Here's a question for the trolls and flight simmers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
for you to explore.

scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.

you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.

what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
or what?

it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.

.....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
able to work this out.





John Gribbin's book 'Science - A History' contains a neat explanation
in the discussion of Fresnel's model of light on p408.

Stealth Pilot

[Mike[_22_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>
> I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
> for you to explore.
>
> scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
> cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
> tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.
>
> you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.
>
> what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
> is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
> a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
> or what?
>
> it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.
>
> ....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
> intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
> able to work this out.

In the grand scheme of "hands on aviation matters", how many beans are in
this hill?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:43:21 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:

>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
>> for you to explore.
>>
>> scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
>> cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
>> tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.
>>
>> you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.
>>
>> what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
>> is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
>> a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
>> or what?
>>
>> it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.
>>
>> ....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
>> intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
>> able to work this out.
>
>In the grand scheme of "hands on aviation matters", how many beans are in
>this hill?

I notice that there are no attempts at an answer.

[alexy]

Stealth Pilot > wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:43:21 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>
>>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
>>> for you to explore.
>>>
>>> scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
>>> cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
>>> tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.
>>>
>>> you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.
>>>
>>> what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
>>> is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
>>> a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
>>> or what?
>>>
>>> it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.
>>>
>>> ....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
>>> intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
>>> able to work this out.
>>
>>In the grand scheme of "hands on aviation matters", how many beans are in
>>this hill?
>
>I notice that there are no attempts at an answer.

Well, you directed the question to flight simmers and trolls. If you
want to open it up to non-pilot lurkers, I'll take a guess. Assuming
you will reveal the correct answer and explain it.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[[email protected]]

glory be, what can the answer be?

On Jun 25, 10:46 am, alexy > wrote:
> Stealth Pilot > wrote:
> >On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:43:21 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>
> >>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >>> I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
> >>> for you to explore.
>
> >>> scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
> >>> cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
> >>> tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.
>
> >>> you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.
>
> >>> what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
> >>> is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
> >>> a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
> >>> or what?
>
> >>> it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.
>
> >>> ....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
> >>> intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
> >>> able to work this out.
>
> >>In the grand scheme of "hands on aviation matters", how many beans are in
> >>this hill?
>
> >I notice that there are no attempts at an answer.
>
> Well, you directed the question to flight simmers and trolls. If you
> want to open it up to non-pilot lurkers, I'll take a guess. Assuming
> you will reveal the correct answer and explain it.
> --
> Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[alexy]

wrote:


>On Jun 25, 10:46 am, alexy > wrote:
>> Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>> >On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:43:21 GMT, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>> >>"Stealth Pilot" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> >>> I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
>> >>> for you to explore.
>>
>> >>> scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
>> >>> cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
>> >>> tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.
>>
>> >>> you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.
>>
>> >>> what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
>> >>> is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
>> >>> a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
>> >>> or what?
>>
>> >>> it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.
>>
>> >>> ....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
>> >>> intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
>> >>> able to work this out.
>>
>> >>In the grand scheme of "hands on aviation matters", how many beans are in
>> >>this hill?
>>
>> >I notice that there are no attempts at an answer.
>>
>> Well, you directed the question to flight simmers and trolls. If you
>> want to open it up to non-pilot lurkers, I'll take a guess. Assuming
>> you will reveal the correct answer and explain it.

>glory be, what can the answer be?
>

My guess is that since the plane will subtend a much smaller angle
than the sun, there would be no noticeable shadow. My guess is a
"halo" around where the shadow would be, caused by diffraction, Since
most of the edges tend to be inline with the plane's axis or
perpendicular to it, it seems that this halo might be somewhat
brighter on those two axes, but I wonder if that would be noticeable.
The halo might have a slightly bluish cast, since the red end of the
spectrum would get diffracted more, and being over a larger area would
be not as bright.

So, what's the real answer?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 19, 8:49 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
> for you to explore.
>
> scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
> cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
> tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.
>
> you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.
>
> what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
> is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
> a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
> or what?
>
> it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.
>
> ....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
> intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
> able to work this out.
>
> John Gribbin's book 'Science - A History' contains a neat explanation
> in the discussion of Fresnel's model of light on p408.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Is this a test, or are you curious what the sim does? :/
In real life, you will see a vague outline of the plane,
but it will be pretty fuzzy in general.
In the present sim I use, "FSX" the shadow is always sharp..
They don't have that "fuzzy" technology down yet..
I have pictures of both real shadows, and can easily fire
up the sim for it's version if needed.
Dunno about 4500 ft though.. I'm not sure if he was
quite that high in the best examples I have, which were
taken from a Piper Cub..
The sim has the same Cub, so it would be easy to compare
real to sim, using the same exact aircraft.
But I can tell you right now, the real version is going to be
a lot fuzzier than the sim.

[[email protected]]

On Jun 25, 4:32 pm, wrote:
> On Jun 19, 8:49 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I know we beat on you guys a lot here but here is a serious question
> > for you to explore.
>
> > scenario: you are flying along on a bright sunny day with no cloud
> > cover. your wingspan is about 20 ft, fuselage length 14ft and
> > tailplane about 8ft span. your altitude is 4,500ft.
>
> > you look down below you in the exact opposite direction to the sun.
>
> > what do you see below you scooting along the ground below you?
> > is it a sharply defined shadow of your aircraft?
> > a fuzzy indistinct shadow of your aeroplane?
> > or what?
>
> > it is quite distinct and you can pick it from nearly a mile away.
>
> > ....now pilots dont tell them. these guys are actually quite
> > intelligent but not in' hands on' aviation matters. they should be
> > able to work this out.
>
> > John Gribbin's book 'Science - A History' contains a neat explanation
> > in the discussion of Fresnel's model of light on p408.
>
> > Stealth Pilot
>
> Is this a test, or are you curious what the sim does? :/
> In real life, you will see a vague outline of the plane,
> but it will be pretty fuzzy in general.
> In the present sim I use, "FSX" the shadow is always sharp..
> They don't have that "fuzzy" technology down yet..
> I have pictures of both real shadows, and can easily fire
> up the sim for it's version if needed.
> Dunno about 4500 ft though.. I'm not sure if he was
> quite that high in the best examples I have, which were
> taken from a Piper Cub..
> The sim has the same Cub, so it would be easy to compare
> real to sim, using the same exact aircraft.
> But I can tell you right now, the real version is going to be
> a lot fuzzier than the sim.

look up 'glory' in an aviation context.

[Rich Ahrens[_2_]]

on 6/25/2008 3:36 PM said the following:
> look up 'glory' in an aviation context.

Does it have anything to do with Maxwell in an airport restroom?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:05:19 -0400, alexy > wrote:

wrote:
>
>

>>> Well, you directed the question to flight simmers and trolls. If you
>>> want to open it up to non-pilot lurkers, I'll take a guess. Assuming
>>> you will reveal the correct answer and explain it.
>
>>glory be, what can the answer be?
>>
>
>My guess is that since the plane will subtend a much smaller angle
>than the sun, there would be no noticeable shadow. My guess is a
>"halo" around where the shadow would be, caused by diffraction, Since
>most of the edges tend to be inline with the plane's axis or
>perpendicular to it, it seems that this halo might be somewhat
>brighter on those two axes, but I wonder if that would be noticeable.
>The halo might have a slightly bluish cast, since the red end of the
>spectrum would get diffracted more, and being over a larger area would
>be not as bright.
>
>So, what's the real answer?


sitting on the ground with the sun about 93 million miles away the
aircraft casts a sharp shadow on the ground.

at 500ft altitude the aircraft is 500ft closer to the sun than the
previous 93 million miles, which is next to no change at all, so there
will be very little change to the shadow you'd think. but there is. at
500ft the aircraft shadow is a very indistinct blur surrounded by a
halo of bright light.

at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.

for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
bright spot of light.

the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
this causes the bright spot.

the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
competent knowledge.

if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

Stealth Pilot

[Lou]

I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until now. One of the
fondest memories of my first solo was seeing my own
shadow below. I guess my attention was elsewhere while
I had the CFI in the cockpit with me.
Lou

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Lou wrote:
> I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until now. One of the
> fondest memories of my first solo was seeing my own
> shadow below.

My strongest memories were how the plane LEPT off the surface with 200
less pounds and more rearward GC, and remembering on downwind that I HAD
to land the plane with no reminders or comments from the CFI.

My PP CFI was a "master of distraction" type of chatty guy. He would
continually yak on about things that had nothing to do with flying. I
also noticed how peaceful solo flight was! <G>

[Lou]

>
> My PP CFI was a "master of distraction" type of chatty guy. He would
> continually yak on about things that had nothing to do with flying. I
> also noticed how peaceful solo flight was! <G>

That's funny, while reading this I was thinking the same thing. My CFI
kept
talking about things he did over the weekend, what did I do etc. I
guess
it worked.
Lou

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Lou wrote:
>> My PP CFI was a "master of distraction" type of chatty guy. He would
>> continually yak on about things that had nothing to do with flying. I
>> also noticed how peaceful solo flight was! <G>
>
> That's funny, while reading this I was thinking the same thing. My CFI
> kept
> talking about things he did over the weekend, what did I do etc. I
> guess
> it worked.

It did!

All the same stuff non-flying pax talk about that can easily draw you in
and away from flying.

The quiet on the first solo, without him yakkin' away, was soooooooooooo
noticeable! <G>

[AES]

In article >,
Stealth Pilot > wrote:

> at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
> but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
> there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.
>
> for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
> at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
> bright spot of light.
>
> the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
> which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
> be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
> bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
> the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
> this causes the bright spot.

Poisson spot, Spot of Arago, Keller edge waves. Very much doubt
gravitational bending of light is involved.

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
> which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
> be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
> bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
> the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
> this causes the bright spot.

It's much simpler than that. The shadow is so blurry at altitude that you
cannot see it, but it is still there, and it is almost exactly the same size
that it would be on the ground. Gravitational lensing is not significant for
an object with the mass of an airplane (but it works for the sun, which is
considerably larger).

The bright spot comes from direct reflection of the sun behind you.

And pilots are not the only people who see these phenomena. Anyone riding in
a plane can see them, pilot or not. Indeed, the plane isn't necessary either,
as they can be seen from hilltops, mountaintops, and even from the roof of a
tall building.

> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
> competent knowledge.

Simulators simulate what is important; they don't simulate what isn't.
Simulating a few rare optical phenomena is so unimportant that it would be a
waste of code to simulate it.

> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

Yes.

Microsoft Flight Simulator actually has better visuals than some
multimillion-dollar simulators. Does that mean that the latter are "bad"
simulators? No. It just means that these latter simulators emphasize other
aspects of the simulation; the relatively primitive visuals are there because
the simulator is not normally used for VFR simulation, and photorealistic
visuals are very expensive. You can bet that these expensive full-motion
simulators don't normally simulate heiligenschein, glories, rainbows, or other
minor phenomena, either.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
>> which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
>> be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
>> bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense
>> of the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens
>> and this causes the bright spot.
>
> It's much simpler than that. The shadow is so blurry at altitude that
> you cannot see it, but it is still there, and it is almost exactly the
> same size that it would be on the ground. Gravitational lensing is
> not significant for an object with the mass of an airplane (but it
> works for the sun, which is considerably larger).
>
> The bright spot comes from direct reflection of the sun behind you.
>
> And pilots are not the only people who see these phenomena. Anyone
> riding in a plane can see them, pilot or not. Indeed, the plane isn't
> necessary either, as they can be seen from hilltops, mountaintops, and
> even from the roof of a tall building.
>
>> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
>> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
>> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
>> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
>> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
>> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
>> competent knowledge.
>
> Simulators simulate what is important; they don't simulate what isn't.
> Simulating a few rare optical phenomena is so unimportant that it
> would be a waste of code to simulate it.
>
>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>
> Yes.
>
> Microsoft Flight Simulator actually has better visuals than some
> multimillion-dollar simulators. Does that mean that the latter are
> "bad" simulators? No. It just means that these latter simulators
> emphasize other aspects of the simulation; the relatively primitive
> visuals are there because the simulator is not normally used for VFR
> simulation, and photorealistic visuals are very expensive. You can
> bet that these expensive full-motion simulators don't normally
> simulate heiligenschein, glories, rainbows, or other minor phenomena,
> either.
>

you're an idiot.


Bertie

[TheSmokingGnu]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> it is a fact that aircraft
> at altitude have no shadow.

Rather, that it does have a shadow, but which is so diffuse that it is
below the JND of your eyeballs.

> below them tracking along the ground is a
> bright spot of light.

A side effect of the lift fairies, perhaps? :P

TheSmokingGnu

[Ken S. Tucker]

On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
....
> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
> competent knowledge.

Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
to photograph the far side of the moon that the
Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
finally got it.
Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
rules to "sim" the ballistics.

> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?

I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).
Ken

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-447e-
:

> On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
> ...
>> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
>> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
>> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
>> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
>> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
>> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
>> competent knowledge.
>
> Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
> to photograph the far side of the moon that the
> Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
> finally got it.
> Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
> rules to "sim" the ballistics.
>
>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>
> I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
> missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
> the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
> to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).




Of course you would k00kie boi.

Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:55:18 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot writes:
>

>
>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>
>Yes.
>
>Microsoft Flight Simulator actually has better visuals than some
>multimillion-dollar simulators. Does that mean that the latter are "bad"
>simulators? No. It just means that these latter simulators emphasize other
>aspects of the simulation; the relatively primitive visuals are there because
>the simulator is not normally used for VFR simulation, and photorealistic
>visuals are very expensive. You can bet that these expensive full-motion
>simulators don't normally simulate heiligenschein, glories, rainbows, or other
>minor phenomena, either.

I'm always amazed at the way you see simplified simulations as more
important than reality. you really are wierd.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-447e-
:
>
>> On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot >
>> wrote:
>> ...
>>> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators work
>>> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed to.
>>> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
>>> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
>>> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality. it
>>> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to achieve
>>> competent knowledge.
>>
>> Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
>> to photograph the far side of the moon that the
>> Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
>> finally got it.
>> Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
>> rules to "sim" the ballistics.
>>
>>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>>
>> I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
>> missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
>> the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
>> to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).
>
>
>
>
>Of course you would k00kie boi.
>
>Bertie

I wasnt aware that alfoil hats were hard. have these buggers been
using kevlar liners in them as well???

sims have a place in the industrial world but to prefer the sim to
reality is just nonsense. barking mad nonsense!

Stealth Pilot

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> I'm always amazed at the way you see simplified simulations as more
> important than reality. you really are wierd.

I don't recall saying this, and I'm not sure how you drew this conclusion.

Simulations are obviously better than real life in some circumstances,
otherwise nobody would ever use simulations. I can get a large part of the
experience of flying through simulation, at very low cost and nil
inconvenience; the price/performance ratio is very good.

It's unfortunate that some pilots have a visceral, negative reaction to the
idea of flight simulation, since they are depriving themselves of many hours
of enjoyment with their vehement dismissal of simulation.

Of course, there are many pilots who don't suffer from these hang-ups, and
enjoy simulation greatly. Just because it isn't the real thing doesn't mean
it can't be a lot of fun, and it's very cheap.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Mxsmanic > wrote in
:

> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> I'm always amazed at the way you see simplified simulations as more
>> important than reality. you really are wierd.
>
> I don't recall saying this, and I'm not sure how you drew this
> conclusion.
>
> Simulations are obviously better than real life in some circumstances,


Well, there ya go. if you forget next time, we'll just quote this poast,
eh, fjukkwit?


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-
447e-
:
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators
work
>>>> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed
to.
>>>> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
>>>> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
>>>> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality.
it
>>>> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to
achieve
>>>> competent knowledge.
>>>
>>> Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
>>> to photograph the far side of the moon that the
>>> Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
>>> finally got it.
>>> Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
>>> rules to "sim" the ballistics.
>>>
>>>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>>>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>>>
>>> I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
>>> missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
>>> the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
>>> to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Of course you would k00kie boi.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> I wasnt aware that alfoil hats were hard. have these buggers been
> using kevlar liners in them as well???
>
> sims have a place in the industrial world but to prefer the sim to
> reality is just nonsense. barking mad nonsense!
>
> Stealth Pilot
>

Well, we use 'em of course, but it's mainly because it's impractical to
actually set a 757 on fire.

Bertie

[Jon]

On Jun 30, 1:26*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Mxsmanic > wrote :
>
> > Stealth Pilot writes:
>
> >> I'm always amazed at the way you see simplified simulations as more
> >> important than reality. you really are wierd.

0. Automaton has no time for reality. Automaton too busy conducting
Missed Approach ;)

> > I don't recall saying this, and I'm not sure how you drew this
> > conclusion.

1. Automaton has no time for recollection. Automaton too busy
replacing faulty memory card. If memory serves and processing of
"recollecting upgrade" is complete, goto 3.

1.5 Automaton has no time for being sure about other's conclusion and
thus casts doubt on their psychological fitness. Automaton working on
drawing algorithm; expect update real soon now...

> > Simulations are obviously better than real life in some circumstances,
>
> Well, there ya go. if you forget next time, we'll just quote this poast,
> eh, fjukkwit?

2. Automaton has no time for forgetting. Automaton too busy
recollecting. Goto 1.

> Bertie

3. Automaton is prepared to handle all attempts at penetration and
shall provide whatever obfuscation is required to protect itself...
Comfort zone preserved; Automaton shall continue, unimpeded by lower
order primates.

Obviously :)


4. Automaton has no time for emotion. Automaton too busy pushing
buttons.

5. Automaton has no time for understanding others. Automaton too busy
calculating next move.


"But I gave you life;
"What else would you do?"
"To do what was right."
"I'm perfect, are you?" - Karn Evil 9, 3rd Impression



oops, sorry wrong newsgroup......



Regards,
Jon


"The safety lecture continues...." - George Carlin

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jon > wrote in
:

> On Jun 30, 1:26*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> innews:qruh6497urgh579la2arqbf7a7rsb6h
> :
>>
>> > Stealth Pilot writes:
>>
>> >> I'm always amazed at the way you see simplified simulations as
>> >> more important than reality. you really are wierd.
>
> 0. Automaton has no time for reality. Automaton too busy conducting
> Missed Approach ;)
>
>> > I don't recall saying this, and I'm not sure how you drew this
>> > conclusion.
>
> 1. Automaton has no time for recollection. Automaton too busy
> replacing faulty memory card. If memory serves and processing of
> "recollecting upgrade" is complete, goto 3.
>
> 1.5 Automaton has no time for being sure about other's conclusion and
> thus casts doubt on their psychological fitness. Automaton working on
> drawing algorithm; expect update real soon now...
>
>> > Simulations are obviously better than real life in some
>> > circumstances,
>>
>> Well, there ya go. if you forget next time, we'll just quote this
>> poast, eh, fjukkwit?
>
> 2. Automaton has no time for forgetting. Automaton too busy
> recollecting. Goto 1.
>
>> Bertie
>
> 3. Automaton is prepared to handle all attempts at penetration and
> shall provide whatever obfuscation is required to protect itself...
> Comfort zone preserved; Automaton shall continue, unimpeded by lower
> order primates.
>
> Obviously :)
>
>
> 4. Automaton has no time for emotion. Automaton too busy pushing
> buttons.
>
> 5. Automaton has no time for understanding others. Automaton too busy
> calculating next move.
>
>
> "But I gave you life;
> "What else would you do?"
> "To do what was right."
> "I'm perfect, are you?" - Karn Evil 9, 3rd Impression


Always liked ELP...
>
>
>
> oops, sorry wrong newsgroup......
>

Nope, think you captured him perfectly.



Bertie
>

[Jon]

On Jun 30, 2:31*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Jon > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 1:26*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
> >> innews:qruh6497urgh579la2arqbf7a7rsb6h
> > :
>
> >> > Stealth Pilot writes:
>
> >> >> I'm always amazed at the way you see simplified simulations as
> >> >> more important than reality. you really are wierd.
>
> > 0. Automaton has no time for reality. Automaton too busy conducting
> > Missed Approach ;)
>
> >> > I don't recall saying this, and I'm not sure how you drew this
> >> > conclusion.
>
> > 1. Automaton has no time for recollection. Automaton too busy
> > replacing faulty memory card. If memory serves and processing of
> > "recollecting upgrade" is complete, goto 3.
>
> > 1.5 Automaton has no time for being sure about other's conclusion and
> > thus casts doubt on their psychological fitness. Automaton working on
> > drawing algorithm; expect update real soon now...
>
> >> > Simulations are obviously better than real life in some
> >> > circumstances,
>
> >> Well, there ya go. if you forget next time, we'll just quote this
> >> poast, eh, fjukkwit?
>
> > 2. Automaton has no time for forgetting. Automaton too busy
> > recollecting. Goto 1.
>
> >> Bertie
>
> > 3. Automaton is prepared to handle all attempts at penetration and
> > shall provide whatever obfuscation is required to protect itself...
> > Comfort zone preserved; Automaton shall continue, unimpeded by lower
> > order primates.
>
> > Obviously :)
>
> > 4. Automaton has no time for emotion. Automaton too busy pushing
> > buttons.
>
> > 5. Automaton has no time for understanding others. Automaton too busy
> > calculating next move.
>
> > "But I gave you life;
> > "What else would you do?"
> > "To do what was right."
> > "I'm perfect, are you?" - Karn Evil 9, 3rd Impression
>
> Always liked ELP...

Saw 'em live in the 70's. One of the loudest indoor concerts I've ever
been to. They had additional speakers in the back of the hall, to
ensure the punishment was effective ;)

>
>
> > oops, sorry wrong newsgroup......
>
> Nope, think you captured him perfectly.

ewwww.... <brushes off goo>.....

Automaton Version Nextgen require immediate de-contamination!!

> Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

Jon > wrote in
:

> On Jun 30, 2:31*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Jon > wrote
>> innews:68943fb0-5591-461e-9ab6-7b
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 30, 1:26*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic > wrote
>> >> innews:qruh6497urgh579la2arqbf7a7rsb6h
>> > :
>>
>> >> > Stealth Pilot writes:
>>
>> >> >> I'm always amazed at the way you see simplified simulations as
>> >> >> more important than reality. you really are wierd.
>>
>> > 0. Automaton has no time for reality. Automaton too busy conducting
>> > Missed Approach ;)
>>
>> >> > I don't recall saying this, and I'm not sure how you drew this
>> >> > conclusion.
>>
>> > 1. Automaton has no time for recollection. Automaton too busy
>> > replacing faulty memory card. If memory serves and processing of
>> > "recollecting upgrade" is complete, goto 3.
>>
>> > 1.5 Automaton has no time for being sure about other's conclusion
>> > and thus casts doubt on their psychological fitness. Automaton
>> > working on drawing algorithm; expect update real soon now...
>>
>> >> > Simulations are obviously better than real life in some
>> >> > circumstances,
>>
>> >> Well, there ya go. if you forget next time, we'll just quote this
>> >> poast, eh, fjukkwit?
>>
>> > 2. Automaton has no time for forgetting. Automaton too busy
>> > recollecting. Goto 1.
>>
>> >> Bertie
>>
>> > 3. Automaton is prepared to handle all attempts at penetration and
>> > shall provide whatever obfuscation is required to protect itself...
>> > Comfort zone preserved; Automaton shall continue, unimpeded by
>> > lower order primates.
>>
>> > Obviously :)
>>
>> > 4. Automaton has no time for emotion. Automaton too busy pushing
>> > buttons.
>>
>> > 5. Automaton has no time for understanding others. Automaton too
>> > busy calculating next move.
>>
>> > "But I gave you life;
>> > "What else would you do?"
>> > "To do what was right."
>> > "I'm perfect, are you?" - Karn Evil 9, 3rd Impression
>>
>> Always liked ELP...
>
> Saw 'em live in the 70's. One of the loudest indoor concerts I've ever
> been to. They had additional speakers in the back of the hall, to
> ensure the punishment was effective ;)
>

Saw 'em about five times! Belive me, it's nothing on what they're doing
nowadays. I was at a Stereophionics concert a while back and it felt
like someone was pounding on my chest with their fists, I could feel a
draft up my trouser leg and my ears rang for a month afterwards.
Technology has caught up with R&R.
>>
>>
>> > oops, sorry wrong newsgroup......
>>
>> Nope, think you captured him perfectly.
>
> ewwww.... <brushes off goo>.....
>
> Automaton Version Nextgen require immediate de-contamination!!

Dog be with you in that endeaver.

Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:27:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-
>447e-
:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators
>work
>>>>> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed
>to.
>>>>> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
>>>>> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
>>>>> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality.
>it
>>>>> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to
>achieve
>>>>> competent knowledge.
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
>>>> to photograph the far side of the moon that the
>>>> Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
>>>> finally got it.
>>>> Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
>>>> rules to "sim" the ballistics.
>>>>
>>>>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>>>>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
>>>> missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
>>>> the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
>>>> to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course you would k00kie boi.
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>> I wasnt aware that alfoil hats were hard. have these buggers been
>> using kevlar liners in them as well???
>>
>> sims have a place in the industrial world but to prefer the sim to
>> reality is just nonsense. barking mad nonsense!
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>>
>
>Well, we use 'em of course, but it's mainly because it's impractical to
>actually set a 757 on fire.
>
>Bertie

I have a friend who is part owner of a cherokee 140. ...the blandest
aeroplane in history???
he spent hundreds of hours flying microsoft flight sim and a few other
sims.
fair dinks, one day he was out with partner owner in a gusting
crosswind and almost lost the cherokee in a landing.

partner's conclusion was that he landed the simulator because not once
during the near prang did he apply rudder.
scared the partner to his boots.

turns out the sim setup at home doesnt have rudder pedals.

my conviction is that sims used as a substitute for real flying are a
bloody danger to all involved. they gradually replace the real skills
with slow reacting putty.
if you understand the body's processes of neurological tuning you will
have no problem understanding why.

Stealth(20 knot crosswinds from any direction ...not a problem) pilot

[Kadaitcha Man[_2_]]

Stealth Pilot, ye manic homely swain, that butcher's cur is venom
mouthed, ye derogated:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:27:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-
>>447e-
:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators
>>work
>>>>>> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed
>>to.
>>>>>> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
>>>>>> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
>>>>>> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality.
>>it
>>>>>> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to
>>achieve
>>>>>> competent knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
>>>>> to photograph the far side of the moon that the
>>>>> Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
>>>>> finally got it.
>>>>> Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
>>>>> rules to "sim" the ballistics.
>>>>>
>>>>>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>>>>>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
>>>>> missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
>>>>> the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
>>>>> to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Of course you would k00kie boi.
>>>>
>>>>Bertie
>>>
>>> I wasnt aware that alfoil hats were hard. have these buggers been
>>> using kevlar liners in them as well???
>>>
>>> sims have a place in the industrial world but to prefer the sim to
>>> reality is just nonsense. barking mad nonsense!
>>>
>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>
>>
>>Well, we use 'em of course, but it's mainly because it's impractical to
>>actually set a 757 on fire.
>>
>>Bertie
>
> I have a friend

****ing liar.

--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:

>
>
> I have a friend who is part owner of a cherokee 140. ...the blandest
> aeroplane in history???
> he spent hundreds of hours flying microsoft flight sim and a few other
> sims.
> fair dinks, one day he was out with partner owner in a gusting
> crosswind and almost lost the cherokee in a landing.
>
> partner's conclusion was that he landed the simulator because not once
> during the near prang did he apply rudder.
> scared the partner to his boots.
>
> turns out the sim setup at home doesnt have rudder pedals.
>
> my conviction is that sims used as a substitute for real flying are a
> bloody danger to all involved. they gradually replace the real skills
> with slow reacting putty.
> if you understand the body's processes of neurological tuning you will
> have no problem understanding why.
>
> Stealth(20 knot crosswinds from any direction ...not a problem) pilot
>

To be fair, a lot of people who learned to fly in Cherokees don't use
rudder in a crosswind. Mostly because they haven't been taught to. The
Cherokee will tolerate landing in a crab more than most. In fact
wheelchair pilots are allowed to fly them with a snap-on hand control
that even people who rent can use. Just snaps in and out. The only
restriction which has to be aded to the POH is a crosswind limit 2 knots
lower.
The wheelchair people aside, it's a sloppy way to land an airplane
compared to using the wing down and riskier also.


Bertie

[george]

On Jul 2, 3:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> To be fair, a lot of people who learned to fly in Cherokees don't use
> rudder in a crosswind. Mostly because they haven't been taught to. The
> Cherokee will tolerate landing in a crab more than most. In fact
> wheelchair pilots are allowed to fly them with a snap-on hand control
> that even people who rent can use. Just snaps in and out. The only
> restriction which has to be aded to the POH is a crosswind limit 2 knots
> lower.
> The wheelchair people aside, it's a sloppy way to land an airplane
> compared to using the wing down and riskier also.
>

That is why I'd recommend any PPL to do a couple of hours in a
sailplane.
You really have to get to use the rudder...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in news:75210936-611c-4a11-9e53-204cdc6f7fe0
@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 2, 3:46 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> To be fair, a lot of people who learned to fly in Cherokees don't use
>> rudder in a crosswind. Mostly because they haven't been taught to. The
>> Cherokee will tolerate landing in a crab more than most. In fact
>> wheelchair pilots are allowed to fly them with a snap-on hand control
>> that even people who rent can use. Just snaps in and out. The only
>> restriction which has to be aded to the POH is a crosswind limit 2 knots
>> lower.
>> The wheelchair people aside, it's a sloppy way to land an airplane
>> compared to using the wing down and riskier also.
>>
>
> That is why I'd recommend any PPL to do a couple of hours in a
> sailplane.
> You really have to get to use the rudder...
>
>

Yeah, or a old taildragger like a cub or champ.


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 01:37:00 -1200, "Kadaitcha Man"
> wrote:

>Stealth Pilot, ye manic homely swain, that butcher's cur is venom
>mouthed, ye derogated:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:27:56 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Stealth Pilot > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:48:29 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in news:874ec04d-d3fb-
>>>447e-
:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 29, 6:09 am, Stealth Pilot >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> the reason I asked the question was to point out that simulators
>>>work
>>>>>>> on a simplified model of the reality that real pilots are exposed
>>>to.
>>>>>>> people like mxsmanic seem utterly oblivious to the fact that their
>>>>>>> exposure to the simulator will never give them competent knowledge
>>>>>>> because all they are exposed to is a simplified model of reality.
>>>it
>>>>>>> is only exposure to the actual reality that will allow you to
>>>achieve
>>>>>>> competent knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yesterday, wife and I sim'd the Luna 3 mission
>>>>>> to photograph the far side of the moon that the
>>>>>> Ruskies did in 1959. We used trial and error but
>>>>>> finally got it.
>>>>>> Those poor SOB's used vacuum tubes and slide
>>>>>> rules to "sim" the ballistics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if simulators dont get something as simple as the aircraft's shadow
>>>>>>> right can you trust that anything else they show you is right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd love to put Stealth Pilot on the top of a ballistic
>>>>>> missile with a joy stick, and then have him execute
>>>>>> the simple manuever of a lunar orbital return mission
>>>>>> to earth. I'd be wearing a hard hat :-).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course you would k00kie boi.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bertie
>>>>
>>>> I wasnt aware that alfoil hats were hard. have these buggers been
>>>> using kevlar liners in them as well???
>>>>
>>>> sims have a place in the industrial world but to prefer the sim to
>>>> reality is just nonsense. barking mad nonsense!
>>>>
>>>> Stealth Pilot
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well, we use 'em of course, but it's mainly because it's impractical to
>>>actually set a 757 on fire.
>>>
>>>Bertie
>>
>> I have a friend
>
>****ing liar.

that's an exaggeration. I was inaccurate. I actually have lots of
friends. most are enthusiasts, some are pilots as well.

beware or I'll sick a featherfoot upon ye.

Stealth pilot

[es330td]

On Jun 29, 9:59*am, Lou > wrote:
> I'm sorry, I didn't see this post until now. One of the
> fondest memories of my first solo was seeing my own
> shadow below. I guess my attention was elsewhere while
> I had the CFI in the cockpit with me.
> * * * *Lou

I agree. Right up there with my first Flightaware track was seeing my
airplane shadow the first time. There are some things that really
point out that you are now different than most of the population
because you can fly a plane.

[george]

On Jul 2, 10:42 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Yeah, or a old taildragger like a cub or champ.
>
I flew a PA22 that later got converted to a tail dragger.
However with the coordinated control system that it came with made for
some very interesting crosswind landings

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

george > wrote in news:a696ecb1-2c35-436c-8159-182c3461b708
@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jul 2, 10:42 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Yeah, or a old taildragger like a cub or champ.
>>
> I flew a PA22 that later got converted to a tail dragger.
> However with the coordinated control system that it came with made for
> some very interesting crosswind landings
>
>

Eww. I flew one of those and convinced the owner to remove it afterwards. I
would have thought it would be standard to remove that mess with a
conversion.


Bertie

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:24:13 -0700, AES > wrote:

>In article >,
> Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
>> at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
>> but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
>> there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.
>>
>> for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
>> at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
>> bright spot of light.
>>
>> the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
>> which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
>> be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
>> bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
>> the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
>> this causes the bright spot.
>
>Poisson spot, Spot of Arago, Keller edge waves. Very much doubt
>gravitational bending of light is involved.

I looked up explanations and graphics of these effects.
the poissons spot demo looks entirely different from what I see.

I'm still happy with my explanation.

Stealth Pilot

[[email protected]]

On Jul 3, 10:07*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:24:13 -0700, AES > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>
> >> at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
> >> but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
> >> there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.
>
> >> for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
> >> at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
> >> bright spot of light.
>
> >> the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
> >> which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
> >> be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
> >> bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
> >> the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
> >> this causes the bright spot.
>
> >Poisson spot, Spot of Arago, Keller edge waves. *Very much doubt
> >gravitational bending of light is involved.
>
> I looked up explanations and graphics of these effects.
> the poissons spot demo looks entirely different from what I see.
>
> I'm still happy with my explanation.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Steath, one would get sharp shadows if the sun was a point source of
light, but it's not. It's like 0.8 degrees across, so rays from the
left edge of the sun will trace differently to the ground than rays
from its right edge. That's why the shadow is somewhat diffused. A
little math will tell you how high your airplane must be before an
observer on the ground will see sun all around it. It'll be when the
airplane from wing to wing is less than about a degree difference in
angle. 1 degree is about 1 meter across from 60 meters away, so if
your wingspan is 10 meters, at 600 meters distance it subtends about 1
degree and so it would just about match the sun's angular width --
that is, the airplane would be entirely within the ring of the sun. It
means the guy on the ground would not be in the dark shadow of the
airplane. It really is not driven by gravitational lensing of the
light, the airplane just isn't massive enough for that.

[alexy]

wrote:

>On Jul 3, 10:07*am, Stealth Pilot >
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:24:13 -0700, AES > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > Stealth Pilot > wrote:
>>
>> >> at 4,500ft (the original question) the aircraft has no shadow at all
>> >> but at the sub solar point (were you'd think the shadow should be)
>> >> there is a distinct bright area tracking along under the aircraft.
>>
>> >> for thirty years this quietly puzzled me. it is a fact that aircraft
>> >> at altitude have no shadow. below them tracking along the ground is a
>> >> bright spot of light.
>>
>> >> the reference I gave gives details of some original work by Fresnel
>> >> which proposed that light passing beside a gravitational mass should
>> >> be bent slightly by the mass and behind the body there should be a
>> >> bright spot. this seems to me to be the explanation for the absense of
>> >> the shadow. the mass of the aircraft acts as a gravitational lens and
>> >> this causes the bright spot.
>>
>> >Poisson spot, Spot of Arago, Keller edge waves. *Very much doubt
>> >gravitational bending of light is involved.
>>
>> I looked up explanations and graphics of these effects.
>> the poissons spot demo looks entirely different from what I see.
>>
>> I'm still happy with my explanation.
>>
>> Stealth Pilot
>
>Steath, one would get sharp shadows if the sun was a point source of
>light, but it's not. It's like 0.8 degrees across,
I thought it was about .5 degrees.
> so rays from the
>left edge of the sun will trace differently to the ground than rays
>from its right edge. That's why the shadow is somewhat diffused. A
>little math will tell you how high your airplane must be before an
>observer on the ground will see sun all around it. It'll be when the
>airplane from wing to wing is less than about a degree difference in
>angle. 1 degree is about 1 meter across from 60 meters away, so if
>your wingspan is 10 meters, at 600 meters distance it subtends about 1
>degree and so it would just about match the sun's angular width --
>that is, the airplane would be entirely within the ring of the sun. It
>means the guy on the ground would not be in the dark shadow of the
>airplane.
Yes, and in the case in SP's example, the plane was at 4500, and had a
wingspan of 20 feet. Using the 1:60 ratio you mentioned, 20' at 4,500
feet will look about .025 degree wide. So even if the plane were a
disk, it would block out only (.025/.5)^2 = 1/4% of the sun's surface,
WAY too small to see by eye.

> It really is not driven by gravitational lensing of the
>light, the airplane just isn't massive enough for that.
I agree. That's why I'd go for the diffraction theory.
>

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

[Mxsmanic]

alexy writes:

> I thought it was about .5 degrees.

It is indeed about 30 minutes of arc in diameter (the same as the full moon,
roughly).

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:04:03 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>alexy writes:
>
>> I thought it was about .5 degrees.
>
>It is indeed about 30 minutes of arc in diameter (the same as the full moon,
>roughly).

the diameter subtends 30 minutes of arc.

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> the diameter subtends 30 minutes of arc.

Same thing.