If you want it to go faster AND farther the cost gets
ridiculous. However if you are foolish enough to want to move
something farther and faster with said airplane the const is
unbelievable.

Now as to Dudley's lift Demons, it's been proven that about half of
the increased money goes into the cost of the aircraft and the other
half is bribery money to payoff the Lift Demons. They're lazy little
critters that loath to do much work. They hate to lift things and
they neither like to move fast or for more than a few minutes at a
time so you have to hire them to work in shifts. On top of that they
have more skilled trades than the Auto workers.

First off, each airport has it's own accelerate and stop unions. These
are the Demons that accelerate your plane down the runway so the Lift
Demons that belong to the climbing union can take the plane up to
altitude where the cruise union takes over as well as the group that
catches the landing plane and slows it to a stop. (that second group
brings up some problems I'll get to later). Now the Demons in the
climb Union are like a bunch of burley doc workers. They can lift a
lot, but not real fast and with all that muscle burning carbs they can
eat you out of house and home if you try to climb too fast or too
long. They are only willing to do so much work so if you try to climb
too fast, steep, or for too long they start borrowing from the cruise
union which tires out the cruise Demons. They just don't have the
stamina for that kind of work so you end up losing a lot of range.

At any rate, the cruise union has it the easiest as they like to ease
off a little and just sit up there enjoying the view. Of course this
brings us to the descent demons who are more or less just along for
the ride until the landing demons take over. Now this is where things
get sticky. Remember I mentioned each airport has it's own accelerate
and stop Demons. Now if the landing Demons belong to the same union as
the stop Demons, or are at least on good terms with the local you are
in fine shape, but these guys tend to be quite territorial and often
there is a bit of a tussle as to which group lands the plane with the
result often being a less than elegant touchdown. The poor pilot
usually gets blamed for the results of this territorial dispute when
he was just an innocent bystander. So the next time a flight goes
great except for the landing,, don't blame the folks up front. It
really wasn't their fault. Blame the airport manager for skimming too
much off the top of the bribes to the Lift Demons or the locals being
a bit too greedy with their territory.

Roger (K8RI)

>> Dan
>>
>
>Lift Demons!
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

February 4th 08, 03:46 PM

Why airplanes fly? Because if they didn't, they'd be cars.

FledgeIII

February 4th 08, 04:32 PM

On Feb 3, 2:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> george > wrote :
>
> > On Feb 4, 6:53 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they
> >> move forward through the air.
>
> > .Why do aeroplanes fly ?
> > Because they can
>
> There ya go!
>
> Bertie

And here all this time I thought airplanes flew because the earth
sucks.*

* - ...it just sucks less when you're in an airplane! ;)

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 4th 08, 04:52 PM

FledgeIII > wrote in
:

> On Feb 3, 2:40 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> george > wrote
>>
>> om:
>>
>> > On Feb 4, 6:53 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> >> Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they
>> >> move forward through the air.
>>
>> > .Why do aeroplanes fly ?
>> > Because they can
>>
>> There ya go!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> And here all this time I thought airplanes flew because the earth
> sucks.*
>

Nah that's why we don't fly off into space.

Bertie

george

February 4th 08, 08:01 PM

On Feb 5, 5:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> FledgeIII > wrote :

>
> > And here all this time I thought airplanes flew because the earth
> > sucks.*
>
> Nah that's why we don't fly off into space.
>
So long as the score card reads gravity nil you're a winner :-)

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 4th 08, 08:15 PM

You are a dubious fellow Roger.
:-)))
Dudley

Roger wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:59:11 -0500, Dudley Henriques
> > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 2:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>>
>>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I thought lift and thrust were a function of the square root of
>>> the amount of money spent. For helicopters, it's the cube root.
>>>
>
> I'd been ignoring this thread until I see some of the pilots who know
> what's going on had chimed in and it seems I wasn't disappointed.
>
> Of course Cecil has the basics correct in that essentially there is
> only one thing that makes an airplane fly and that is money and it's
> easily proven. Start with a design: if you want it to go farther it
> costs more money. If you want it to go faster it costs a lot more
> money. If you want it to go faster AND farther the cost gets
> ridiculous. However if you are foolish enough to want to move
> something farther and faster with said airplane the const is
> unbelievable.
>
> Now as to Dudley's lift Demons, it's been proven that about half of
> the increased money goes into the cost of the aircraft and the other
> half is bribery money to payoff the Lift Demons. They're lazy little
> critters that loath to do much work. They hate to lift things and
> they neither like to move fast or for more than a few minutes at a
> time so you have to hire them to work in shifts. On top of that they
> have more skilled trades than the Auto workers.
>
> First off, each airport has it's own accelerate and stop unions. These
> are the Demons that accelerate your plane down the runway so the Lift
> Demons that belong to the climbing union can take the plane up to
> altitude where the cruise union takes over as well as the group that
> catches the landing plane and slows it to a stop. (that second group
> brings up some problems I'll get to later). Now the Demons in the
> climb Union are like a bunch of burley doc workers. They can lift a
> lot, but not real fast and with all that muscle burning carbs they can
> eat you out of house and home if you try to climb too fast or too
> long. They are only willing to do so much work so if you try to climb
> too fast, steep, or for too long they start borrowing from the cruise
> union which tires out the cruise Demons. They just don't have the
> stamina for that kind of work so you end up losing a lot of range.
>
> At any rate, the cruise union has it the easiest as they like to ease
> off a little and just sit up there enjoying the view. Of course this
> brings us to the descent demons who are more or less just along for
> the ride until the landing demons take over. Now this is where things
> get sticky. Remember I mentioned each airport has it's own accelerate
> and stop Demons. Now if the landing Demons belong to the same union as
> the stop Demons, or are at least on good terms with the local you are
> in fine shape, but these guys tend to be quite territorial and often
> there is a bit of a tussle as to which group lands the plane with the
> result often being a less than elegant touchdown. The poor pilot
> usually gets blamed for the results of this territorial dispute when
> he was just an innocent bystander. So the next time a flight goes
> great except for the landing,, don't blame the folks up front. It
> really wasn't their fault. Blame the airport manager for skimming too
> much off the top of the bribes to the Lift Demons or the locals being
> a bit too greedy with their territory.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>>> Dan
>>>
>> Lift Demons!
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

--
Dudley Henriques

Captain Bimble

February 4th 08, 09:50 PM

The Plane I fly has a big fan on the front.
I know thats what makes it fly because when it stopped I had to land.
Thats to say I did no have much of a choice in the matter.

george

February 4th 08, 10:37 PM

On Feb 5, 10:50 am, captain bimble > wrote:
> The Plane I fly has a big fan on the front.
> I know thats what makes it fly because when it stopped I had to land.
> Thats to say I did no have much of a choice in the matter.

I always thought of that big fan as an air conditioning system
Because when it stops the pilot starts to sweat

[email protected]

February 5th 08, 12:08 AM

On Feb 4, 8:46*am, AJ > wrote:
> Why airplanes fly? Because if they didn't, they'd be cars.

And if you pull the wings off of a fly, you have created a new insect
called a walk.

Art Varrassi

February 5th 08, 04:19 AM

Mxsmanic,

That is a very concise and accurate statement and a good generalized
response to a layperson asking the question "how do airplanes fly?".

I see no reason for all of the snide comments from others.

I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of the
harassment you have been subject to.

Art Varrassi
CP-ASEL
KADS - Addison, TX

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they move
> forward
> through the air.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 5th 08, 04:39 AM

"Art Varrassi" > wrote in
:

> Mxsmanic,
>
> That is a very concise and accurate statement and a good generalized
> response to a layperson asking the question "how do airplanes fly?".

Tomorrow's lesson. Which way is up?
>
> I see no reason for all of the snide comments from others.

Me neither.
>
> I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of the
> harassment you have been subject to.

He is special that way.

Bertie

Morgans[_2_]

February 5th 08, 05:26 AM

"Art Varrassi" > wrote

> I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of the
> harassment you have been subject to.

Art,

Once you buy a clue, you will only be a dumb ass.

Until then, why don't you try sticking your head up your ass, and shutting
the hell up.

Oh, sorry. You must already have your head up your ass.

By the way, you won't win any friends around here, at least not any that
have the slightest grip on reality.
--
Jim in NC

buttman

February 5th 08, 09:37 AM

On Feb 3, 3:15 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Jacques: Hi Tony. What's new with you?
>
> Tony: I've made myself the center of attention on an online discussion
> group. I can post the most obvious, innocuous statement and it will draw
> dozens of responses.
>
> Jacques: That seems unlikely. People are much smarter than that. What is
> the nature of this discussion group?
>
> Tony: It's a discussion group for pilots. I think they are full of
> themselves. I could post something like "aircraft fly because their wings
> generate lift" and I am certain that because I was the one who posted it
> that it would create at least 30 responses.
>
> Jacques: Pilots have to be pretty smart to get where they are. I can't see
> how that would generate any responses. Okay, I could see maybe two or three
> but dozens seems entirely out of the question. You aren't that important.
> Pilots are trained to exercise good judgement.
>
> Tony: Ha! I'm willing to bet you 20 euro that if I post the sentence
> "Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they move
> forward through the air," I will get at least 30 responses.
>
> Jacques: Nonsense! That would not be worthy of response. Tell you what - if
> you get more than 5 responses, I'll pay out 1 euro for every response over
> that count - but not over 25 euros. If you get 5 or less responses, you owe
> me 25 euros. And no cheating! That seem fair?
>
> Tony: You're on!

My thoughts exactly. One could make a good living out of goading this
newsgroup on...

Larry Dighera

February 5th 08, 01:38 PM

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 00:26:54 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>
>"Art Varrassi" > wrote
>
>> I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of the
>> harassment you have been subject to.
>
>Art,
>
>Once you buy a clue, you will only be a dumb ass.
>
>Until then, why don't you try sticking your head up your ass, and shutting
>the hell up.
>
>Oh, sorry. You must already have your head up your ass.
>
>By the way, you won't win any friends around here, at least not any that
>have the slightest grip on reality.

Your comments say much more about you than anyone else. If you only
had the insight to see how maniacally fanatic and arrogantly
disrespectful your public display of incivility is, you would be
profoundly chagrined. I'm ashamed to count you among fellow airmen.
Grow up.

Jay Maynard

February 5th 08, 01:41 PM

On 2008-02-05, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> Your comments say much more about you than anyone else. If you only
> had the insight to see how maniacally fanatic and arrogantly
> disrespectful your public display of incivility is, you would be
> profoundly chagrined. I'm ashamed to count you among fellow airmen.
> Grow up.

Pot. Kettle. Carbon nanotube antireflective coating.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Larry Dighera

February 5th 08, 02:06 PM

On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:41:20 GMT, Jay Maynard
> wrote in
>:

>
>Pot. Kettle. Carbon nanotube antireflective coating.

One day you will learn to speak in complete sentences. Don't give up
trying. :-)

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 5th 08, 02:20 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:41:20 GMT, Jay Maynard
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>
>>Pot. Kettle. Carbon nanotube antireflective coating.
>
> One day you will learn to speak in complete sentences. Don't give up
> trying. :-)
>
>

What, you gonna teach him to quote a regulation?

Bertie

Big John[_2_]

February 5th 08, 11:59 PM

On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 22:19:14 -0600, "Art Varrassi"
> wrote:

>Mxsmanic,
>
>That is a very concise and accurate statement and a good generalized
>response to a layperson asking the question "how do airplanes fly?".
>
>I see no reason for all of the snide comments from others.
>
>I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of the
>harassment you have been subject to.
>
>Art Varrassi
>CP-ASEL
>KADS - Addison, TX

>
>
>"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
>> Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they move
>> forward
>> through the air.
>

************************************************** *****

Bottom line is that people with money buy airplanes and have enough
left over to buy gas to fkly them..

Big John

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 6th 08, 02:35 PM

>> I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of the
>> harassment you have been subject to.
>
> Once you buy a clue, you will only be a dumb ass.
> Until then, why don't you try sticking your head up your ass, and shutting
> the hell up.

Holy crap, Jim -- what the hell was THAT about?

You know this "Art" guy from somewhere, or what?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry Dighera

February 6th 08, 04:22 PM

On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:35:48 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <8Bjqj.18310$yE1.5354@attbi_s21>:

>> Once you buy a clue, you will only be a dumb ass.
>> Until then, why don't you try sticking your head up your ass, and shutting
>> the hell up.
>
>Holy crap, Jim -- what the hell was THAT about?

That was his manifestation of Christian charity and tolerance, of
course. :-)

Morgans[_2_]

February 6th 08, 04:52 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Holy crap, Jim -- what the hell was THAT about?
>
> You know this "Art" guy from somewhere, or what?

No, but ANYONE who supports the continued postings of M deserve all the ire
I can throw his way.

That's all. Simple.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

February 6th 08, 05:16 PM

On Feb 6, 9:52*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Holy crap, Jim -- what the hell was THAT about?
>
> > You know this "Art" guy from somewhere, or what?
>
> No, but ANYONE who supports the continued postings of M deserve all the ire
> I can throw his way.
>
> That's all. *Simple.
> --
> Jim in NC

**** and vinegar are better than ire...

Robert M. Gary

February 7th 08, 12:37 AM

On Feb 3, 9:53*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Fixed-wing aircraft fly because their wings generate lift as they move forward
> through the air.

No, airplanes fly because they can. Cars don't fly because they can't.

-Robert

[email protected]

February 7th 08, 06:46 AM

On Feb 3, 3:50*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> > They fly because of money.... :/ *Money generates both lift and thrust......
> > :)
>
> THIS is the real reason.
>
> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
they're not PAYING.

I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!

Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.

[email protected]

February 7th 08, 06:48 AM

On Feb 4, 10:19*pm, "Art Varrassi" > wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
> That is a very concise and accurate statement and a good generalized
> response to a layperson asking the question "how do airplanes fly?".
>
> I see no reason for all of the snide comments from others.
>
> I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of the
> harassment you have been subject to.
>
> Art Varrassi
> CP-ASEL
> KADS - Addison, TX
>
>

Damned sock puppet. That's what you are.

[email protected]

February 7th 08, 06:50 AM

On Feb 6, 10:52*am, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Holy crap, Jim -- what the hell was THAT about?
>
> > You know this "Art" guy from somewhere, or what?
>
> No, but ANYONE who supports the continued postings of M deserve all the ire
> I can throw his way.
>
> That's all. *Simple.
> --
> Jim in NC

The truth is without M the whole thing wouldn't be as fun. Fjukwit or
not. Anyway I left him and the other simmers a missive
on .aviation.simulation. Questions for them, for once.

Morgans[_2_]

February 7th 08, 08:12 AM

> wrote

The truth is without M the whole thing wouldn't be as fun.

I don't agree, and in a BIG way.

I don't come here for conflict. I don't come here to listen to stupidity.
I don't come here to witness mental sickness conditions.

If you want that, go to big time wrestling shows. I'm sure there are other
places where you can witness senseless arguments. This is not the place.

Simply put, this is a place for people to talk about flying, and aspects of
aviation. The current crop of loons are not interested in serious
discussion of such. Neither are the people that egg them on. There should
be no place for that, here.

The quality of the discussions here has diminished by a factor of ten. So
have the quantity of people with real experiences to give input to the
discussions.

If this continues much longer, the group will be without value. Some would
say, perhaps rightfully so, that it already has fallen to that point.

If you want conflict and see worms getting squished, please go elsewhere,
and leave the discussion of aviation to people that prefer to discuss
aviation, and not loons and kooks.
--
Jim in NC

Snowbird

February 7th 08, 08:48 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
...
> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and
>> thrust..... :)
>>
> THIS is the real reason.
>
> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly proportional
> to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>

I beg to disagree.
Airplanes fly because of desire. Desire generates money.
;-)

Michael Ash

February 7th 08, 12:24 PM

In rec.aviation.student Snowbird > wrote:
>
> I beg to disagree.
> Airplanes fly because of desire. Desire generates money.
> ;-)

And all these years I've been *working* for it like an idiot!

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 7th 08, 02:51 PM

wrote:
> On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and thrust.....
>>> :)
>> THIS is the real reason.
>>
>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
> I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
> military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
> they're not PAYING.
>
> I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
> the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
> maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>
> Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.

I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
misinformed.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 7th 08, 05:36 PM

> The quality of the discussions here has diminished by a factor of ten. So
> have the quantity of people with real experiences to give input to the
> discussions.

I agree 100% Jim. But I have a simple solution.

1. Use a newsreader like "Windows Mail" or "Outlook Express". As much as I
liked the search powers of Google Groups, their lack of any sort of
filtering reduced this newsgroup to chaos. I have therefore abandoned GGs.

2. With three keystrokes, you can create a killfile that utterly eliminates
every post by anyone you so designate as persona non grata.

I was two steps out the door from this group before rediscovering
newsreaders. Now, I only see the "good stuff" again, and the trolls can do
their continual verbal circle-jerk in complete anonymity, for all I care.

Of course, the sad part is that this has all become necessary. Killfiles
weren't necessary for the first 9 years I was on this group, but when a
small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly endless) time on their
hands takes a hankering to a group, it's obvious that they can destroy it
pretty easily.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans[_2_]

February 7th 08, 09:41 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Of course, the sad part is that this has all become necessary. Killfiles
> weren't necessary for the first 9 years I was on this group, but when a
> small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly endless) time on
> their hands takes a hankering to a group, it's obvious that they can
> destroy it pretty easily.

Yep, and the quantity of quality posts has dropped by such a large factor,
I would not even know where to place the number. Seems many people just
took a hike, rather than put up with it. I don't blame them, and have to
wonder how much longer I will be a regular.

Speaking of missing regulars, what's up with Montblack? Is he taking a
break, or does anyone know what became of him?
--
Jim in NC

Euan Kilgour

February 7th 08, 09:52 PM

On Feb 7, 9:48 pm, "Snowbird" > wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> >> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and
> >> thrust..... :)
>
> > THIS is the real reason.
>
> > And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly proportional
> > to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>
> I beg to disagree.
> Airplanes fly because of desire. Desire generates money.
> ;-)

If God had intended man to fly we would have been given tickets. :)

Bertie the Bunyip

February 7th 08, 10:29 PM

On Feb 7, 5:36*pm, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > The quality of the discussions here has diminished by a factor of ten. *So
> > have the quantity of people with real experiences to give input to the
> > discussions.
>
> I agree 100% Jim. *But I have a simple solution.\\

What, you're going to stop posting?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

February 7th 08, 10:31 PM

On Feb 7, 2:51*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> >>> They fly because of money.... :/ *Money generates both lift and thrust.....
> >>> :)
> >> THIS is the real reason.
>
> >> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
> >> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
> > military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
> > they're not PAYING.
>
> > I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
> > the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
> > maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>
> > Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>
> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
> misinformed.

I agree. If you want to do something, you do it. If you want to look
like you do something, you make excuses.

Period. Full stop. End fo story. Finnito Spagghetio.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 7th 08, 10:49 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>>>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and thrust.....
>>>>> :)
>>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
>>> military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
>>> they're not PAYING.
>>> I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
>>> the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
>>> maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>>> Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
>> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
>> misinformed.
>
> I agree. If you want to do something, you do it. If you want to look
> like you do something, you make excuses.
>
>
>
> Period. Full stop. End fo story. Finnito Spagghetio.
>
>
>
> Bertie

The worst part is that I can't stand Yeager ....never could. Not that
he's a bad stick because he could and can fly with the best of them.

I never liked the fact that he sailed through life taking the accolades
that belonged to George Welsh. There was no excuse for that. Yeager
could have set things right anytime he chose to do so.
To my knowledge, he hasn't done it yet!
D

--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Stewart

February 7th 08, 10:59 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>>>>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and
>>>>>> thrust.....
>>>>>> :)
>>>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>> I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
>>>> military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
>>>> they're not PAYING.
>>>> I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
>>>> the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
>>>> maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>>>> Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>>> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
>>> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
>>> misinformed.
>>
>> I agree. If you want to do something, you do it. If you want to look
>> like you do something, you make excuses.
>>
>>
>>
>> Period. Full stop. End fo story. Finnito Spagghetio.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The worst part is that I can't stand Yeager ....never could. Not that
> he's a bad stick because he could and can fly with the best of them.
>
> I never liked the fact that he sailed through life taking the accolades
> that belonged to George Welsh. There was no excuse for that. Yeager
> could have set things right anytime he chose to do so.
> To my knowledge, he hasn't done it yet!

Could you tell us a little about it? I googled
George Welsh and about all I could find is that
he was a North American test pilot and was killed
testing an F-100 at supersonic speeds.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 7th 08, 11:20 PM

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>>>>>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and
>>>>>>> thrust.....
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>>>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>> I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
>>>>> military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
>>>>> they're not PAYING.
>>>>> I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
>>>>> the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
>>>>> maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>>>>> Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>>>> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
>>>> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
>>>> misinformed.
>>>
>>> I agree. If you want to do something, you do it. If you want to look
>>> like you do something, you make excuses.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Period. Full stop. End fo story. Finnito Spagghetio.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>
>> The worst part is that I can't stand Yeager ....never could. Not that
>> he's a bad stick because he could and can fly with the best of them.
>>
>> I never liked the fact that he sailed through life taking the
>> accolades that belonged to George Welsh. There was no excuse for that.
>> Yeager could have set things right anytime he chose to do so.
>> To my knowledge, he hasn't done it yet!
>
> Could you tell us a little about it? I googled
> George Welsh and about all I could find is that
> he was a North American test pilot and was killed
> testing an F-100 at supersonic speeds.
>
>
>
>
The long and the short of it is that Yeager was/is a superb pilot who
did indeed break mach 1 in the Bell X1 as well as a number of additional
notable achievements. The only rub in it is the fact that he was about a
week late on the mach 1 flight and George Welsh broke mach 1 before him
in the prototype F86. There's no doubt whatsover that Welsh went
supersonic in the Sabre, as there were a ton of eye witnesses who heard
the boom at Pancho's the day he did it. In fact, Welsh had told Barnes
to listen for the sound and she had clued the whole place in on what was
happening.
Yeager had his X1 flight and broke the barrier IN LEVEL FLIGHT, and this
should have been the way the news was released, but due to publicity
and contract issues ongoing at the time, Yeager's flight was treated as
the initial successful mach 1 attempt. Welsh had broken the mach in a
dive and his attempt was completely unauthorized by North American.
What's so bad about Yeager is that he knew Welsh. They were competitors
in the flight test business. Yeager has had years to set the record
straight and give Welsh the credit that was denied him, but he hasn't
done that. This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will
eventually, as history sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.
Both ways, it diminishes the accomplishments of two great aviation pioneers.
There's a bit more to the story, but this is the skinny from my
perspective anyway.

--
Dudley Henriques

Hilton

February 7th 08, 11:25 PM

Dudley wrote:
> This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will eventually, as history
> sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.

IMHO, Yaeger's life is already blotted after what he said immediately after
Scott Crossfield's accident. So many options, so many good opportunities to
say good things about a great man, but he chose the tasteless route. Pity.

Hilton

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 7th 08, 11:32 PM

Hilton wrote:
> Dudley wrote:
>> This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will eventually, as history
>> sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.
>
> IMHO, Yaeger's life is already blotted after what he said immediately after
> Scott Crossfield's accident. So many options, so many good opportunities to
> say good things about a great man, but he chose the tasteless route. Pity.
>
> Hilton
>
>
I couldn't agree more, and this was just one more nail in the coffin
that defines why I can't take Yeager.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jim Stewart

February 7th 08, 11:34 PM

Dudley Henriques wrote:
> Jim Stewart wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>>>>>>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and
>>>>>>>> thrust.....
>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>>>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>>>>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>> I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
>>>>>> military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at
>>>>>> least
>>>>>> they're not PAYING.
>>>>>> I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
>>>>>> the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
>>>>>> maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>>>>>> Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>>>>> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
>>>>> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
>>>>> misinformed.
>>>>
>>>> I agree. If you want to do something, you do it. If you want to look
>>>> like you do something, you make excuses.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Period. Full stop. End fo story. Finnito Spagghetio.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>
>>> The worst part is that I can't stand Yeager ....never could. Not that
>>> he's a bad stick because he could and can fly with the best of them.
>>>
>>> I never liked the fact that he sailed through life taking the
>>> accolades that belonged to George Welsh. There was no excuse for
>>> that. Yeager could have set things right anytime he chose to do so.
>>> To my knowledge, he hasn't done it yet!
>>
>> Could you tell us a little about it? I googled
>> George Welsh and about all I could find is that
>> he was a North American test pilot and was killed
>> testing an F-100 at supersonic speeds.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> The long and the short of it is that Yeager was/is a superb pilot who
> did indeed break mach 1 in the Bell X1 as well as a number of additional
> notable achievements. The only rub in it is the fact that he was about a
> week late on the mach 1 flight and George Welsh broke mach 1 before him
> in the prototype F86. There's no doubt whatsover that Welsh went
> supersonic in the Sabre, as there were a ton of eye witnesses who heard
> the boom at Pancho's the day he did it. In fact, Welsh had told Barnes
> to listen for the sound and she had clued the whole place in on what was
> happening.
> Yeager had his X1 flight and broke the barrier IN LEVEL FLIGHT, and this
> should have been the way the news was released, but due to publicity
> and contract issues ongoing at the time, Yeager's flight was treated as
> the initial successful mach 1 attempt. Welsh had broken the mach in a
> dive and his attempt was completely unauthorized by North American.
> What's so bad about Yeager is that he knew Welsh. They were competitors
> in the flight test business. Yeager has had years to set the record
> straight and give Welsh the credit that was denied him, but he hasn't
> done that. This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will
> eventually, as history sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.
> Both ways, it diminishes the accomplishments of two great aviation
> pioneers.
> There's a bit more to the story, but this is the skinny from my
> perspective anyway.

Thanks. That explains it.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 7th 08, 11:37 PM

Jim Stewart wrote:
> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>> Jim Stewart wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques wrote:
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 7, 2:51 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and
>>>>>>>>> thrust.....
>>>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>>>>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>>>>>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>>>>>> I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
>>>>>>> military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at
>>>>>>> least
>>>>>>> they're not PAYING.
>>>>>>> I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
>>>>>>> the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
>>>>>>> maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>>>>>>> Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>>>>>> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I
>>>>>> needed to
>>>>>> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
>>>>>> misinformed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. If you want to do something, you do it. If you want to look
>>>>> like you do something, you make excuses.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Period. Full stop. End fo story. Finnito Spagghetio.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>> The worst part is that I can't stand Yeager ....never could. Not
>>>> that he's a bad stick because he could and can fly with the best of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> I never liked the fact that he sailed through life taking the
>>>> accolades that belonged to George Welsh. There was no excuse for
>>>> that. Yeager could have set things right anytime he chose to do so.
>>>> To my knowledge, he hasn't done it yet!
>>>
>>> Could you tell us a little about it? I googled
>>> George Welsh and about all I could find is that
>>> he was a North American test pilot and was killed
>>> testing an F-100 at supersonic speeds.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The long and the short of it is that Yeager was/is a superb pilot who
>> did indeed break mach 1 in the Bell X1 as well as a number of
>> additional notable achievements. The only rub in it is the fact that
>> he was about a week late on the mach 1 flight and George Welsh broke
>> mach 1 before him in the prototype F86. There's no doubt whatsover
>> that Welsh went supersonic in the Sabre, as there were a ton of eye
>> witnesses who heard the boom at Pancho's the day he did it. In fact,
>> Welsh had told Barnes to listen for the sound and she had clued the
>> whole place in on what was happening.
>> Yeager had his X1 flight and broke the barrier IN LEVEL FLIGHT, and
>> this should have been the way the news was released, but due to
>> publicity and contract issues ongoing at the time, Yeager's flight was
>> treated as the initial successful mach 1 attempt. Welsh had broken
>> the mach in a dive and his attempt was completely unauthorized by
>> North American.
>> What's so bad about Yeager is that he knew Welsh. They were competitors
>> in the flight test business. Yeager has had years to set the record
>> straight and give Welsh the credit that was denied him, but he hasn't
>> done that. This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will
>> eventually, as history sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.
>> Both ways, it diminishes the accomplishments of two great aviation
>> pioneers.
>> There's a bit more to the story, but this is the skinny from my
>> perspective anyway.
>
> Thanks. That explains it.
>
>
Keep in mind that I wasn't at Pancho's the day Welsh broke the barrier,
but this is my understanding of what happened and my sources are sources
I trust. This, coupled with Yeager's comment about Scott Crossfield
shortly after Crossfield was killed are enough for me. Yeager is just
not my cup of tea.

--
Dudley Henriques

Morgans[_2_]

February 8th 08, 12:15 AM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote

> Yeager has had years to set the record straight and give Welsh the credit
> that was denied him, but he hasn't done that. This not only denies Welsh
> his credit due, but will eventually, as history sorts it all out, blot the
> life of Yeager as well.
> Both ways, it diminishes the accomplishments of two great aviation
> pioneers.
> There's a bit more to the story, but this is the skinny from my
> perspective anyway.
I never liked how he treated other people, in general.

One case comes to mind, when he was asked to comment about the first around
the world un re-fueled flight, in voyager.

He dismissed it, very off handedly, saying, " that was no big deal. They
were not doing anything new, it was just an airplane that carried a lot of
fuel," or something to that effect. I don't remember the exact quote, but
it was along those lines.

I vowed that day, that I would never walk to the other side of a path to
meet him, hear him speak, or get an autograph.
--
Jim in NC

Larry Dighera

February 8th 08, 12:27 AM

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:36:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <MkHqj.19887$yE1.4959@attbi_s21>:

>but when a
>small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly endless) time on their
>hands takes a hankering to a group, it's obvious that they can destroy it
>pretty easily.

That appears to be their stated agenda:

http://www.gwu.edu/~trivia/meow.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars

[email protected]

February 8th 08, 12:54 AM

On Feb 7, 8:51*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
> >>> They fly because of money.... :/ *Money generates both lift and thrust.....
> >>> :)
> >> THIS is the real reason.
>
> >> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
> >> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>
> >> --
> >> Dudley Henriques
>
> > I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
> > military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
> > they're not PAYING.
>
> > I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
> > the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
> > maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>
> > Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>
> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
> misinformed.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeager as in highly skilled and experienced. Which you are.

I was trying to pay you a COMPLIMENT. I failed, I guess!

[email protected]

February 8th 08, 01:03 AM

> Simply put, this is a place for people to talk about flying, and aspects of
> aviation. *The current crop of loons are not interested in serious
> discussion of such. *Neither are the people that egg them on. *There should
> be no place for that, here.

Like it or not there are loons and trolls on the Internet.

The Internet has no law enforcement, not much content enforcement --
and I LIKE it that way. If there's a brawl, so be it. It's not like
you can't ignore that. There are plenty of tools to help you filter
out anything you don't want to see.

If you know so much about aviation and flying already that you can't
learn anything here, there're a few very simple solutions.

I come here because there ARE people who I think have a high level of
experience with piloting and I like asking them questions. I listen to
what they say and I learn from it. I don't have many opinions, usually
just questions.

But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
Mx's postulating and theorizing.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 8th 08, 01:05 AM

wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:51 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 3:50 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>>>>> They fly because of money.... :/ Money generates both lift and thrust.....
>>>>> :)
>>>> THIS is the real reason.
>>>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>>>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>>> --
>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>> I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
>>> military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
>>> they're not PAYING.
>>> I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
>>> the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
>>> maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>>> Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.
>> I'm not a Yeager type, and if you think that money was all I needed to
>> fly military airplanes the way I have in my career you are sadly
>> misinformed.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeager as in highly skilled and experienced. Which you are.
>
> I was trying to pay you a COMPLIMENT. I failed, I guess!

Your post didn't read like any compliment to me mister. It was snide,
overly familiar, and totally incorrect to boot. You don't know me well
enough to compare me with anyone, let alone someone I detest.
In the future, if you post to me with anything as ambigious as this post
was, use a f*****g smilie.
--
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

February 8th 08, 01:06 AM

> I never liked the fact that he sailed through life taking the accolades
> that belonged to George Welsh. There was no excuse for that. Yeager
> could have set things right anytime he chose to do so.
> To my knowledge, he hasn't done it yet!
> --
> Dudley Henriques-

Hmm. I'm reading Yeager's autobiography right now. I don't think I've
seen mention of the name George Welsh in it at all. And I'm about 2/3
finished.

[email protected]

February 8th 08, 01:07 AM

> IMHO, Yaeger's life is already blotted after what he said immediately after
> Scott Crossfield's accident. *So many options, so many good opportunities to
> say good things about a great man, but he chose the tasteless route. *Pity.
>
> Hilton

What did he say?

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 8th 08, 01:54 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
>> Yeager has had years to set the record straight and give Welsh the credit
>> that was denied him, but he hasn't done that. This not only denies Welsh
>> his credit due, but will eventually, as history sorts it all out, blot the
>> life of Yeager as well.
>> Both ways, it diminishes the accomplishments of two great aviation
>> pioneers.
>> There's a bit more to the story, but this is the skinny from my
>> perspective anyway.
> I never liked how he treated other people, in general.
>
> One case comes to mind, when he was asked to comment about the first around
> the world un re-fueled flight, in voyager.
>
> He dismissed it, very off handedly, saying, " that was no big deal. They
> were not doing anything new, it was just an airplane that carried a lot of
> fuel," or something to that effect. I don't remember the exact quote, but
> it was along those lines.
>
> I vowed that day, that I would never walk to the other side of a path to
> meet him, hear him speak, or get an autograph.

I learned a long time ago that "hero's" in many cases are not what
people envision them to be through their public persona. The image is
what gets embedded in people's minds; seldom the real person. These
hero's can be better or worse than this public image.
I've known many hero's in my life. Most have been quiet and unassuming
to a large degree.
I knew one MOH winner quite well. We were shooting baskets in his
driveway once and the ball went into his garage through the open door. I
went in to get it. I accidentally knocked over a cigar box that was
stashed under a work table and it opened its contents on the floor. His
MOH was in there. I picked it up and handed it to him. He just looked at
it for a second and put it carefully back into the box.
I guess he saw the quizzical look on my face and he remarked as we went
outside to resume our one on one;
"I'm storing that for the guys it belongs too. They're still out there"

--
Dudley Henriques

Margy Natalie

February 8th 08, 01:59 AM

Hilton wrote:
> Dudley wrote:
>
>>This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will eventually, as history
>>sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.
>
>
> IMHO, Yaeger's life is already blotted after what he said immediately after
> Scott Crossfield's accident. So many options, so many good opportunities to
> say good things about a great man, but he chose the tasteless route. Pity.
>
> Hilton
>
>
I like how Avweb reported that, they quoted Yaeger and then said
something to the effect of "funny, we don't remember Scott saying
anything after Yaeger ran off that runway last year." I'm also very
happy that the NTSB gave ATC 50% of the responsibility for Scott's accident.

Margy

[email protected]

February 8th 08, 02:01 AM

> > I was trying to pay you a COMPLIMENT. I failed, I guess!
>
> Your post didn't read like any compliment to me mister. It was snide,
> overly familiar, and totally incorrect to boot. You don't know me well
> enough to compare me with anyone, let alone someone I detest.
> In the future, if you post to me with anything as ambigious as this post
> was, use a f*****g smilie.
> --
> Dudley Henriques-

I can't really apolgize for a post I absolutely did not intend to be
either snide or familiar in any way. You're widely viewed as a highly
skilled, knowledgable pilot, and so I also can't say I'm sorry for
comparing your skills to another great pilot, Yeager, who I now
understand that you detest.

My posts are probably all kinds of wrong -- but it ain't wrong to say
military pilots don't have to put out the big bucks to ride in the
finest planes there are, which was the gist of my post in a part of
this thread where numerous posts were joking around about money making
planes fly.

That's all there really was to it.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 8th 08, 02:04 AM

wrote:
>>> I was trying to pay you a COMPLIMENT. I failed, I guess!
>> Your post didn't read like any compliment to me mister. It was snide,
>> overly familiar, and totally incorrect to boot. You don't know me well
>> enough to compare me with anyone, let alone someone I detest.
>> In the future, if you post to me with anything as ambigious as this post
>> was, use a f*****g smilie.
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques-
>
> I can't really apolgize for a post I absolutely did not intend to be
> either snide or familiar in any way. You're widely viewed as a highly
> skilled, knowledgable pilot, and so I also can't say I'm sorry for
> comparing your skills to another great pilot, Yeager, who I now
> understand that you detest.
>
> My posts are probably all kinds of wrong -- but it ain't wrong to say
> military pilots don't have to put out the big bucks to ride in the
> finest planes there are, which was the gist of my post in a part of
> this thread where numerous posts were joking around about money making
> planes fly.
>
> That's all there really was to it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
No sweat. Forget it. No harm done. Just be advised I have a Pavlov
reaction to smilies. When inserted, there is no mistaking the good
intent of a post. I use them all the time :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Morgans[_2_]

February 8th 08, 02:32 AM

> wrote

>Like it or not there are loons and trolls on the Internet.

Well, I don't like it, and it's my right to say so, and do what I can to get
rid of them too. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of dickwads that enjoy
egging him on. If it were not for them, the trolls would have been long
gone.

> The Internet has no law enforcement, not much content enforcement --
> and I LIKE it that way. If there's a brawl, so be it. It's not like
> you can't ignore that. There are plenty of tools to help you filter
> out anything you don't want to see.

Yep, I can ignore it, like I will soon be ignoring you, I guess. You are
missing the point, though.

There used to be about three times the number of really cool, well qualified
people, that could speak volumes on the subjects of aviation. They didn't
think it was worth sticking around, and are now gone. Now do you really
want to tell me how all I have to do is ignore the kooks? It will really be
just as good as it was, before one nut came in, and brough a bunch of other
nuts that like picking on nuts like him, and around and around we go with
far less people that can really talk aviation? That's what you want to tell
me? I don't think so.

> I come here because there ARE people who I think have a high level of
> experience with piloting and I like asking them questions. I listen to
> what they say and I learn from it. I don't have many opinions, usually
> just questions.

You would have really loved it, a couple years ago, then. There is but a
small sampling of people with the varied experiences that are still here,
compared to before. It is really sad that a few nut cases can cause so much
chaos.

But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
Mx's postulating and theorizing.

Yep, laugh, laugh, laugh. I suppose you think Jackass TV is pretty damn
funny, too.

Sad, man. Really sad.

Grow up.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

February 8th 08, 02:59 AM

> No sweat. Forget it. No harm done. Just be advised I have a Pavlov
> reaction to smilies. When inserted, there is no mistaking the good
> intent of a post. I use them all the time :-)
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques-

Okay, I hear you.

I have to use them all the time at work, lest these misunderstandings
cause big problems. ;)

george

February 8th 08, 03:09 AM

On Feb 8, 12:32 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Hilton wrote:
> > Dudley wrote:
> >> This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will eventually, as history
> >> sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.
>
> > IMHO, Yaeger's life is already blotted after what he said immediately after
> > Scott Crossfield's accident. So many options, so many good opportunities to
> > say good things about a great man, but he chose the tasteless route. Pity.
>
> > Hilton
>
> I couldn't agree more, and this was just one more nail in the coffin
> that defines why I can't take Yeager.

Yeager came out here to an Air Show at Wanaka where he was asked by a
young TVNZ reporter as to how he could take up flying .
The reply was so arrogant and insulting Yeager suddenly was not at the
Air Show.

Morgans[_2_]

February 8th 08, 03:11 AM

>> But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
>> Mx's postulating and theorizing.

Just to keep things straight, I did not write the above.. There should have
been >>'s in front of that comment; written by the previous poster.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 8th 08, 03:17 AM

wrote:
>> No sweat. Forget it. No harm done. Just be advised I have a Pavlov
>> reaction to smilies. When inserted, there is no mistaking the good
>> intent of a post. I use them all the time :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques-
>
> Okay, I hear you.
>
> I have to use them all the time at work, lest these misunderstandings
> cause big problems. ;)

The stuff comes at you fast on Usenet. Lots of personalities
interacting at the same time.
Whenever I'm not absolutely certain my tone will be taken the right way
I always use those damn smilies. They're stupid looking I admit, but
they serve me a very useful purpose. People seldom mistake my intent.

--
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

February 8th 08, 03:25 AM

Hold on, for a second. Previously on this very thread you posted this
comment:

> I don't come here for conflict.

But then you write these things:

> Yep, I can ignore it, like I will soon be ignoring you *
...
> Yep, laugh, laugh, laugh. I suppose you think Jackass TV is pretty damn
> funny, too.
>
> Sad, man. Really sad.
>
> Grow up.

You can't write those things and at the same time honestly claim you
don't come here for conflict. Every one of us is sometimes guilty of
being provocative and rude, or write something that someone else
misinterprets, or we misinterpret what someone else writes. There's
really no way to misinterpret what you have written above. It's not
about aviation. What I quote above shows that you are just as capable
of dishing out confrontation as you are capable of complaining about
it.

> There used to be about three times the number of really cool, well qualified
> people, that could speak volumes on the subjects of aviation. *They didn't
> think it was worth sticking around, and are now gone.

> You would have really loved it, a couple years ago, then. There is but a
> small sampling of people with the varied experiences that are still here,
> compared to before.

I can't guess as to why those people don't post here anymore. But,
yeah, I would have thought it was cool and I would have liked to read
their posts.

> *It is really sad that a few nut cases can cause so much
> chaos.

I have never seen Usenet not have a lot of off topic posts by nut
cases, or trolls being pests. I'm surely way more interested in the
good stuff than the ridiculous and the distracting.

However I also think it's okay if some people get a laugh out of the
occasional loon. I'm not calling you a jackass just because you don't
like chaotic posts. However it sure seems you are calling me a jackass
by your non-confrontational comments about Jackass TV.

Let's get back to planes and piloting now.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 8th 08, 03:29 AM

george wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:32 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Hilton wrote:
>>> Dudley wrote:
>>>> This not only denies Welsh his credit due, but will eventually, as history
>>>> sorts it all out, blot the life of Yeager as well.
>>> IMHO, Yaeger's life is already blotted after what he said immediately after
>>> Scott Crossfield's accident. So many options, so many good opportunities to
>>> say good things about a great man, but he chose the tasteless route. Pity.
>>> Hilton
>> I couldn't agree more, and this was just one more nail in the coffin
>> that defines why I can't take Yeager.
>
> Yeager came out here to an Air Show at Wanaka where he was asked by a
> young TVNZ reporter as to how he could take up flying .
> The reply was so arrogant and insulting Yeager suddenly was not at the
> Air Show.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I deal directly in the demonstration flying flight safety business every
day and interact with some of the finest pilots on the planet. Some of
these young people could fly rings around Yeager even in his prime. They
are world champions.
Almost every one of these people to a man/woman, are totally dedicated
not only to saving lives, but to furthering the general cause of
aviation. These professionals interact on their own time and dime.
The contrast between these people and someone like Yeager is astounding.
You couldn't ask to work with finer pilots anywhere....anytime.
Yeager could have been a loud voice for aviation. Apparently his voice
is loud enough....but it's all about him, not about aviation.

--
Dudley Henriques

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

February 8th 08, 03:54 AM

Morgans wrote:
> Speaking of missing regulars, what's up with Montblack? Is he taking a
> break, or does anyone know what became of him?

Remember my previous post about Jay's night clerk socking for him?

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 8th 08, 04:10 AM

> Speaking of missing regulars, what's up with Montblack? Is he taking a
> break, or does anyone know what became of him?

We just celebrated his birthday last weekend, and I asked him the same
question.

Bottom line: Same thing you're saying. The trolls are winning.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 8th 08, 04:13 AM

>>but when a
>>small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly endless) time on
>>their
>>hands takes a hankering to a group, it's obvious that they can destroy it
>>pretty easily.
>
> That appears to be their stated agenda:
>
> http://www.gwu.edu/~trivia/meow.html
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars

Interesting history. Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many times.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 8th 08, 04:18 AM

> But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
> Mx's postulating and theorizing.

At the risk of bringing on Jim's wrath, I agree with you.

IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to time,
and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is always a
gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow posters.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Big John[_2_]

February 8th 08, 05:46 AM

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 22:46:27 -0800 (PST), wrote:

>On Feb 3, 3:50*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Cecil E. Chapman wrote:
>> > They fly because of money.... :/ *Money generates both lift and thrust.....
>> > :)
>>
>> THIS is the real reason.
>>
>> And let it be known as well that lift and thrust are directly
>> proportional to the AMOUNT of money spent :-)
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>I guess that's why you Yeager types figure out ways to get into the
>military planes. The military guys may not get paid much, but at least
>they're not PAYING.
>
>I'd wager the average fighter pilot monthly salary would not pay for
>the gas the pilot uses on a single flight -- let alone the
>maintenance. Even for a couple of flights!
>
>Well, sheet. Some people are just smarter than others.

************************************************** ******************

When I was a 2nd Lt in USAAC I made $150 a month with flight pay.

The P-51 I flew burned about 60 gph at a modest cruise. With a 3 hour
mission that would be 180 gallons. Mission actually burned more gph
with full power for take off an climb power going to altitude.

So even at $1.00 a gallon, the gas for one flight cost more than my
monthly pay. To continue, I probably averaged 20 hours a month which
at 60 gph comes out to 1300 gallons, In a years time that would equate
to 15,600 gallons and my yearly pay was still $1800.

Some of us just loved to fly (fighters) and getting paid to do it was
icing on the cake :o)

Big John

Jay Maynard

February 8th 08, 12:47 PM

On 2008-02-08, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
> actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to time,
> and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is always a
> gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow posters.

I've dropped Bertie into my killfile, reluctantly; he does have good
insights to offer, but finding the gems requires lots of wading through
crap. I'll probably drop MX in there the next time I see one of his posts.
Between that, and hitting N when I see a post that starts entirely with
quoted material, I'm missing most of the idiocy.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Barry

February 8th 08, 01:43 PM

> I'm also very happy that the NTSB gave ATC 50% of the responsibility for
> Scott's accident.

Just to clarify, the NTSB did not apportion the responsibility, but just
listed probable cause as:

"The pilot's failure to obtain updated en route weather information, which
resulted in his continued instrument flight into a widespread area of severe
convective activity, and the air traffic controller's failure to provide
adverse weather avoidance assistance, as required by Federal Aviation
Administration directives, both of which led to the airplane's encounter with
a severe thunderstorm and subsequent loss of control."

I don't know if there's a civil trial associated with the accident, but if
there is, that's where the judge or jury might set percentages.

Barry

February 8th 08, 01:55 PM

> I deal directly in the demonstration flying flight safety business every day
> and interact with some of the finest pilots on the planet. Some of these
> young people could fly rings around Yeager even in his prime. They are world
> champions.
> Almost every one of these people to a man/woman, are totally dedicated not
> only to saving lives, but to furthering the general cause of aviation. These
> professionals interact on their own time and dime.
> The contrast between these people and someone like Yeager is astounding.
> You couldn't ask to work with finer pilots anywhere....anytime.

Back in 1988 as a low-time private pilot I got a Cherokee checkout at the
local airport and the CFI was Matt Chapman. At the time I didn't know who he
was, but I remember that he was a nice guy and struck me as a conscientious
instructor. He's since moved on to bigger and better things, but according to
the FAA database he still keeps his CFI certificate current.

Larry Dighera

February 8th 08, 04:47 PM

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:13:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <NFQqj.20667$9j6.17497@attbi_s22>:

>
>Interesting history. Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many times.

Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
individuals. It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. We all
did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
their adulthood. Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.

What is disappointing is the breakdown of the traditional method of
controlling rogue Usenet nodes that inject into the newsstream
inappropriate, off-topic, and articles clearly intended to be
disruptive. In the past, if a downstream node gatewayed abusive
content into Usenet, its upstream nodes would cut off its access to
the network through their systems until the news administrator of the
rogue site got his users back in line. Today there are at least two
reasons that method is breaking down.

First, there are news administrators who actually condone abusive
articles thinly guised in the name of free speech. While I am a firm
believer in free speech, I'm at a loss to understand their true
motivation. Any thinking adult accepts the constraints of order on
freedom. If Usenet lacked order and structure, there would only be
one newsgroup that contained the sum of all Usenet content. Clearly
that wouldn't be very useful.

But more importantly is the immunity granted Common Carriers (such as
the phone company) against liability for the content they carry. If a
news administrator can be shown to be censoring content, he is in
danger of losing that immunity. Rather than taking responsibility for
the quality of the content emanating from their nodes, these meek news
administrators abdicate that responsibility out of fear, laziness and
indifference. They are as much to blame for the decline in the
quality of Usenet content as the abusive posters whom they tolerate.

So aside from reporting articles that violate the Usenet provider's
Acceptable Use Policy to their abuse department, about the only other
acceptable course of action to stem the tide of noise is to lobby the
news administrator of the abusive node's upstream feed to disconnect
the abusive node. The identity of that site is usually discernable
from the article's 'Path:' header field.

There is also, what I would characterize as a feeble and largely
self-defeating course of action against intentionally disruptive
posters: peer pressure. Publicly admonishing them, while providing
the admonisher with a certain amount of satisfaction in venting his
frustration, in reality only contributes to reducing the newsgroup's
signal to noise ratio. But worse than that, public admonishment can
be a construed as a reward by the abuser, as it validates the abuser's
ability to affect the newsgroup's readership, and it opens a line of
communication for further off-topic articles. If one cannot resist
responding to abusive articles, he should respond to it via private
e-mail, so that the abuser is denied a public forum to spew additional
disruptive content.

As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:

1. Choosing what they read, and
2. Choosing to post or not.

That's it. Simple.

Morgans[_2_]

February 8th 08, 04:56 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:JKQqj.20672$9j6.19927@attbi_s22...
>> But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
>> Mx's postulating and theorizing.
>
> At the risk of bringing on Jim's wrath, I agree with you.
>
> IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
> actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to
> time, and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is
> always a gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow
> posters.
So he's a polite idiot. Big deal

You need to start looking at the big picture, Jay.

MX's presence here, is like someone taking a dump in your lobby, daily, and
saying "have a nice day, kind friends," as he does it.

You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
lingers?

If you do, you need to re-examine your priorities, and start taking a harder
view.

Either that, or you are such a nice guy, that you enjoy cleaning up **** out
of your lobby. Or you would rather just leave it there, because you are
afraid of offending him.

It has to be one or the other. Which?
--
Jim in NC

Larry Dighera

February 8th 08, 05:29 PM

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 11:56:38 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>If you do, you need to re-examine your priorities, and start taking a harder
>view.

Perhaps you need to consider extending a little Christian forgiveness.

Michael Ash

February 8th 08, 06:09 PM

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck > wrote:
> IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that are
> actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time to time,
> and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He is always a
> gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting fellow posters.

Just because he is not foul-mouthed does not mean he does not insult
people. His insanely inflated sense of self-worth and insanely deflated
sense of the worth of others is more than enough to do the job.

To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
landings in a simulator.

Tell me that's not an insult. Tell me that's being a gentleman.

Other examples abound. Just because he is well-spoken and doesn't swear
doesn't make him nice. In fact in some ways it makes it worse, because
it's all part of a manner which is used to make him look like the victim
when he comes along and insults all of these fine people with vastly more
knowledge and experience than himself (and more than me).

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Mxsmanic

February 8th 08, 08:11 PM

Jay Honeck writes:

> Interesting history. Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many times.

Boys will be boys, and the same bullies who make life difficult for others on
the playground make it nearly as difficult in cyberspace.

Mxsmanic

February 8th 08, 08:14 PM

Larry Dighera writes:

> Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
> constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
> individuals. It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. We all
> did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
> authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
> their adulthood. Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
> fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
> on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.

There's nothing fundamentally required or normal about misbehavior, and many
people get through adolescence without engaging in it.

> As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
> clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:
>
> 1. Choosing what they read, and
> 2. Choosing to post or not.
>
> That's it. Simple.

And that is sufficient.

Morgans[_2_]

February 8th 08, 09:25 PM

"Michael Ash" > wrote

> Other examples abound. Just because he is well-spoken and doesn't swear
> doesn't make him nice. In fact in some ways it makes it worse, because
> it's all part of a manner which is used to make him look like the victim
> when he comes along and insults all of these fine people with vastly more
> knowledge and experience than himself (and more than me).

Exactly.

His presence here is an insult to all people that have found this forum to
be of value to them.

Everyone should be wise enough to realize this, and start treating him like
"he whose name must not be spoken."

Hell, I think I would rather have the "he whose name must not be spoken"
back, and MX gone. At least the other one was not playing games with the
group. You knew where he stood. In reality.

Yep, I'm sure of it. I'll vote for the switch.
--
Jim in NC

Bertie the Bunyip

February 9th 08, 04:20 AM

On 8 Feb, 04:13, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >>but when a
> >>small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly endless) time on
> >>their
> >>hands takes a hankering to a group, it's obvious that they can destroy it
> >>pretty easily.
>
> > That appears to be their stated agenda:
>
> > * *http://www.gwu.edu/~trivia/meow.html
> > * *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meow_Wars
>
> Interesting history. *Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many time

You ****ing moron. you have no idea what you are talking about, as
usual. If the meow army was involved here you would know it.

Would you like me to introduce you?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

February 9th 08, 04:21 AM

On 8 Feb, 16:47, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 04:13:33 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote in <NFQqj.20667$9j6.17497@attbi_s22>:
>
>
>
> >Interesting history. *Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many times.
>
> Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
> constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
> individuals. *It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. *We all
> did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
> authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
> their adulthood. *Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
> fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
> on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.
>
> What is disappointing is the breakdown of the traditional method of
> controlling rogue Usenet nodes that inject into the newsstream
> inappropriate, off-topic, and articles clearly intended to be
> disruptive. *In the past, if a downstream node gatewayed abusive
> content into Usenet, its upstream nodes would cut off its access to
> the network through their systems until the news administrator of the
> rogue site got his users back in line. *Today there are at least two
> reasons that method is breaking down. *
>
> First, there are news administrators who actually condone abusive
> articles thinly guised in the name of free speech. *While I am a firm
> believer in free speech, I'm at a loss to understand their true
> motivation. *Any thinking adult accepts the constraints of order on
> freedom. *If Usenet lacked order and structure, there would only be
> one newsgroup that contained the sum of all Usenet content. *Clearly
> that wouldn't be very useful.
>
> But more importantly is the immunity granted Common Carriers (such as
> the phone company) against liability for the content they carry. *If a
> news administrator can be shown to be censoring content, he is in
> danger of losing that immunity. *Rather than taking responsibility for
> the quality of the content emanating from their nodes, these meek news
> administrators abdicate that responsibility out of fear, laziness and
> indifference. *They are as much to blame for the decline in the
> quality of Usenet content as the abusive posters whom they tolerate.
>
> So aside from reporting articles that violate the Usenet provider's
> Acceptable Use Policy to their abuse department, about the only other
> acceptable course of action to stem the tide of noise is to lobby the
> news administrator of the abusive node's upstream feed to disconnect
> the abusive node. *The identity of that site is usually discernable
> from the article's 'Path:' header field.
>
> There is also, what I would characterize as a feeble and largely
> self-defeating course of action against intentionally disruptive
> posters: peer pressure. *Publicly admonishing them, while providing
> the admonisher with a certain amount of satisfaction in venting his
> frustration, in reality only contributes to reducing the newsgroup's
> signal to noise ratio. *But worse than that, public admonishment can
> be a construed as a reward by the abuser, as it validates the abuser's
> ability to affect the newsgroup's readership, and it opens a line of
> communication for further off-topic articles. *If one cannot resist
> responding to abusive articles, he should respond to it via private
> e-mail, so that the abuser is denied a public forum to spew additional
> disruptive content.
>
> As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
> clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:
>
> * * 1. *Choosing what they read, and
> * * 2. *Choosing to post or not. *
>
> That's it. *Simple. *

Nope, it's not anythign like as simple as that.

Of course, everything is simple in your world, Lar..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

February 9th 08, 04:22 AM

On 8 Feb, 20:14, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Larry Dighera writes:
> > Well, adolescent children are programmed to oppose parental
> > constraints in order to establish their independence as adult
> > individuals. *It's inevitable; it's (probably) in our genes. *We all
> > did it, and future generations will likely continue to challenge
> > authority in an attempt to establish their independence and announce
> > their adulthood. *Much to the consternation of more mature adults, its
> > fundamental to the maturation process of transitioning from dependence
> > on parental oversight to becoming an autonomous person.
>
> There's nothing fundamentally required or normal about misbehavior, and many
> people get through adolescence without engaging in it.
>
> > As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
> > clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:
>
> > * * 1. *Choosing what they read, and
> > * * 2. *Choosing to post or not. *
>
> > That's it. *Simple. *
>
> And that is sufficient.

This is my favorite part!

When k00ks who can't stand each other form little slurpie alliances..

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 9th 08, 01:27 PM

> Regardless, there's nothing that can be done to control it other than
> withdraw and give up.

Not true, Doc. Kill files are your friend.

Example: I am certain that The Bunyip has responded to this thread, as flies
are attracted to you-know-what. I would bet a thousand bucks on it. You
may even be responding to his post.

But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful.

I highly recommend creating one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 9th 08, 01:31 PM

> As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
> clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:
>
> 1. Choosing what they read, and
> 2. Choosing to post or not.

Thankfully, so long as you're not using Google Groups to access Usenet,
Option #1 is enhanced by the judicious creation and use of kill files. With
three keystrokes, it is possible to eliminate 70% of the chaff here -- all
of it (amazingly) from a single troll.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 9th 08, 01:48 PM

> To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
> landings in a simulator.
>
> Tell me that's not an insult. Tell me that's being a gentleman.

No, that's not having experience in both worlds, and being stupid.

Many real pilots struggle to land our sim, at first. (See it here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ) Our 104" screen makes
it much more realistic (and, thus, easier for a real pilot) -- but it's
still not the same. (No peripheral vision in the flare is the primary
problem for most.)

Bottom line: If MX drives you that nuts, create a simple kill file that
eliminates his posts from your newsreader. It literally takes three key
strokes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 9th 08, 01:53 PM

> You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
> lingers?

I prefer to look at MX differently.

Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
"keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation movie
every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) The event is open to
the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he comes.

All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. They recognize
that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and -- although he's mildly
annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he arrives.

That's MX.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tina

February 9th 08, 02:08 PM

Trust me on this: Anthony is not mildly retarded. I'd guess his IQ is
in at least the mid 120s (I wouldn't know what side of 127 to bet on,
frankly). His problems have to do with failures in different life
skills areas, and he gets his kicks cheaply here by annoying people
who for the most part have successful lives. Where else can someone
with a simulated life annoy so many people with real ones?

And of course responses feed his ego.

The interesting thing is, others who exhibit the same characteristics
who have been my patients really do think of themselves as superior
and don't, for the most part, understand why that isn't generally
recognized..

8:53*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
> > lingers?
>
> I prefer to look at MX differently.
>
> Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
> "keeper" show up. * (For those who don't know, we show an aviation movie
> every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) *The event is open to
> the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he comes.
>
> All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
> occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. *They recognize
> that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and -- although he's mildly
> annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he arrives.
>
> That's MX.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

buttman

February 9th 08, 02:41 PM

On Feb 8, 2:25 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "Michael Ash" > wrote
>
> > Other examples abound. Just because he is well-spoken and doesn't swear
> > doesn't make him nice. In fact in some ways it makes it worse, because
> > it's all part of a manner which is used to make him look like the victim
> > when he comes along and insults all of these fine people with vastly more
> > knowledge and experience than himself (and more than me).
>
> Exactly.
>
> His presence here is an insult to all people that have found this forum to
> be of value to them.
>
> Everyone should be wise enough to realize this, and start treating him like
> "he whose name must not be spoken."
>
> Hell, I think I would rather have the "he whose name must not be spoken"
> back, and MX gone. At least the other one was not playing games with the
> group. You knew where he stood. In reality.
>
> Yep, I'm sure of it. I'll vote for the switch.
> --
> Jim in NC

sheesh, it's just an internet discussion group. lighten up a little?

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 9th 08, 02:45 PM

>Trust me on this: Anthony is not mildly retarded. I'd guess his IQ is
>in at least the mid 120s (I wouldn't know what side of 127 to bet on,

I know it's not a perfect analogy. MX is quite bright, in many ways.

But he *is* inappropriate, and he *is* interested in aviation. And, as long
as you ignore his occasional incorrect outbursts, he is harmless -- just
like our Tuesday visitor. (The only thing missing is the keeper -- *that*
is what MX really needs.)

I used to occasionally worry about what students and newbies might
incorrectly learn from Anthony, but then Bertie came along and proved that a
real pilot could be far worse -- so I stopped worrying...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Blueskies

February 9th 08, 02:50 PM

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message ...
>
> Of course, what do I know- I'm probably the only Democrat in the Air Force.
>
>
>

Now, THAT would be a handicap!

;-)

Tina

February 9th 08, 02:56 PM

Doees the Baron even have a right wing?

I didn't know Democrats were even allowed in the airforce, but maybe
it's a don't ask don't tell deal.

I'm conservative, and in academia, so I have a sense of what you
mean. the problem is, what classic democrats and classic republicans
stood for have been really distorted. How do you like the idea of the
government borrowing money from us to give us so we can spend it.
Well, maybe our children will be the ones to pay it back!

Or for that matter, government expansion faster under the GOP (in
terms of expenses) than it did under Clinton! The aviation connection
is I'm damning both wings, and question the weight and balance
calculations..

On Feb 9, 9:17*am, "Viperdoc" > wrote:
> Anthony is a bit different than someone who is developmentally delayed (the
> current politically correct term). People (actual pilots) with experience
> (people that have actually piloted an aircraft) have responded to Anthony's
> questions, only to have Anthony argue about the accuracy of their statements
> and advice.
>
> He is really not interested in learning as much as he is in getting
> attention. It is pathetic in a way, but also extremely annoying.
>
> Even with killfiles, the NG is going to go wherever the preponderance of
> posts take it. I think that ignoring him is only a partial answer, but the
> main way to steer a group is to post even more relevant stuff on flying, and
> ultimately overwhelm his idiotic drivel.
>
> Of course, what do I know- I'm probably the only Democrat in the Air Force..

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 9th 08, 03:13 PM

Tina wrote:
> Trust me on this: Anthony is not mildly retarded. I'd guess his IQ is
> in at least the mid 120s (I wouldn't know what side of 127 to bet on,
> frankly). His problems have to do with failures in different life
> skills areas, and he gets his kicks cheaply here by annoying people
> who for the most part have successful lives. Where else can someone
> with a simulated life annoy so many people with real ones?
>
> And of course responses feed his ego.
>
> The interesting thing is, others who exhibit the same characteristics
> who have been my patients really do think of themselves as superior
> and don't, for the most part, understand why that isn't generally
> recognized..
>
>
>
>
> 8:53 am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>>> You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
>>> lingers?
>> I prefer to look at MX differently.
>>
>> Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
>> "keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation movie
>> every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) The event is open to
>> the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he comes.
>>
>> All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
>> occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. They recognize
>> that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and -- although he's mildly
>> annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he arrives.
>>
>> That's MX.
>> --
>> Jay Honeck
>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

I'm far from being qualified to make these judgments but your read is
almost exactly my own on this issue.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 03:16 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:TCQqj.20663$9j6.9318
@attbi_s22:

>> Speaking of missing regulars, what's up with Montblack? Is he taking a
>> break, or does anyone know what became of him?
>
> We just celebrated his birthday last weekend, and I asked him the same
> question.
>
> Bottom line: Same thing you're saying. The trolls are winning.

You wouldn't know what a troll was if it bit you in the ass you halfwit.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 9th 08, 03:19 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:CWhrj.22589$9j6.8618@attbi_s22:

>> As I have said before (with the exceptions above), there are only two
>> clear choices responsible Usenet participants are able to exercise:
>>
>> 1. Choosing what they read, and
>> 2. Choosing to post or not.
>
> Thankfully, so long as you're not using Google Groups to access
> Usenet, Option #1 is enhanced by the judicious creation and use of
> kill files. With three keystrokes, it is possible to eliminate 70% of
> the chaff here -- all of it (amazingly) from a single troll.

Bwawhahwhahwh!

Would you like me to introduce you to some real trolls, Jaybo?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 9th 08, 03:19 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Jay Honeck writes:
>
>> Interesting history. Sad to see this sort of thing has happened many
>> times.
>
> Boys will be boys, and the same bullies who make life difficult for
> others on the playground make it nearly as difficult in cyberspace.
>

Yeh, right obfuscation boi.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_26_]

February 9th 08, 03:20 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:eThrj.22587$yE1.7555@attbi_s21:

>> Regardless, there's nothing that can be done to control it other than
>> withdraw and give up.
>
> Not true, Doc. Kill files are your friend.
>
> Example: I am certain that The Bunyip has responded to this thread, as
> flies are attracted to you-know-what. I would bet a thousand bucks on
> it. You may even be responding to his post.
>
> But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful.

You're a liar Jay. I know it and you know it.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 03:22 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote
>
>>Like it or not there are loons and trolls on the Internet.
>
> Well, I don't like it, and it's my right to say so, and do what I can
> to get rid of them too. Unfortunately, there are a bunch of dickwads
> that enjoy egging him on. If it were not for them, the trolls would
> have been long gone.
>
>> The Internet has no law enforcement, not much content enforcement --
>> and I LIKE it that way. If there's a brawl, so be it. It's not like
>> you can't ignore that. There are plenty of tools to help you filter
>> out anything you don't want to see.
>
> Yep, I can ignore it, like I will soon be ignoring you, I guess. You
> are missing the point, though.
>
> There used to be about three times the number of really cool, well
> qualified people, that could speak volumes on the subjects of
> aviation. They didn't think it was worth sticking around, and are now
> gone. Now do you really want to tell me how all I have to do is
> ignore the kooks? It will really be just as good as it was, before
> one nut came in, and brough a bunch of other nuts that like picking on
> nuts like him, and around and around we go with far less people that
> can really talk aviation? That's what you want to tell me? I don't
> think so.
>
>> I come here because there ARE people who I think have a high level of
>> experience with piloting and I like asking them questions. I listen
>> to what they say and I learn from it. I don't have many opinions,
>> usually just questions.
>
> You would have really loved it, a couple years ago, then. There is
> but a small sampling of people with the varied experiences that are
> still here, compared to before. It is really sad that a few nut cases
> can cause so much chaos.
>
> But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
> Mx's postulating and theorizing.
>
> Yep, laugh, laugh, laugh. I suppose you think Jackass TV is pretty
> damn funny, too.

You obviously haven't seen this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hZK-aZ0rjY

Bertie

piynuB eht eitreB[_3_]

February 9th 08, 03:25 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:JKQqj.20672$9j6.19927@attbi_s22:

>> But I'm sticking to this opinion: I get an occasional laugh out of
>> Mx's postulating and theorizing.
>
> At the risk of bringing on Jim's wrath, I agree with you.
>
> IMHO, MX is harmless, and occasionally starts interesting threads that
> are actually aviation related. He may ask stupid questions, from time
> to time, and he may even be a troll -- but I'll say this for him: He
> is always a gentleman, and never stoops to the level of insulting
> fellow posters.

Unlike you, hypocrite boi.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 03:28 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Pfirj.22610$9j6.10676@attbi_s22:

>> You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
>> lingers?
>
> I prefer to look at MX differently.
>
> Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
> "keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation
> movie every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.)

Spam noted.

> All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
> occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate.

He, they've had a lot of practice with you.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 03:30 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:A0jrj.22671$yE1.21723@attbi_s21:

>>Trust me on this: Anthony is not mildly retarded. I'd guess his IQ is
>>in at least the mid 120s (I wouldn't know what side of 127 to bet on,
>
> I know it's not a perfect analogy. MX is quite bright, in many ways.
>
> But he *is* inappropriate, and he *is* interested in aviation. And,
> as long as you ignore his occasional incorrect outbursts, he is
> harmless -- just like our Tuesday visitor. (The only thing missing is
> the keeper -- *that* is what MX really needs.)
>
> I used to occasionally worry about what students and newbies might
> incorrectly learn from Anthony, but then Bertie came along and proved
> that a real pilot could be far worse -- so I stopped worrying...

Ogh dear, you better cal the FAA, cause I stil tewach peole to fly,
fjukkwit.

And you teach them nonthing. (Don't worry, you can reply obliquiley to this
by pretending you saw it in another posters reply)

Berti

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 03:31 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Bairj.22614$yE1.15160@attbi_s21:

>> To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make
>> poor landings in a simulator.
>>
>> Tell me that's not an insult. Tell me that's being a gentleman.
>
> No, that's not having experience in both worlds, and being stupid.
>
> Many real pilots struggle to land our sim, at first.

You don;'t land a sim, moron.

Bertie

WingFlaps

February 9th 08, 03:35 PM

On Feb 5, 1:08*pm, wrote:
> On Feb 4, 8:46*am, AJ > wrote:
>
> > Why airplanes fly? Because if they didn't, they'd be cars.
>
> And if you pull the wings off of a fly, you have created a new insect
> called a walk.

If you don't put it down gently it's a crash.

Cheers

WingFlaps

February 9th 08, 03:40 PM

On Feb 5, 5:19*pm, "Art Varrassi" > wrote:
> Mxsmanic,
>
> That is a very concise and accurate statement and a good generalized
> response to a layperson asking the question "how do airplanes fly?".
>
> I see no reason for all of the snide comments from others.
>

You can't? Try using the other eye.

Cheers

WingFlaps

February 9th 08, 03:51 PM

On Feb 8, 12:20*pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact designed by
the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to the
expense of the British supersonic program and problems with repaying
war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a old picture of
an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.

Cheers

TheRealDeal

February 9th 08, 04:29 PM

Achtung!!!

Censorship Comrade
It is the only way!!

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The quality of the discussions here has diminished by a factor of
>> ten. So have the quantity of people with real experiences to give
>> input to the discussions.
>
> I agree 100% Jim. But I have a simple solution.
>
> 1. Use a newsreader like "Windows Mail" or "Outlook Express". As much
> as I liked the search powers of Google Groups, their lack of any sort of
> filtering reduced this newsgroup to chaos. I have therefore abandoned GGs.
>
> 2. With three keystrokes, you can create a killfile that utterly
> eliminates every post by anyone you so designate as persona non grata.
>
> I was two steps out the door from this group before rediscovering
> newsreaders. Now, I only see the "good stuff" again, and the trolls can
> do their continual verbal circle-jerk in complete anonymity, for all I
> care.
>
> Of course, the sad part is that this has all become necessary.
> Killfiles weren't necessary for the first 9 years I was on this group,
> but when a small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly endless)
> time on their hands takes a hankering to a group, it's obvious that they
> can destroy it pretty easily.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 9th 08, 04:32 PM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
> Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
> barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact designed by
> the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to the
> expense of the British supersonic program and problems with repaying
> war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a old picture of
> an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.
>
> Cheers

To my knowledge, the X1 was a request research project from the old NACA
(now NASA) to Bell aircraft for an aircraft capable of making the
attempt to break the speed of sound.
I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits. Actually, the
design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based on
ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy out of
the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
Based on the ballistic tests of the 1/2 inch bullet, Bell designers
expected the same transonic performance from the X1 provided they could
get it up to speed.
The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they changed
that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
The F86 prototype was having the same problems at the same time in dives.
It's interesting that North American added a stabilator to the 86 later
on in it's production run but to my knowledge George Welsh who broke the
barrier the week before Yeager had a regular tail on the prototype which
was carried through to the first A Sabre.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 04:38 PM

Rich Ahrens > wrote in news:47abd290$0$1122
:

> Morgans wrote:
>> Speaking of missing regulars, what's up with Montblack? Is he taking a
>> break, or does anyone know what became of him?
>
> Remember my previous post about Jay's night clerk socking for him?
>
>

Oh I do!

What is it about Jay and drug addicts anyway?

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_4_]

February 9th 08, 04:45 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:MkHqj.19887$yE1.4959@attbi_s21:

>> The quality of the discussions here has diminished by a factor of
>> ten. So have the quantity of people with real experiences to give
>> input to the discussions.
>
> I agree 100% Jim. But I have a simple solution.
>
> 1. Use a newsreader like "Windows Mail" or "Outlook Express". As
> much as I liked the search powers of Google Groups, their lack of any
> sort of filtering reduced this newsgroup to chaos. I have therefore
> abandoned GGs.
>
> 2. With three keystrokes, you can create a killfile that utterly
> eliminates every post by anyone you so designate as persona non grata.
>
> I was two steps out the door from this group before rediscovering
> newsreaders. Now, I only see the "good stuff" again, and the trolls
> can do their continual verbal circle-jerk in complete anonymity, for
> all I care.
>
> Of course, the sad part is that this has all become necessary.
> Killfiles weren't necessary for the first 9 years I was on this group,
> but when a small-but-determined group of trolls with (seemingly
> endless) time on their hands takes a hankering to a group, it's
> obvious that they can destroy it pretty easily.

Excelent suggestion d00d

Jaybo

Larry Dighera

February 9th 08, 04:59 PM

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:17:44 -0600, "Viperdoc"
> wrote in
>:

>I think that ignoring him is only a partial answer, but the
>main way to steer a group is to post even more relevant stuff on flying,

Yeah. It's easy to complain. It takes insight to realize that
contributing on-topic content increases the signal-to-noise ratio. One
is destructive, the other constructive.

So in keeping with that course of action, here's the answer to the
subject of this thread: http://aerodyn.org/contents.html

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 05:02 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:lJ-
:

> WingFlaps wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>
>> Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
>> barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact designed
by
>> the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to the
>> expense of the British supersonic program and problems with repaying
>> war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a old picture
of
>> an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.
>>
>> Cheers
>
> To my knowledge, the X1 was a request research project from the old
NACA
> (now NASA) to Bell aircraft for an aircraft capable of making the
> attempt to break the speed of sound.
> I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits.

Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..

Actually, the
> design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based on
> ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy out of
> the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
> Based on the ballistic tests of the 1/2 inch bullet, Bell designers
> expected the same transonic performance from the X1 provided they
could
> get it up to speed.
> The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they changed
> that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
> The F86 prototype was having the same problems at the same time in
dives.
> It's interesting that North American added a stabilator to the 86
later
> on in it's production run but to my knowledge George Welsh who broke
the
> barrier the week before Yeager had a regular tail on the prototype
which
> was carried through to the first A Sabre.
>

Yeah. A stabilator or at least a rapidly trimmable stab is essential for
a transonic aircraft o avoid excessive buffeting on the stab due to
camber introduced through moving elevators up and down..

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 05:03 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> > wrote
>
> The truth is without M the whole thing wouldn't be as fun.
>
> I don't agree, and in a BIG way.
>
> I don't come here for conflict.

Actually, you should check out your posting history. It's very very
conflict oriented.

You'd be easily drawn to the dark side...

Meow.

Larry Dighera

February 9th 08, 05:18 PM

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:56:54 -0800 (PST), Tina >
wrote in
>:

>Or for that matter, government expansion faster under the GOP (in
>terms of expenses) than it did under Clinton!

Right. But they've got plans to recoup expenditures from the FAA:

HERE WE GO AGAIN - FAA BUDGET BACK IN PLAY
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1047-full.html#197081)
The federal Transportation Department this week released the
latest version of its budget request
(http://www.dot.gov/bib2009/htm/FAA.html), including
user-fee-based funding for the FAA, and reaction has been swift.
"What part of 'NO!' doesn't the White House understand?" asked
AOPA President Phil Boyer

(http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080204budget.html?WT.svl=FlashHP1).
"Once again, the Bush administration wants huge new taxes and user
fees imposed on general aviation, and it wants to slash and burn
the Airport Improvement Program." Pete Bunce, president and CEO of
the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(http://www.gama.aero/mediaCenter/pr.php?id=159), agreed. "Despite
Congress saying 'no' to the Administration's proposal to scrap the
current funding mechanism for a less efficient one that imposes
user fees, they have once again launched an effort to complete a
FAA reauthorization bill by proposing the exact same failed plan,"
he said. DOT Secretary Mary Peters insisted the system needs to
change. "Traditional approaches are not capable of producing the
results we need to keep America's economy growing," she said.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1047-full.html#197081

Somehow, this sort of smells like Bush's federal Prescription Drug
Program that forbids competitive bidding.

[email protected]

February 9th 08, 05:27 PM

> I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits. Actually, the
> design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based on
> ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy out of
> the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
> ...
> The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they changed
> that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

I watched one of the Nova series episodes about 3 weeks ago about
breaking the sound barrier (I rented it on DVD). They covered the
British and American attempts to break the barrier in fair detail, and
had extensive interviews with one of the engineers from Miles
Aircraft, the British firm that was asked by the RAF to develop a
supersonic aircraft. IIRC, the Miles' engineer said that they
concluded that the best fuselage design would be one modeled after a
bullet. He also said they figured a hydraulic actuated movable tail
would do the trick to stop the shock-wave induced control freeze up
that was killing so many pilots during the time.

It was said that an American team did go to England during the last
part of the war and met with the Miles' engineering group, and that
the Miles' group was going to go to the US afterward to see what the
American's had learned, but the Pentagon nixed their trip. The Brits
didn't like that one.

Anyway I can't remember the timelines here ... a few weeks before
Miles' was to begin actual prototype testing of their ship (which
looked very much like the X1, but with a different nose) their program
was cancelled. This was sometime shortly after VE day. It was
cancelled by a bureaucrat who had visited some of the secret German
aircraft development centers the Allieds had discovered (some buried
underground). There he had seen swept wing designs and somehow
concluded that sweptwing was the only way to go supersonic. He
cancelled the supersonic program because the Miles' design was a
straight wing.

After the X1 succeeded, the British went back a few years later and
developed a radio controlled 2/3 scale rocket plane of the Miles
aircraft. It broke the sound barrier too.

Great show, I'm probably not remembering it all correctly. I think it
might be titled "Faster than Sound".

[email protected]

February 9th 08, 05:34 PM

> Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
> They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
> stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
> development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
> However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
> realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..

Intersting -- do you know what aircraft the Germans used that on? If
you have a book reference (or web) on that I'd like to read about it.

Sometimes it blows my mind how many advances were made in the
thirties. The ME 109, Spitfire, and P-38 all come out of that time.
Plus a host of others I probably know nothing about.

Al Retss.

February 9th 08, 05:39 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:8Bjqj.18310$yE1.5354@attbi_s21:

>>> I commend you for continuing to post in these newsgroups in spite of
>>> the harassment you have been subject to.
>>
>> Once you buy a clue, you will only be a dumb ass.
>> Until then, why don't you try sticking your head up your ass, and
>> shutting the hell up.
>
> Holy crap, Jim -- what the hell was THAT about?
>
> You know this "Art" guy from somewhere, or what?

Persoanl attack noted.

Burtie

Aneone

February 9th 08, 05:41 PM

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 9th 08, 05:42 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 08:17:44 -0600, "Viperdoc"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>I think that ignoring him is only a partial answer, but the
>>main way to steer a group is to post even more relevant stuff on flying,
>
>
> Yeah. It's easy to complain. It takes insight to realize that
> contributing on-topic content increases the signal-to-noise ratio. One
> is destructive, the other constructive.

Yeh, like whining about regs re spacecraft.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 05:50 PM

wrote in news:9c5876f7-3777-42ec-bb4e-882bc2bc0968
@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com:

>> Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
>> They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
>> stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
>> development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
>> However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
>> realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..
>
> Intersting -- do you know what aircraft the Germans used that on? If
> you have a book reference (or web) on that I'd like to read about it.
>

I don't think the used it on anything, in fact. I'll have a look in my
books, though. Lippisch was horsing around with a big bag of tricks before
and during the war, but It was deltas he was mostly playing with in
regards to the sound barrier.
They pretty much had the principles of the whold speed of sound thing
figured out by the late thirites, but getting it all into one machine was
something else again. They understood sweep well and applied it extremely
well on the 262, for instance. They would almost have certainly broken it
in something by the end of 45 if the war had continued. Kelly johnson had
what would probably have been a successful supersonic aircraft on paper
fairly early in the war, but it was abandoned for some reason.

> Sometimes it blows my mind how many advances were made in the
> thirties. The ME 109, Spitfire, and P-38 all come out of that time.
> Plus a host of others I probably know nothing about.

Yeah, it was an exciting period in aviation, no doubt about it. It's even
wilder to consider that guys like Lippisch were thinking of airplanes that
didn't appear until the sixties..

Bertie

Michael Ash

February 9th 08, 06:51 PM

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the smell
>> lingers?
>
> I prefer to look at MX differently.
>
> Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
> "keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation movie
> every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) The event is open to
> the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he comes.
>
> All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
> occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. They recognize
> that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and -- although he's mildly
> annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he arrives.
>
> That's MX.

The three key attributes you see in your movie night fellow are that he
loves aviation, he has a low IQ, and all of the real pilots make him feel
welcome. All three are the exact opposite of MX, so your statement that
this is MX is really odd.

The guy is obviously very smart in many ways. He's missing wisdom, in the
sense that he vastly underestimates the value of experience and the
knowledge of other, but for straight logical IQ-style intelligence he's
obviously pretty far up there.

Despite his constant simming and posting about aviation, he does not love
aviation. You might disagree with me, but just try offering him a flight.
I submit that if you offer a free flight to someone and he turns it down
for reasons other than medical or time, he does not love aviation. Maybe
he loves to look at it, or talk about it, but not the thing itself.

And, of course, his attitude has resulted in scorn from most of the real
pilots here.

Take your movie night fellow, replace him with a smart guy who thinks he's
better than everyone else in the room but is afraid to actually get in any
of their airplanes, who casually insults the people there, who talks about
his MSFS flying as if it were real, and who never, ever backs down from an
argument even when he's obviously out of his depth, and see how things
work out for him then.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 06:56 PM

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck > wrote:
>>> You really still have nice things to say about him, even as the
>>> smell lingers?
>>
>> I prefer to look at MX differently.
>>
>> Almost every Movie Night, we have a mildly retarded young man and his
>> "keeper" show up. (For those who don't know, we show an aviation
>> movie every Tuesday night, at our aviation themed hotel.) The event
>> is open to the public, and free -- and the kid loves airplanes, so he
>> comes.
>>
>> All of the real pilots have made him feel welcome, even though he
>> occasionally blurts out something stupid or inappropriate. They
>> recognize that he's harmless, happens to love aviation, and --
>> although he's mildly annoying -- we all slap him on the back when he
>> arrives.
>>
>> That's MX.
>
> The three key attributes you see in your movie night fellow are that
> he loves aviation, he has a low IQ, and all of the real pilots make
> him feel welcome. All three are the exact opposite of MX, so your
> statement that this is MX is really odd.
>
> The guy is obviously very smart in many ways. He's missing wisdom, in
> the sense that he vastly underestimates the value of experience and
> the knowledge of other, but for straight logical IQ-style intelligence
> he's obviously pretty far up there.
>
> Despite his constant simming and posting about aviation, he does not
> love aviation. You might disagree with me, but just try offering him a
> flight. I submit that if you offer a free flight to someone and he
> turns it down for reasons other than medical or time, he does not love
> aviation. Maybe he loves to look at it, or talk about it, but not the
> thing itself.
>
> And, of course, his attitude has resulted in scorn from most of the
> real pilots here.
>
> Take your movie night fellow, replace him with a smart guy who thinks
> he's better than everyone else in the room but is afraid to actually
> get in any of their airplanes, who casually insults the people there,
> who talks about his MSFS flying as if it were real, and who never,
> ever backs down from an argument even when he's obviously out of his
> depth, and see how things work out for him then.
>
Jay's just looking for friends..

Bertie

Michael Ash

February 9th 08, 06:59 PM

In rec.aviation.student Jay Honeck > wrote:
>> To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
>> landings in a simulator.
>>
>> Tell me that's not an insult. Tell me that's being a gentleman.
>
> No, that's not having experience in both worlds, and being stupid.

It's not stupidity. The guy is obviously pretty smart. He belittles the
experience of others not because he's a moron, but because he thinks that
his large brain makes up for not having any himself. Put simply, he thinks
he's better than the rest of us. The attitude which comes from that is
insulting, and ungentlemanly.

> Many real pilots struggle to land our sim, at first. (See it here:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/flight_simulator.htm ) Our 104" screen makes
> it much more realistic (and, thus, easier for a real pilot) -- but it's
> still not the same. (No peripheral vision in the flare is the primary
> problem for most.)

This is my point exactly. Real pilots *do* have trouble with sims, even
good pilots. But this ****** has decided I'm a bad pilot, and called me
such to my face (at least, the Usenet equivalent of it), despite this
fact. That is an insult, plain and simple, even when put in nice words.

> Bottom line: If MX drives you that nuts, create a simple kill file that
> eliminates his posts from your newsreader. It literally takes three key
> strokes.

I know how to create a kill file, although it takes a few more than three
keystrokes in my newsreader. Rest assured that I will killfile him if he
does start driving me nuts. As it is he's more amusing than annoying. He's
so crazy that it's hard to take it seriously, which is as it should be.

Don't take what I've said above and think that I'm actually *offended* or
anything. It takes a lot more than some ass-clown calling me a bad pilot
to do that. But I object to anyone claiming that he doesn't insult people
and conducts himself as a gentleman just because he uses polite wording.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 9th 08, 07:25 PM

Michael Ash wrote:

> This is my point exactly. Real pilots *do* have trouble with sims, even
> good pilots. But this ****** has decided I'm a bad pilot, and called me
> such to my face (at least, the Usenet equivalent of it), despite this
> fact. That is an insult, plain and simple, even when put in nice words.

I would respectfully offer an opposing opinion to this.

I've worked with Microsoft closely on their simulator program and have
not experienced any "difficulty" reported from real world pilots when
using the simulator. In fact, many pilots use it for practice instrument
and procedures work.
The idea that a real world pilot should be expected to experience
difficulty in the sim because of conflict between actual flying and sim
programming is in my opinion a false premise.
This should not be misconstrued into a context that postulates actual
similarities between using the simulator and flying an actual airplane,
as there are clearly defined differences primarily concerned with
control pressures.
It's interesting to note that the control pressure differences should
offer no problems for the pilot going from the actual airplane into the
sim, but could easily cause problems going the other way.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 9th 08, 07:37 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:lJ-
> :
>
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>
>>> Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
>>> barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact designed
> by
>>> the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to the
>>> expense of the British supersonic program and problems with repaying
>>> war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a old picture
> of
>>> an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>> To my knowledge, the X1 was a request research project from the old
> NACA
>> (now NASA) to Bell aircraft for an aircraft capable of making the
>> attempt to break the speed of sound.
>> I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits.
>
>
> Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
> They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
> stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
> development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
> However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
> realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..
>
>
>
>
> Actually, the
>> design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based on
>> ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy out of
>> the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
>> Based on the ballistic tests of the 1/2 inch bullet, Bell designers
>> expected the same transonic performance from the X1 provided they
> could
>> get it up to speed.
>> The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they changed
>> that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
>> The F86 prototype was having the same problems at the same time in
> dives.
>> It's interesting that North American added a stabilator to the 86
> later
>> on in it's production run but to my knowledge George Welsh who broke
> the
>> barrier the week before Yeager had a regular tail on the prototype
> which
>> was carried through to the first A Sabre.
>>
>
> Yeah. A stabilator or at least a rapidly trimmable stab is essential for
> a transonic aircraft o avoid excessive buffeting on the stab due to
> camber introduced through moving elevators up and down..
>
> Bertie
>

The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during the
period was that there was information passed back and forth between the
Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US that stopped
trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged down.
I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early on at
Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are right about
Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
considered important.
As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might very
well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated it
into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal stabilizer
was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth, and
some of it really started back in the German research. Those guys were a
fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 07:39 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:lJ-
>> :
>>
>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>> On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
>>>> barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact designed
>> by
>>>> the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to the
>>>> expense of the British supersonic program and problems with
>>>> repaying war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a
>>>> old picture
>> of
>>>> an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>> To my knowledge, the X1 was a request research project from the old
>> NACA
>>> (now NASA) to Bell aircraft for an aircraft capable of making the
>>> attempt to break the speed of sound.
>>> I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
>> They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
>> stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
>> development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
>> However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
>> realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually, the
>>> design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based
>>> on ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy
>>> out of the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
>>> Based on the ballistic tests of the 1/2 inch bullet, Bell designers
>>> expected the same transonic performance from the X1 provided they
>> could
>>> get it up to speed.
>>> The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they
>>> changed that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
>>> The F86 prototype was having the same problems at the same time in
>> dives.
>>> It's interesting that North American added a stabilator to the 86
>> later
>>> on in it's production run but to my knowledge George Welsh who broke
>> the
>>> barrier the week before Yeager had a regular tail on the prototype
>> which
>>> was carried through to the first A Sabre.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah. A stabilator or at least a rapidly trimmable stab is essential
>> for a transonic aircraft o avoid excessive buffeting on the stab due
>> to camber introduced through moving elevators up and down..
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during
> the period was that there was information passed back and forth
> between the Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US
> that stopped trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged
> down.

Just as well considering their complete inability to keep thier
intelligence services under control.

I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early
> on at Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are right
> about Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
> considered important.
> As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might very
> well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated it
> into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal stabilizer
> was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
> That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth,
> and some of it really started back in the German research. Those guys
> were a fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))
>

Well, nothing was created in a vacuum! Everything was ripped off and
built upon ultimately.
>

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 9th 08, 07:42 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:lJ-
>>> :
>>>
>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
>>>>> barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact designed
>>> by
>>>>> the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to the
>>>>> expense of the British supersonic program and problems with
>>>>> repaying war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a
>>>>> old picture
>>> of
>>>>> an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>> To my knowledge, the X1 was a request research project from the old
>>> NACA
>>>> (now NASA) to Bell aircraft for an aircraft capable of making the
>>>> attempt to break the speed of sound.
>>>> I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits.
>>>
>>> Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
>>> They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
>>> stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
>>> development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
>>> However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
>>> realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, the
>>>> design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based
>>>> on ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy
>>>> out of the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
>>>> Based on the ballistic tests of the 1/2 inch bullet, Bell designers
>>>> expected the same transonic performance from the X1 provided they
>>> could
>>>> get it up to speed.
>>>> The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they
>>>> changed that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
>>>> The F86 prototype was having the same problems at the same time in
>>> dives.
>>>> It's interesting that North American added a stabilator to the 86
>>> later
>>>> on in it's production run but to my knowledge George Welsh who broke
>>> the
>>>> barrier the week before Yeager had a regular tail on the prototype
>>> which
>>>> was carried through to the first A Sabre.
>>>>
>>> Yeah. A stabilator or at least a rapidly trimmable stab is essential
>>> for a transonic aircraft o avoid excessive buffeting on the stab due
>>> to camber introduced through moving elevators up and down..
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>> The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during
>> the period was that there was information passed back and forth
>> between the Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US
>> that stopped trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged
>> down.
>
> Just as well considering their complete inability to keep thier
> intelligence services under control.
>
>
> I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early
>> on at Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are right
>> about Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
>> considered important.
>> As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might very
>> well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated it
>> into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal stabilizer
>> was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
>> That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth,
>> and some of it really started back in the German research. Those guys
>> were a fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))
>>
>
> Well, nothing was created in a vacuum! Everything was ripped off and
> built upon ultimately.
>

Lots of cloak and dagger stuff going on back then....probably would make
a great movie plot :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 9th 08, 07:44 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> Dudley Henriques > wrote in news:lJ-
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 8, 12:20 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting story and I can well believe he could have broken the
>>>>>> barrier as described. I also heard that the X1 was in fact
designed
>>>> by
>>>>>> the British and given to the Americans, along with data, due to
the
>>>>>> expense of the British supersonic program and problems with
>>>>>> repaying war debt. Do you know anything about that -I once saw a
>>>>>> old picture
>>>> of
>>>>>> an "X1" in the UK but can't find it now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> To my knowledge, the X1 was a request research project from the
old
>>>> NACA
>>>>> (now NASA) to Bell aircraft for an aircraft capable of making the
>>>>> attempt to break the speed of sound.
>>>>> I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it was a Miles aircraft. The M-52
>>>> They got as far as a mockup but dropped the project. It had a
>>>> stabiliator and the brits are fond of whining that it was that
>>>> development on the X! that enabled it to break the sound barrier.
>>>> However, this was not a Brit innovation. As usual, the germans had
>>>> realised that in the thirtie, years before Miles..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually, the
>>>>> design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft
based
>>>>> on ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy
>>>>> out of the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
>>>>> Based on the ballistic tests of the 1/2 inch bullet, Bell
designers
>>>>> expected the same transonic performance from the X1 provided they
>>>> could
>>>>> get it up to speed.
>>>>> The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they
>>>>> changed that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
>>>>> The F86 prototype was having the same problems at the same time in
>>>> dives.
>>>>> It's interesting that North American added a stabilator to the 86
>>>> later
>>>>> on in it's production run but to my knowledge George Welsh who
broke
>>>> the
>>>>> barrier the week before Yeager had a regular tail on the prototype
>>>> which
>>>>> was carried through to the first A Sabre.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah. A stabilator or at least a rapidly trimmable stab is
essential
>>>> for a transonic aircraft o avoid excessive buffeting on the stab
due
>>>> to camber introduced through moving elevators up and down..
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>> The way I heard the story from a few guys who were at Edwards during
>>> the period was that there was information passed back and forth
>>> between the Brits and bell about the Miles project but it was the US
>>> that stopped trading out data due to the Brit program getting bogged
>>> down.
>>
>> Just as well considering their complete inability to keep thier
>> intelligence services under control.
>>
>>
>> I know a lot of what the Brits had in research being done early
>>> on at Boscombe Down came out of the German research, and you are
right
>>> about Lippisch. He was a genius. His work on tailless stuff is still
>>> considered important.
>>> As for the slab tail. I hate to admit it, but Bell I think might
very
>>> well have lifted this idea from the Miles project and incorporated
it
>>> into the X1. The shock issue at the hinge on the horizontal
stabilizer
>>> was common knowledge and a solution was really needed for the X1.
>>> That whole period was involved a ton of stolen ideas back and forth,
>>> and some of it really started back in the German research. Those
guys
>>> were a fair bunch of aerodynamic brains :-))
>>>
>>
>> Well, nothing was created in a vacuum! Everything was ripped off and
>> built upon ultimately.
>>
>
> Lots of cloak and dagger stuff going on back then....probably would
make
> a great movie plot :-)
>

Heh! It mostly came down to who's germans were better!

Bertie

WingFlaps

February 9th 08, 07:59 PM

On Feb 10, 7:59*am, Michael Ash > wrote:

>
> >> To take one personal example, he called me a bad pilot because I make poor
> >> landings in a simulator.
>

What's so bad abouit not being able to play a flying game well? I'd
just laugh!

Cheers

WingFlaps

February 9th 08, 08:04 PM

On Feb 10, 8:25*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> It's interesting to note that the control pressure differences should
> offer no problems for the pilot going from the actual airplane into the
> sim, but could easily cause problems going the other way.
>

I agree, I could fly the simulator easily and even land first time
straight on track it but I find the real thing much harder. I'm
guessing but the reduction in data input (to the model and to the
"pilot") coupled with the simplicity of the model makes it easier to
operate. I thought it did not simulate ground effects well either.

Cheers

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 9th 08, 08:42 PM

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 10, 8:25 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> It's interesting to note that the control pressure differences should
>> offer no problems for the pilot going from the actual airplane into the
>> sim, but could easily cause problems going the other way.
>>
>
> I agree, I could fly the simulator easily and even land first time
> straight on track it but I find the real thing much harder. I'm
> guessing but the reduction in data input (to the model and to the
> "pilot") coupled with the simplicity of the model makes it easier to
> operate. I thought it did not simulate ground effects well either.
>
> Cheers
>

What happens is interesting, and involves the mental/physical process
acquired when learning to fly in the real airplane first before coming
into the simulator.
Although when using aircraft controls there most certainly is a vector
involved when applying them, the learning process in the actual airplane
involves a constantly changing control PRESSURE dynamic as the controls
are applied at various airspeeds. (one could consider the dynamic as a
function of slugs per/sq.in. load vs response on the surfaces if
inclined in that direction :-) (We're talking un-boosted controls here
of course :-)
Once you have become acclimated to control use in the actual airplane,
the pressure needed becomes second nature and an educated reflex as you
determine the desired pressure to achieve the desired result regardless
of the airspeed.
What's interesting in this equation is that the vector required
(direction plus length) of control use is not really an important factor
in the actual airplane after the direction needed has been learned.
Bringing this from the airplane into the simulator loses the pressure
factor but retains the vector learning curve.
The pilot coming into the sim moves the joystick using the right vector
in direction and uses a visual cue for result acquired from the monitor.
The only thing missing in the equation here is the pressure.
Going the other way, from the sim into the aircraft, the vector factor
is a known, but the pressure dynamic is missing.
It's the pressure in the changing energy dynamic that the sim pilot
moving into an airplane must learn.
This is why I always recommend that instructors encourage new student
pilots who use the simulator to NOT use it during the initial period of
dual instruction before solo. After that, the sim has uses that can be
beneficial in the flight training environment.

--
Dudley Henriques

WingFlaps

February 9th 08, 08:45 PM

On Feb 10, 6:27*am, wrote:
> > I've never heard any mention of a design from the Brits. Actually, the
> > design concept was quite simple. They did the entire aircraft based on
> > ballistic tests with a 50 Cal. bullet even to taking the canopy out of
> > the equation and replacing it with molded in windows.
> > ...
> > The horizontal tail proved to be the only real issue and they changed
> > that to a slab tail to solve the shock issue.
>
> > --
> > Dudley Henriques
>
> I watched one of the Nova series episodes about 3 weeks ago about
> breaking the sound barrier (I rented it on DVD). They covered the
> British and American attempts to break the barrier in fair detail, and
> had extensive interviews with one of the engineers from Miles
> Aircraft, the British firm that was asked by the RAF to develop a
> supersonic aircraft. IIRC, the Miles' engineer said that they
> concluded that the best fuselage design would be one modeled after a
> bullet. He also said they figured a hydraulic actuated movable tail
> would do the trick to stop the shock-wave induced control freeze up
> that was killing so many pilots during the time.
>
> It was said that an American team did go to England during the last
> part of the war and met with the Miles' engineering group, and that
> the Miles' group was going to go to the US afterward to see what the
> American's had learned, but the Pentagon nixed their trip. The Brits
> didn't like that one.
>
> Anyway I can't remember the timelines here ... a few weeks before
> Miles' was to begin actual prototype testing of their ship (which
> looked very much like the X1, but with a different nose) their program
> was cancelled. This was sometime shortly after VE day. It was
> cancelled by a bureaucrat who had visited some of the secret German
> aircraft development centers the Allieds had discovered (some buried
> underground). There he had seen swept wing designs and somehow
> concluded that sweptwing was the only way to go supersonic. He
> cancelled the supersonic program because the Miles' design was a
> straight wing.
>

Ah. Thanks for that, part of the story is in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52

The time lines show that the data given to Bell in 1944 was key to
their development (the Brits had been working on the control problem
for years and a picture of an air tunnel model is in the wiki ref).
Bell started their program in 1945. If the British had not scrapped it
for political/financial reasons in 1946,I don't doubt it would have
been the first true supersonic airplane. The m.52 design was
apparently so good that it did not break up as planned in a
destructive test on an unpiloted model at 15g! It is a shame that
Bell did not live up to the trans-atlantic technology agreements in
place at that time. Yet another example of the shortsightedness of the
British government in not trusting in the abilities of their engineers
and investing in technology. A history repeated with the TSR2:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSR2
Cheers

romeomike

February 9th 08, 08:55 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> Example: I am certain that The Bunyip has responded to this thread, as
> flies are attracted to you-know-what. I would bet a thousand bucks on
> it. You may even be responding to his post.
>
> But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful.
>

By not being willing to simply ignore what you don't like, you miss the
good stuff. You have apparently killfiled not only Bertie but any
response to him. Therefore, you miss not only the knowledgeable stuff
that is posted under his nome de plume but the discussions he has with
the likes of Dudley H. and others you respect. Don't tell me that there
is no worthwhile content there. These people are conversing with him.
Besides you killfiled him, so you don't see it.

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 9th 08, 09:15 PM

romeomike > wrote in news:1jg185-ml61.ln1
@news.infowest.com:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> Example: I am certain that The Bunyip has responded to this thread, as
>> flies are attracted to you-know-what. I would bet a thousand bucks on
>> it. You may even be responding to his post.
>>
>> But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful.
>>
>
> By not being willing to simply ignore what you don't like, you miss the
> good stuff. You have apparently killfiled not only Bertie but any
> response to him. Therefore, you miss not only the knowledgeable stuff
> that is posted under his nome de plume but the discussions he has with
> the likes of Dudley H. and others you respect. Don't tell me that there
> is no worthwhile content there. These people are conversing with him.
> Besides you killfiled him, so you don't see it.
>

Can you see this post? I couldn't see your's cuz it was killfiled.

Bertie

Michael Ash

February 10th 08, 01:00 AM

In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>
>> My apologies if you thought I meant that all pilots should expect to have
>> trouble in sims, and I hope the above better explains my full opinion and
>> experience with them.
>
> No problem at all Mike. I didn't take it that way. My post was simply a
> general explanation on how pilots interact with the simulator as we
> envision it when working on the program through the eyes of a flight
> instructor.

Glad to hear it, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. I
appreciate the perspective.

> There is a fine book on all this which I happened to review for ASA.
> It's called "Flight Simulator as a Training Aid" by Bruce Williams.
> If you search my name at www.simflight.com or the book itself on ASA's
> web site, you can read that review if interested.

Thanks for the pointer, that looks like an interesting book. With the
right techniques I'm sure it can be a useful tool for instruction.

Incidentally my glider club was considering setting up a simulator for
students. It would have had a bit fancier setup than I have in order to
help with some of the drawbacks, including a TrackIR (head-mounted
pointing device) which is supposed to help make it a bit more natural to
look around the environment in the sim. I was sort of skeptical, but other
clubs have had some success with sims. Alas, the person who was working on
it ended up moving out of the country for a couple of years, and I don't
believe anyone had managed to try it on a student before he left. Maybe
when he comes back we'll be able to try again.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Larry Dighera

February 10th 08, 01:10 AM

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:29:11 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>I happen to feel strongly about the way MX has influenced the group, and
>have expressed it.
>
>I realize that it is likely to not result in much change, but I still feel
>the need to express it, and hope.

Have you ever considered the possibility, that it is your emotional
public admission of frustration that is the precise reward the troll
is seeking to validate her power to provoke?

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 01:11 AM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:29:11 -0500, "Morgans"
> > wrote in >:
>
>>I happen to feel strongly about the way MX has influenced the group,
>>and have expressed it.
>>
>>I realize that it is likely to not result in much change, but I still
>>feel the need to express it, and hope.
>
> Have you ever considered the possibility, that it is your emotional
> public admission of frustration that is the precise reward the troll
> is seeking to validate her power to provoke?
>
>

Hasve you ever considered that this kind of moronic observatin is precisely
what the troll is looking for to validate her power to provoke, hyocrite
pseudo christian gay lamer?

Nothing I like better than a hypocrite gay lamer.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 10th 08, 01:48 AM

Best of luck with it. If the sim is used in conjunction with a good CFI
input along with it, I think it can be quite useful.
DH

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>
>>> My apologies if you thought I meant that all pilots should expect to have
>>> trouble in sims, and I hope the above better explains my full opinion and
>>> experience with them.
>> No problem at all Mike. I didn't take it that way. My post was simply a
>> general explanation on how pilots interact with the simulator as we
>> envision it when working on the program through the eyes of a flight
>> instructor.
>
> Glad to hear it, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. I
> appreciate the perspective.
>
>> There is a fine book on all this which I happened to review for ASA.
>> It's called "Flight Simulator as a Training Aid" by Bruce Williams.
>> If you search my name at www.simflight.com or the book itself on ASA's
>> web site, you can read that review if interested.
>
> Thanks for the pointer, that looks like an interesting book. With the
> right techniques I'm sure it can be a useful tool for instruction.
>
> Incidentally my glider club was considering setting up a simulator for
> students. It would have had a bit fancier setup than I have in order to
> help with some of the drawbacks, including a TrackIR (head-mounted
> pointing device) which is supposed to help make it a bit more natural to
> look around the environment in the sim. I was sort of skeptical, but other
> clubs have had some success with sims. Alas, the person who was working on
> it ended up moving out of the country for a couple of years, and I don't
> believe anyone had managed to try it on a student before he left. Maybe
> when he comes back we'll be able to try again.
>

--
Dudley Henriques

[email protected]

February 10th 08, 02:28 AM

> My point exactly!
>
> It can be fun, especially to try things you'd never want to try in real
> life, and it can be a good laugh when things go wrong. And I can see how
> they can be a really useful tool in certain circumstances. But it's silly
> to think that they're an ironclad indicator of skill for everything.
>
> --
> Michael Ash
> Rogue Amoeba Software

Michael there's no point in feeling bad at all. Here's an anecdote:

My primary instructor for the PPL has an aerobatic endorsement (or
whatever the technical name is) on her CFI cert. She has been doing
aerobatics for many years. I had used MSFS before taking lessons from
her. On our first flight she acted surprised and wanted to know how
long I'd been flying. It was all straight and level but I understood
things like the how the VOR stuff worked, how to trim, use the radios,
and that the throttle was the up/down control (ie, throttle back to
descend), etc. I told her I'd learned all that in the simulator. Later
she came to my house for dinner once, and for fun she wanted to try
the simulator. She couldn't do it at all, or course, because the
control inputs are completely different as was how you view "the world
outside". So she stalled out trying to land and crashed, she couldn't
do a snap roll "correctly", and the loop was impossible. The whole
time she just laughed her a$$ off.

To say that she was "humbled" by the simulator, or that she wasn't a
good pilot because she crashed trying to simulate landing with MSFS
would be utterly ridiculous and absurd.

She's a finest kind pilot in my view, a real character, and I can't
wait til later this spring when I will have some time because I'm
going to do some aerobatics training with her -- and I ain't even
considering her simulator "problems".

Simulated landing crashes don't count for jack!

(Maybe only if you're an ATP and the airline sends you off to
simulator training and you crash repeatedly -- something I bet rarely
or never happens. Hmm. Hey you airline pilots -- does anyone ever
"crash" in the real simulators? What happens, screen go blank?)

[email protected]

February 10th 08, 02:31 AM

> This is why I always recommend that instructors encourage new student
> pilots who use the simulator to NOT use it during the initial period of
> dual instruction before solo. After that, the sim has uses that can be
> beneficial in the flight training environment.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques-

I think that's good advice because I had definitely picked up some
minor control input errors on landing from tweaking the joystick on
simulated landings. It wasn't hard to get rid of, but it was there and
it came from the sim. I tended to make small jerking pulls on the
control wheel (overcontrolling) when I should have held steady back
pressure.

That was usually just as the plane was settling down on the runway.

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 10th 08, 03:27 AM

wrote:
>> This is why I always recommend that instructors encourage new student
>> pilots who use the simulator to NOT use it during the initial period of
>> dual instruction before solo. After that, the sim has uses that can be
>> beneficial in the flight training environment.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques-
>
> I think that's good advice because I had definitely picked up some
> minor control input errors on landing from tweaking the joystick on
> simulated landings. It wasn't hard to get rid of, but it was there and
> it came from the sim. I tended to make small jerking pulls on the
> control wheel (overcontrolling) when I should have held steady back
> pressure.
>
> That was usually just as the plane was settling down on the runway.
>
It's just the initial dual period before solo where I like the sim put
away for a new student. It avoids conflicts and saves valuable time on
the learning curve.
After the student learns in the actual airplane to think of control use
in terms of pressure rather than movement in a direction, and after
solo, I find no harm in going back to the sim for use as a training aid.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 10th 08, 04:15 AM

> By not being willing to simply ignore what you don't like, you miss the
> good stuff. You have apparently killfiled not only Bertie but any response
> to him.

Untrue. Unfortunately, there is no way to killfile responses to Bertie.
(Or, if there is, I haven't figure out how to do it.)

>Therefore, you miss not only the knowledgeable stuff that is posted under
>his nome de plume but the discussions he has with the likes of Dudley H.
>and others you respect.

As noted above, this is untrue.

However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here is like
saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the Jews. Although
that may well be true, the rest of the source message is so distasteful as
to devalue everything else he might say.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

romeomike

February 10th 08, 05:39 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> By not being willing to simply ignore what you don't like, you miss
>> the good stuff. You have apparently killfiled not only Bertie but any
>> response to him.
>
> Untrue. Unfortunately, there is no way to killfile responses to Bertie.
> (Or, if there is, I haven't figure out how to do it.)
>
>> Therefore, you miss not only the knowledgeable stuff that is posted
>> under his nome de plume but the discussions he has with the likes of
>> Dudley H. and others you respect.
>
> As noted above, this is untrue.
>
> However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here is
> like saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the Jews.
> Although that may well be true, the rest of the source message is so
> distasteful as to devalue everything else he might say.

I guess I misinterpreted the following quote from your post to mean that
someone responding to Bertie's post would not be seen by you.

"You may even be responding to his post.

But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful."

romeomike

February 10th 08, 05:56 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here is
> like saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the Jews.
> Although that may well be true,

I'm curious...which of Hitler's observations about the Jews were
"accurate" in your opinion?

buttman

February 10th 08, 11:22 AM

On Feb 9, 4:15 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> "buttman" > wrote
>
>
>
> > sheesh, it's just an internet discussion group. lighten up a little?
>
> THAT's funny.
>
> You, telling me to not worry, and let free speech be, on a discussion group.
>
> And, at the same time, advise me to stop saying what I have been saying.
>
> Yep, this one's a keeper, for sure!
> --
> Jim in NC

What makes you think I'm telling you to stop saying what you've been
saying? If you want to work yourself up into stomach ulcers over
another person making posts on an internet forum, then be my guest.
I'm just here giving you a bit of advise; it may not be worth it.

buttman

February 10th 08, 11:22 AM

On Feb 9, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> buttman > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 2:25 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
> >> "Michael Ash" > wrote
>
> >> > Other examples abound. Just because he is well-spoken and doesn't
> >> > swear doesn't make him nice. In fact in some ways it makes it
> >> > worse, because it's all part of a manner which is used to make him
> >> > look like the victim when he comes along and insults all of these
> >> > fine people with vastly more knowledge and experience than himself
> >> > (and more than me).
>
> >> Exactly.
>
> >> His presence here is an insult to all people that have found this
> >> forum to be of value to them.
>
> >> Everyone should be wise enough to realize this, and start treating
> >> him like "he whose name must not be spoken."
>
> >> Hell, I think I would rather have the "he whose name must not be
> >> spoken" back, and MX gone. At least the other one was not playing
> >> games with the group. You knew where he stood. In reality.
>
> >> Yep, I'm sure of it. I'll vote for the switch.
> >> --
> >> Jim in NC
>
> > sheesh, it's just an internet discussion group. lighten up a little?
>
> Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhawhahhwahhwhawhahwhhahawha hwhahwh!
>
> Bertie

Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhawhahhwahhwhawhahwhhahawha hwhahwh!

Blueskies

February 10th 08, 01:00 PM

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message ...

> After the student learns in the actual airplane to think of control use in terms of pressure rather than movement in a
> direction, and after solo, I find no harm in going back to the sim for use as a training aid.
>
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques

Speaking of pressure, is there some sort of yoke interface for PCs that includes force feedback? Something where the
controls stiffen with speed and out of trim conditions? Never seen anything like that on any I have messed with. There
was a really nice $100,000 set up at OSH with two projectors on a curved screen that was very realistic, but I don't
think it had force feed back either...

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 10th 08, 01:15 PM

Blueskies wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> After the student learns in the actual airplane to think of control
>> use in terms of pressure rather than movement in a direction, and
>> after solo, I find no harm in going back to the sim for use as a
>> training aid.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques
>
>
> Speaking of pressure, is there some sort of yoke interface for PCs that
> includes force feedback? Something where the controls stiffen with speed
> and out of trim conditions? Never seen anything like that on any I have
> messed with. There was a really nice $100,000 set up at OSH with two
> projectors on a curved screen that was very realistic, but I don't think
> it had force feed back either...
>
>
Yes there is. I've experimented with it and found it useless if the
objective sought is realistic aircraft control pressure feedback.
What it does do is create some "effects" for the user that are intended
to produce a more realistic experience, but in my opinion, the
technology falls way short of this goal.

In fact, my opinion of force feedback is so negative, I personally don't
use it.

--
Dudley Henriques

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 10th 08, 02:09 PM

>> However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here is
>> like saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the Jews.
>> Although that may well be true,
>
> I'm curious...which of Hitler's observations about the Jews were
> "accurate" in your opinion?

None of them. It was a metaphor, meant to illustrate precisely how bad
Bertie is for this group.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 10th 08, 02:10 PM

> I guess I misinterpreted the following quote from your post to mean that
> someone responding to Bertie's post would not be seen by you.
>
> "You may even be responding to his post.
>
> But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful."

Um, since I was responding to a response (to Bertie), how did you think I
was able to pull that off, presuming that I couldn't see any responses?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[email protected]

February 10th 08, 02:13 PM

> Yes there is. I've experimented with it and found it useless if the
> objective sought is realistic aircraft control pressure feedback.
> What it does do is create some "effects" for the user that are intended
> to produce a more realistic experience, but in my opinion, the
> technology falls way short of this goal.
>
> In fact, my opinion of force feedback is so negative, I personally don't
> use it.
>
> --
> Dudley Henriques-

That's my experience too. At first I really wanted force feedback.
However it's so inaccurate, and the motors make the thing all twitchy,
that only bad habits come of it.

Some company (not CH) makes joysticks and a flight yoke that don't use
potentiometers. They work better, apparently. Someone on the sim forum
could probably lead you to a controller that behaves well.

Jay Maynard

February 10th 08, 02:51 PM

On 2008-02-09, romeomike > wrote:
> By not being willing to simply ignore what you don't like, you miss the
> good stuff. You have apparently killfiled not only Bertie but any
> response to him. Therefore, you miss not only the knowledgeable stuff
> that is posted under his nome de plume but the discussions he has with
> the likes of Dudley H. and others you respect. Don't tell me that there
> is no worthwhile content there. These people are conversing with him.
> Besides you killfiled him, so you don't see it.

I'm not Jay H, but I'll reply to this:

Yes, I killfiled Bertie. (And all of his recent morphs to evade killfiles;
that's a really annoying trick that's against many providers' TOS.) It was a
balancing choice. Yes, I'm going to miss his good posts. I'm also going to
miss the aggravation of dealing with his (many more, IMAO) posts where he
quotes 150 lines of argument to add one line of insult. The tradeoff is, for
me, positive. I don't have enough time to put up with that crap.
--
Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.com
http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 02:51 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:XTurj.23560$yE1.11448@attbi_s21:

>> By not being willing to simply ignore what you don't like, you miss
>> the good stuff. You have apparently killfiled not only Bertie but any
>> response to him.
>
> Untrue. Unfortunately, there is no way to killfile responses to
> Bertie. (Or, if there is, I haven't figure out how to do it.)

Oh, that's because you're an idiot as well as a liar.

>
>>Therefore, you miss not only the knowledgeable stuff that is posted
>>under his nome de plume but the discussions he has with the likes of
>>Dudley H. and others you respect.
>
> As noted above, this is untrue.
>
> However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here
> is like saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the
> Jews. Although that may well be true, the rest of the source message
> is so distasteful as to devalue everything else he might say.

Gowin noted and x-posted to alt.usenet.kooks

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 02:52 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:eBDrj.24170$yE1.10663@attbi_s21:

>> I guess I misinterpreted the following quote from your post to mean
>> that someone responding to Bertie's post would not be seen by you.
>>
>> "You may even be responding to his post.
>>
>> But I'll never see it. It's absolutely wonderful."
>
> Um, since I was responding to a response (to Bertie), how did you
> think I was able to pull that off, presuming that I couldn't see any
> responses?
>
> ;-)

Evasion noted.

You just dont know when to stop, do you Jay?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 02:53 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:4ADrj.24166$yE1.7567@attbi_s21:

>>> However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here
>>> is like saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the
>>> Jews. Although that may well be true,
>>
>> I'm curious...which of Hitler's observations about the Jews were
>> "accurate" in your opinion?
>
> None of them. It was a metaphor, meant to illustrate precisely how
> bad Bertie is for this group.

Funny, I see you as being precisely as bad for the group..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 03:14 PM

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Feb 9, 4:15 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> "buttman" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> > sheesh, it's just an internet discussion group. lighten up a
>> > little?
>>
>> THAT's funny.
>>
>> You, telling me to not worry, and let free speech be, on a discussion
>> group.
>>
>> And, at the same time, advise me to stop saying what I have been
>> saying.
>>
>> Yep, this one's a keeper, for sure!
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> What makes you think I'm telling you to stop saying what you've been
> saying? If you want to work yourself up into stomach ulcers over
> another person making posts on an internet forum, then be my guest.
> I'm just here giving you a bit of advise; it may not be worth it.

PKB

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 03:14 PM

buttman > wrote in
:

> On Feb 9, 4:18 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> buttman > wrote
>> innews:624b74ff-d5c1-4422-8fbe-

>> om:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 8, 2:25 pm, "Morgans" > wrote:
>> >> "Michael Ash" > wrote
>>
>> >> > Other examples abound. Just because he is well-spoken and
>> >> > doesn't swear doesn't make him nice. In fact in some ways it
>> >> > makes it worse, because it's all part of a manner which is used
>> >> > to make him look like the victim when he comes along and insults
>> >> > all of these fine people with vastly more knowledge and
>> >> > experience than himself (and more than me).
>>
>> >> Exactly.
>>
>> >> His presence here is an insult to all people that have found this
>> >> forum to be of value to them.
>>
>> >> Everyone should be wise enough to realize this, and start treating
>> >> him like "he whose name must not be spoken."
>>
>> >> Hell, I think I would rather have the "he whose name must not be
>> >> spoken" back, and MX gone. At least the other one was not playing
>> >> games with the group. You knew where he stood. In reality.
>>
>> >> Yep, I'm sure of it. I'll vote for the switch.
>> >> --
>> >> Jim in NC
>>
>> > sheesh, it's just an internet discussion group. lighten up a
>> > little?
>>
>> Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhawhahhwahhwhawhahwhhahawha hwhahwh!
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhawhahhwahhwhawhahwhhahawha hwhahwh!
>

Nope. You dun it worng, fjukkwit.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 10th 08, 03:15 PM

Jay Maynard > wrote in
:

> On 2008-02-09, romeomike > wrote:
>> By not being willing to simply ignore what you don't like, you miss
>> the good stuff. You have apparently killfiled not only Bertie but any
>> response to him. Therefore, you miss not only the knowledgeable stuff
>> that is posted under his nome de plume but the discussions he has
>> with the likes of Dudley H. and others you respect. Don't tell me
>> that there is no worthwhile content there. These people are
>> conversing with him. Besides you killfiled him, so you don't see it.
>
> I'm not Jay H, but I'll reply to this:
>
> Yes, I killfiled Bertie. (And all of his recent morphs to evade
> killfiles; that's a really annoying trick that's against many
> providers' TOS.)

Not mine.

It was a balancing choice. Yes, I'm going to miss his
> good posts. I'm also going to miss the aggravation of dealing with his
> (many more, IMAO) posts where he quotes 150 lines of argument to add
> one line of insult. The tradeoff is, for me, positive. I don't have
> enough time to put up with that crap.

Not a problem for me.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 03:21 PM

Dudley Henriques > wrote in
:

> Blueskies wrote:
>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> After the student learns in the actual airplane to think of control
>>> use in terms of pressure rather than movement in a direction, and
>>> after solo, I find no harm in going back to the sim for use as a
>>> training aid.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>>
>> Speaking of pressure, is there some sort of yoke interface for PCs
>> that includes force feedback? Something where the controls stiffen
>> with speed and out of trim conditions? Never seen anything like that
>> on any I have messed with. There was a really nice $100,000 set up at
>> OSH with two projectors on a curved screen that was very realistic,
>> but I don't think it had force feed back either...
>>
>>
> Yes there is. I've experimented with it and found it useless if the
> objective sought is realistic aircraft control pressure feedback.
> What it does do is create some "effects" for the user that are
> intended to produce a more realistic experience, but in my opinion,
> the technology falls way short of this goal.
>
> In fact, my opinion of force feedback is so negative, I personally
> don't use it.
>

Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke. Even
sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see even the
most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in teaching
procedures.

Bertie

buttman

February 10th 08, 03:31 PM

On Feb 10, 8:14 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

>
> PKB
>
> Bertie
>
>

I get it, you're being ironic. Oh, too cute.

Anyways, just a heads up, I made a few replies to the "Discovery
Flight today...unexpected results" thread that you missed. I know you
love replying to each of my posts, just helping you out man.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 04:06 PM

buttman > wrote in news:b412d3a9-dad1-4045-a465-
:

> On Feb 10, 8:14 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>>
>> PKB
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>>
>
> I get it, you're being ironic. Oh, too cute.

Oh boy. an IKYABWAI poast.

>
> Anyways, just a heads up, I made a few replies to the "Discovery
> Flight today...unexpected results" thread that you missed. I know you
> love replying to each of my posts, just helping you out man.

Oh thanks.

BTW, I'll be reffering back to this poast in about a week.

Bertie

Michael Ash

February 10th 08, 04:46 PM

In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke. Even
> sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see even the
> most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in teaching
> procedures.

Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by using
bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the bungees. Move
them around to change the center if needed, tighten them to provide more
recentering force at high speed. Anyone know how the real force feedback
systems work and why my idea doesn't?

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Mxsmanic

February 10th 08, 04:49 PM

writes:

> Some company (not CH) makes joysticks and a flight yoke that don't use
> potentiometers. They work better, apparently. Someone on the sim forum
> could probably lead you to a controller that behaves well.

Saitek uses Hall-effect sensors for the two main axes of the joystick in some
models (X52 and X52 Pro), but not usually for the other axes. It makes a
difference.

Michael Ash

February 10th 08, 05:03 PM

In rec.aviation.student wrote:
> My primary instructor for the PPL has an aerobatic endorsement (or
> whatever the technical name is) on her CFI cert. She has been doing
> aerobatics for many years. I had used MSFS before taking lessons from
> her. On our first flight she acted surprised and wanted to know how
> long I'd been flying. It was all straight and level but I understood
> things like the how the VOR stuff worked, how to trim, use the radios,
> and that the throttle was the up/down control (ie, throttle back to
> descend), etc. I told her I'd learned all that in the simulator. Later
> she came to my house for dinner once, and for fun she wanted to try
> the simulator. She couldn't do it at all, or course, because the
> control inputs are completely different as was how you view "the world
> outside". So she stalled out trying to land and crashed, she couldn't
> do a snap roll "correctly", and the loop was impossible. The whole
> time she just laughed her a$$ off.

Nice story. I had a similar experience to yours. Not the part with the
instructor flying the sim, but showing up for lessons with a bunch of sim
flying done first. I was pretty young at the time and hadn't gone as far
with it as you had, and I was flying really primitive sims (anyone
remember Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer?) but it had a similar
effect. I was good at simulator-type stuff, had no trouble reading the
instruments or holding altitude while staring at them, but it had really
conditioned me to keep my head down and I had a hard time developing the
habit of looking outside.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 06:04 PM

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> writes:
>
>> Some company (not CH) makes joysticks and a flight yoke that don't
>> use potentiometers. They work better, apparently. Someone on the sim
>> forum could probably lead you to a controller that behaves well.
>
> Saitek uses Hall-effect sensors for the two main axes of the joystick
> in some models (X52 and X52 Pro), but not usually for the other axes.
> It makes a difference.
>

Good for them. They're wonderful.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 06:06 PM

Michael Ash > wrote in news:1202662014.882537@nfs-
db1.segnet.com:

> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke. Even
>> sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see even the
>> most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in teaching
>> procedures.
>
> Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by using
> bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the bungees. Move
> them around to change the center if needed, tighten them to provide more
> recentering force at high speed. Anyone know how the real force feedback
> systems work and why my idea doesn't?
>

WEll, tomorrow I'm going to be in a significantly more sophisticated system
than that for about four hours of sweat inducing BS and even they don;'t
feel right. At least with no feel you;re not getting the notion that you're
learning anything by feel.

Bertie

romeomike

February 10th 08, 06:24 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> None of them. It was a metaphor, meant to illustrate precisely how bad
> Bertie is for this group.

OK, I understood the metaphor, but I misread the statement of yours
quoted below. I thought the phrase, "Although that may well be true"
referred to Hitler and the Jews when in fact you were referring to
Bertie having something of value to contribute. My bad.

"However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here is
like saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the Jews.
Although that may well be true, the rest of the source message is so
distasteful as to devalue everything else he might say."

Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]

February 10th 08, 06:50 PM

romeomike > wrote in news:f3s385-s3o1.ln1
@news.infowest.com:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>
>> None of them. It was a metaphor, meant to illustrate precisely how bad
>> Bertie is for this group.
>
> OK, I understood the metaphor, but I misread the statement of yours
> quoted below. I thought the phrase, "Although that may well be true"
> referred to Hitler and the Jews when in fact you were referring to
> Bertie having something of value to contribute. My bad.
>
> "However, saying that Bertie has anything of value to contribute here is
> like saying that Hitler made some accurate observations about the Jews.
> Although that may well be true, the rest of the source message is so
> distasteful as to devalue everything else he might say."
>

It's why he's one of my favorite chew toys.
Ones like Anthony are ok for a very quick snack. but a true hypocrite, now
there's a feast.

Bertie

[email protected]

February 10th 08, 10:22 PM

> WEll, tomorrow I'm going to be in a significantly more sophisticated system *
> than that for about four hours of sweat inducing BS and even they don;'t
> feel right. At least with no feel you;re not getting the notion that you're
> learning anything by feel.
>
> Bertie

What kind of hoops do they make you jump through on those things?

What are they trying to assess? Systems knowledge? Procedures? CRM?

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 10th 08, 10:23 PM

wrote:
>> Yes there is. I've experimented with it and found it useless if the
>> objective sought is realistic aircraft control pressure feedback.
>> What it does do is create some "effects" for the user that are intended
>> to produce a more realistic experience, but in my opinion, the
>> technology falls way short of this goal.
>>
>> In fact, my opinion of force feedback is so negative, I personally don't
>> use it.
>>
>> --
>> Dudley Henriques-
>
> That's my experience too. At first I really wanted force feedback.
> However it's so inaccurate, and the motors make the thing all twitchy,
> that only bad habits come of it.
>
> Some company (not CH) makes joysticks and a flight yoke that don't use
> potentiometers. They work better, apparently. Someone on the sim forum
> could probably lead you to a controller that behaves well.

For the work I do on the sim program both for Microsoft and developers I
use strictly CH Products. I've found them to be quite dependable and I
recommend them highly.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 10th 08, 10:28 PM

wrote in
:

>> WEll, tomorrow I'm going to be in a significantly more sophisticated
>> syste
> m *
>> than that for about four hours of sweat inducing BS and even they
>> don;'t feel right. At least with no feel you;re not getting the
>> notion that you'r
> e
>> learning anything by feel.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> What kind of hoops do they make you jump through on those things?
>
> What are they trying to assess? Systems knowledge? Procedures? CRM?
>

All of the above, really. We'll do a normal cockpit check and briefing. A
few ILS's with both engines and singe engine. Some V1 cuts ( engine
failures at or around V1 with at least one abandoned takeoff) Some system
failures. I think some electric system failure are on the agenda this time.
Weather problems. Circle to land approaches. The engine failures might
include some oddball things which they'll have us look at. for instance a
masive fuel leak brought on by the failure damage, or maybe just a wind-
down that requires an inflight start.
They're big on SOPs. Getting the mouth music right and knowing the numbers.

Bertie

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 10th 08, 10:33 PM

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke. Even
>> sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see even the
>> most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in teaching
>> procedures.
>
> Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by using
> bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the bungees. Move
> them around to change the center if needed, tighten them to provide more
> recentering force at high speed. Anyone know how the real force feedback
> systems work and why my idea doesn't?
>
Wouldn't be worth the trouble. No matter what you do with force
feedback, unless you can come up with a way to duplicate the effect of
dynamic pressure on control surfaces based on a varying airspeed and air
density table, and for a specific aircraft to boot....you can't
duplicate actual control pressures for a desk top simulator.

--
Dudley Henriques

Michael Ash

February 11th 08, 12:41 AM

In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> Michael Ash wrote:
>> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke. Even
>>> sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see even the
>>> most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in teaching
>>> procedures.
>>
>> Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by using
>> bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the bungees. Move
>> them around to change the center if needed, tighten them to provide more
>> recentering force at high speed. Anyone know how the real force feedback
>> systems work and why my idea doesn't?
>>
> Wouldn't be worth the trouble. No matter what you do with force
> feedback, unless you can come up with a way to duplicate the effect of
> dynamic pressure on control surfaces based on a varying airspeed and air
> density table, and for a specific aircraft to boot....you can't
> duplicate actual control pressures for a desk top simulator.

I imagine you could do a fairly decent job. A sim such as X-Plane has much
of the data needed to come up with the right numbers. But then again, I
don't know whether this is "fairly decent" as in something which just
deceives you, or as in something which is actually worthwhile. In any case
it's somewhat academic, since if the software doesn't support it then
there's no point in having the hardware, and if there's no hardware the
software won't support it....

If even the big iron sims don't do a good job, it should be a good
indication that this problem is harder than it looks from the outside.

--
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software

Dudley Henriques[_2_]

February 11th 08, 12:49 AM

Michael Ash wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke. Even
>>>> sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see even the
>>>> most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in teaching
>>>> procedures.
>>> Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by using
>>> bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the bungees. Move
>>> them around to change the center if needed, tighten them to provide more
>>> recentering force at high speed. Anyone know how the real force feedback
>>> systems work and why my idea doesn't?
>>>
>> Wouldn't be worth the trouble. No matter what you do with force
>> feedback, unless you can come up with a way to duplicate the effect of
>> dynamic pressure on control surfaces based on a varying airspeed and air
>> density table, and for a specific aircraft to boot....you can't
>> duplicate actual control pressures for a desk top simulator.
>
> I imagine you could do a fairly decent job. A sim such as X-Plane has much
> of the data needed to come up with the right numbers. But then again, I
> don't know whether this is "fairly decent" as in something which just
> deceives you, or as in something which is actually worthwhile. In any case
> it's somewhat academic, since if the software doesn't support it then
> there's no point in having the hardware, and if there's no hardware the
> software won't support it....
>
> If even the big iron sims don't do a good job, it should be a good
> indication that this problem is harder than it looks from the outside.
>
In my opinion, no desktop simulator in use at this time coupled with any
controllers available for the intended purpose of replicating the
controls of an airplane in flight is capable of the fidelity level
necessary to duplicate the sensitive control "feel" absolutely critical
to the learning curve of a pre-solo student pilot.

--
Dudley Henriques

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 11th 08, 12:53 AM

Michael Ash > wrote in
:

> In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> Michael Ash wrote:
>>> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>>> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke.
>>>> Even sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see
>>>> even the most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in
>>>> teaching procedures.
>>>
>>> Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by
>>> using bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the
>>> bungees. Move them around to change the center if needed, tighten
>>> them to provide more recentering force at high speed. Anyone know
>>> how the real force feedback systems work and why my idea doesn't?
>>>
>> Wouldn't be worth the trouble. No matter what you do with force
>> feedback, unless you can come up with a way to duplicate the effect
>> of dynamic pressure on control surfaces based on a varying airspeed
>> and air density table, and for a specific aircraft to boot....you
>> can't duplicate actual control pressures for a desk top simulator.
>
> I imagine you could do a fairly decent job. A sim such as X-Plane has
> much of the data needed to come up with the right numbers. But then
> again, I don't know whether this is "fairly decent" as in something
> which just deceives you, or as in something which is actually
> worthwhile. In any case it's somewhat academic, since if the software
> doesn't support it then there's no point in having the hardware, and
> if there's no hardware the software won't support it....
>
> If even the big iron sims don't do a good job, it should be a good
> indication that this problem is harder than it looks from the outside.
>

Well, the smoothest pilots i know can't fly a "good" sim. The mechanical
ones can..

Says it all, really.

Bertie

[email protected]

February 11th 08, 04:20 AM

On Feb 10, 6:53*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Michael Ash > wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >> Michael Ash wrote:
> >>> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >>>> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke.
> >>>> Even sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't see
> >>>> even the most sophisticated sims being anything more than an aid in
> >>>> teaching procedures.
>
> >>> Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by
> >>> using bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the
> >>> bungees. Move them around to change the center if needed, tighten
> >>> them to provide more recentering force at high speed. Anyone know
> >>> how the real force feedback systems work and why my idea doesn't?
>
> >> Wouldn't be worth the trouble. No matter what you do with force
> >> feedback, unless you can come up with a way to duplicate the effect
> >> of dynamic pressure on control surfaces based on a varying airspeed
> >> and air density table, and for a specific aircraft to boot....you
> >> can't duplicate actual control pressures for a desk top simulator.
>
> > I imagine you could do a fairly decent job. A sim such as X-Plane has
> > much of the data needed to come up with the right numbers. But then
> > again, I don't know whether this is "fairly decent" as in something
> > which just deceives you, or as in something which is actually
> > worthwhile. In any case it's somewhat academic, since if the software
> > doesn't support it then there's no point in having the hardware, and
> > if there's no hardware the software won't support it....
>
> > If even the big iron sims don't do a good job, it should be a good
> > indication that this problem is harder than it looks from the outside.
>
> Well, the smoothest pilots i know can't fly a "good" sim. The mechanical
> ones can..
>
> Says it all, really.
>
> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's down to rainy day or otherwise IFR for me. Only time I do it. And
I get bored really fast -- no matter how many add ons I jam in it.

Doesn't hold a candle to the real thing.

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 11th 08, 01:48 PM

wrote in
:

> On Feb 10, 6:53*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Michael Ash > wrote
>>
> et.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > In rec.aviation.student Dudley Henriques >
>> > wrote:
>> >> Michael Ash wrote:
>> >>> In rec.aviation.student Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >>>> Yes. I've trid it and the home sim feedback systems are a joke.
>> >>>> Even sophisticated sims aren't great this way and I still can't
>> >>>> see even the most sophisticated sims being anything more than an
>> >>>> aid in teaching procedures.
>>
>> >>> Seems like you ought to be able to get a fairly decent setup by
>> >>> using bungees to center the stick and having some motors on the
>> >>> bungees. Move them around to change the center if needed, tighten
>> >>> them to provide more recentering force at high speed. Anyone know
>> >>> how the real force feedback systems work and why my idea doesn't?
>>
>> >> Wouldn't be worth the trouble. No matter what you do with force
>> >> feedback, unless you can come up with a way to duplicate the
>> >> effect of dynamic pressure on control surfaces based on a varying
>> >> airspeed and air density table, and for a specific aircraft to
>> >> boot....you can't duplicate actual control pressures for a desk
>> >> top simulator.
>>
>> > I imagine you could do a fairly decent job. A sim such as X-Plane
>> > has much of the data needed to come up with the right numbers. But
>> > then again, I don't know whether this is "fairly decent" as in
>> > something which just deceives you, or as in something which is
>> > actually worthwhile. In any case it's somewhat academic, since if
>> > the software doesn't support it then there's no point in having the
>> > hardware, and if there's no hardware the software won't support
>> > it....
>>
>> > If even the big iron sims don't do a good job, it should be a good
>> > indication that this problem is harder than it looks from the
>> > outside.
>>
>> Well, the smoothest pilots i know can't fly a "good" sim. The
>> mechanical ones can..
>>
>> Says it all, really.
>>
>> Bertie- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> It's down to rainy day or otherwise IFR for me. Only time I do it. And
> I get bored really fast -- no matter how many add ons I jam in it.

Yeah, I have a couple of them lying around and I never use them. Once
you've flown under a couple of bridges they are a complete bore.
>
> Doesn't hold a candle to the real thing.

Exactly.

Bertie
>

Jay Honeck[_2_]

February 12th 08, 01:12 AM

> For the work I do on the sim program both for Microsoft and developers I
> use strictly CH Products. I've found them to be quite dependable and I
> recommend them highly.

I can second that recommendation.

In 18 months of daily use, our "Kiwi" (a full-sized flight simulator that
uses CH yoke and rudder pedals) has logged thousands of hours, with people
from every age group.

Given the abuse some of them have given the CH products, I'm frankly
surprised at how well they've held up. The plastic collar that surrounds
the metal shaft of the yoke broke after a woman exerted incredible force
trying to TWIST the yoke back to flare, rather than simply pulling back --
but a simple application of J-B Weld (the greatest stuff in the universe,
BTW) to reinforce the area has restored the yoke to full function.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]

February 14th 08, 02:36 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Jn6sj.29506$yE1.19771@attbi_s21:

>> For the work I do on the sim program both for Microsoft and
>> developers I use strictly CH Products. I've found them to be quite
>> dependable and I recommend them highly.
>
> I can second that recommendation.
>
> In 18 months of daily use, our "Kiwi" (a full-sized flight simulator
> that uses CH yoke and rudder pedals) has logged thousands of hours,
> with people from every age group.
>
> Given the abuse some of them have given the CH products, I'm frankly
> surprised at how well they've held up. The plastic collar that
> surrounds the metal shaft of the yoke broke after a woman exerted
> incredible force trying to TWIST the yoke back to flare, rather than
> simply pulling back -- but a simple application of J-B Weld (the
> greatest stuff in the universe, BTW) to reinforce the area has
> restored the yoke to full function.

Barf

Bertie