The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

kd5sak wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:w03Lf.103892$4l5.63714@dukeread05...
Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi camp.




I remember reading the term used for those "helpers" by the Nazis, I think
it was something close to "Sondercommando". Not real certain of the
spelling, since I believe what I was reading was from a periodical in the
late 50s. Yeah, Sondercommando Schumer does
seem to fit his personality.

Harold Burton


Sonderkommando were the Jews who worked in the gas chambers and
crematoria. Kapo referred to a position more akin to "trustee." A kapo
was more generally red triangle, political, or green triangle, common
criminal, prisoner.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article , kd5sak says...


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:w03Lf.103892$4l5.63714@dukeread05...
Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi camp.




I remember reading the term used for those "helpers" by the Nazis, I think
it was something close to "Sondercommando". Not real certain of the
spelling, since I believe what I was reading was from a periodical in the
late 50s. Yeah, Sondercommando Schumer does
seem to fit his personality.

The term Kapo or Capo also seems to come to mind as a term for Jews who aided
the Nazi's.Usually by picking the people from town who would be next to go to
the camps.Many used this position to bully people and relieve them of money
,jewels etc so that he wouldn't pick them. Eventually they got there's .

A sad time

Chuck S

"Peter R." wrote in message
...
Darkwing heducksmailTyahoo.com wrote:


As far as we know they had a Garmin GPS on the dash, that is all you
would
need, that a clear day (which they had).

I was not attempting to actually discuss the content of the original post.
Instead, I was making light of the original author's apparent incorrect
usage of the word, "pilotage," given that he claims to be an "aeronautical
engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft."

Reread his original passage and see if you agree.

--
Peter

I wasn't bashing you or anything just saying that any idiot can fly a plane
(Heavy or not) to a spot on a decent GPS if you have ANY idea how to fly a
plane. When your on a suicide mission what is the harm in trying?

------------------------------------------
DW

It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.


"Dan" wrote in message
news:iL8Lf.19426$Ug4.7279@dukeread12...
| ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
| In article
, kd5sak
says...
|
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote in message
| news:w03Lf.103892$4l5.63714@dukeread05...
| Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi
camp.
|
|
|
|
| I remember reading the term used for those "helpers" by
the Nazis, I think
| it was something close to "Sondercommando". Not real
certain of the
| spelling, since I believe what I was reading was from a
periodical in the
| late 50s. Yeah, Sondercommando Schumer does
| seem to fit his personality.
|
| The term Kapo or Capo also seems to come to mind as a
term for Jews who aided
| the Nazi's.Usually by picking the people from town who
would be next to go to
| the camps.Many used this position to bully people and
relieve them of money
| ,jewels etc so that he wouldn't pick them. Eventually
they got there's .
|
| A sad time
|
| Chuck S
|
|
| Also known as Judenrats. A sad time indeed, I am 1 of
only 4 left
| from my mother's family.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

TRUTH wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:


It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.



Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

"How does a wing generate lift?"

Though this seems like a simple enough question, the general public would
probably be amazed to find out that engineers and scientists still debate
just how lift is produced even 100 years after flight became a reality.

In fact, it is quite easy to be drawn into charged debates on the subject,
as I was when trying to answer this question. So, to be fair to the proponents
of each theory, I will discuss each in turn. But first, let us simplify our
discussion slightly by thinking of the wing as only a two-dimensional shape.

Consider the cross-section of a wing created by a plane cutting through the
wing. This two-dimensional cross-sectional shape is called an airfoil (or
aerofoil to our British friends). An example of a common airfoil shape is the
Clark Y.


Bernoulli theory:

The most common explanation of the concept of lift is based upon the Bernoulli
equation, an equation that relates the pressures and velocites acting along
the surface of a wing. What this equation says, in simple terms, is that the
sum of the pressures acting on a body is a constant. This sum consists of two
types of pressures: 1) the static pressure, or the atmospheric pressure at any
point in a flowfield, and 2) the dynamic pressure, or the pressure created by
the motion of a body through the air. Since dynamic pressure is a function of
the velocity of the flow, the Bernoulli equation relates the sum of pressures
to the velocity of the flow past the body. So what this equation tells us is
that as velocity increases, pressure decreases and vice versa.

To understand why the flow velocity changes, we introduce a second relation
called the Continuity equation. What this relationship tells us is that the
velocity at which a flow passes through an area is directly related to the
size of that area. For example, if you blow through a straw, the air will come
out at a certain speed. If you then blow in with the same strength but now
squeeze the end of the straw, the air will come out faster.

So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look again at
the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the bottom is
relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when air
passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller area
than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells us
that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli
equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower pressure.

Thus, a higher pressure exists on the lower surface of an airfoil and a lower
pressure on the upper surface. Whenever such a pressure difference exists in
nature, a force is created in the direction of the lower pressure (since
pressure is defined as force per unit area). Think of it as the upper surface
being sucked upward. This upward force, of course, is lift. It is this theory
that appears in most aerodynamic textbooks, albeit sometimes with incorrect
assumptions applied and conclusions drawn.


Newtonian theory:

A theory currently gaining in popularity and arguably more "fundamental" in
origin is the Newtonian theory, so named because it is said to follow from
Newton's third law of motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction). First, one most realize that any airfoil generating lift deflects
the air flow behind it. Positive lift deflects the air downward, towards the
ground. Thus, the motion of any lifting surface through a flow accelerates
that flow in a new direction. Newton's second law tells us that force is
directly proportional to acceleration (F=ma). Therefore, we must conclude from
Newton's third law that the force accelerating the air downward must be
accompanied by an equal and opposite force pushing the airfoil upward. This
upward force is lift.


Circulation theory:

The most mathematical explanation for lift is the circulation theory.
Circulation can be thought of as a component of velocity that rotates or
swirls around an airfoil or any other shape. In a branch of aerodynamics
called incompressible flow, we can use potential flow relationships to solve
for this circulation for a desired shape. Once this quantity is known, the
force of lift can be solved for using the Kutta-Joukowski theorem that
directly relates lift and circulation. This approach tends to be more
mathematically intense than I wish to get into here, and it's really more of a
method of calculating lift in an ideal flowfield than an explanation of the
physical origins of lift.


Conclusion:

So the reader may be asking which of these theories is correct?
In TRUTH, each is valid in some respect and useful for certain applications,
but the ultimate question is which is the most fundamental explanation.

Mathematicians would surely prefer the circulation theory, which is certainly
a very elegant approach firmly based on mathematical principles, but it fails
to explain what force of nature creates circulation or lift. Many would argue
that the Newtonian explanation is most fundamental since it is "derived" from
Newtonian laws of motion. While this is true to some degree, the theory lacks
an explanation as to why an airfoil deflects the flow downward in the first
place. Even accepting this principle, the idea that an airfoil deflects the
flow and therefore experiences lift also fails to capture the fundamental
tools of nature (pressure and friction) that create and exert that force on
the body.

Proponents of this explanation generally deride the Bernoulli theory because
it relies on less fundamental concepts, like the Bernoulli and Continuity
equations. There is some truth to this complaint, and the theory may be more
difficult for the novice to understand as a result. However, both equations
are derived from Newtonian physics, and I would argue from more fundamental
and more mathematically sound premises than the Newtonian theory.

In the end, I leave it up to the reader to decide.

Attrib:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0005.shtml

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:
The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

Actually, he is not. Not in the US, anyway. There is no one by the name
of Sagadevan currently holding a pilot certificate of any kind in the
US, not even a private pilot certificate, or even a student pilot
certificate. He does not appear anywhere in the FAA database.

That might explain why he does not have the faintest idea of what he is
talking about.

100% of the pilots posting here have met these allegations with
absolute derision. What does that tell you about the likelihood of
Sagadevan's claims?

In article ,
TRUTH wrote:

"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:

It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.


Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

No -- but I am familiar with the Baathist/Nazi connection. Baathism
started with some Arab expatriates living in Europe in the 1930s, who
liked what Hitler and the Nazis were doing.

They adopted the ideas and brought them back to their homelands.
Irrational hatred of Jews is one of the hallmarks of Naziism and
Baathism -- they blame Jews for all of their ills and have nothing to
show for themselves.

What is "TRUTH"s connection to Baathism/Naziism ?

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:

On 2/22/2006 6:40 AM, Thomas Borchert enscribed:

Immanuel,

Complete text:
http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm


Hilarious site. "Scientific panel", my a**. You guys need to get in
touch with the chemtrail people.


I am not part of a "group", so why the reference to "you guys"?


Because YOU brought this crap in here.

Richard Lamb wrote in
nk.net:

TRUTH wrote:
"Jim Macklin" wrote in
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:


It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.



Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

"How does a wing generate lift?"

Though this seems like a simple enough question, the general public
would probably be amazed to find out that engineers and scientists
still debate just how lift is produced even 100 years after flight
became a reality.

In fact, it is quite easy to be drawn into charged debates on the
subject, as I was when trying to answer this question. So, to be fair
to the proponents of each theory, I will discuss each in turn. But
first, let us simplify our discussion slightly by thinking of the wing
as only a two-dimensional shape.

Consider the cross-section of a wing created by a plane cutting
through the wing. This two-dimensional cross-sectional shape is called
an airfoil (or aerofoil to our British friends). An example of a
common airfoil shape is the Clark Y.


Bernoulli theory:

The most common explanation of the concept of lift is based upon the
Bernoulli equation, an equation that relates the pressures and
velocites acting along the surface of a wing. What this equation says,
in simple terms, is that the sum of the pressures acting on a body is
a constant. This sum consists of two types of pressures: 1) the static
pressure, or the atmospheric pressure at any point in a flowfield, and
2) the dynamic pressure, or the pressure created by the motion of a
body through the air. Since dynamic pressure is a function of the
velocity of the flow, the Bernoulli equation relates the sum of
pressures to the velocity of the flow past the body. So what this
equation tells us is that as velocity increases, pressure decreases
and vice versa.

To understand why the flow velocity changes, we introduce a second
relation called the Continuity equation. What this relationship tells
us is that the velocity at which a flow passes through an area is
directly related to the size of that area. For example, if you blow
through a straw, the air will come out at a certain speed. If you then
blow in with the same strength but now squeeze the end of the straw,
the air will come out faster.

So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
again at the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape.
While the bottom is relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and
more curved. Thus, when air passes over an airfoil, that flow over the
top is squeezed into a smaller area than that airflow passing the
lower surface. The Continuity equation tells us that a flow squeezed
into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli equation tells
us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower pressure.

Thus, a higher pressure exists on the lower surface of an airfoil and
a lower pressure on the upper surface. Whenever such a pressure
difference exists in nature, a force is created in the direction of
the lower pressure (since pressure is defined as force per unit area).
Think of it as the upper surface being sucked upward. This upward
force, of course, is lift. It is this theory that appears in most
aerodynamic textbooks, albeit sometimes with incorrect assumptions
applied and conclusions drawn.


Newtonian theory:

A theory currently gaining in popularity and arguably more
"fundamental" in origin is the Newtonian theory, so named because it
is said to follow from Newton's third law of motion (for every action
there is an equal and opposite reaction). First, one most realize that
any airfoil generating lift deflects the air flow behind it. Positive
lift deflects the air downward, towards the ground. Thus, the motion
of any lifting surface through a flow accelerates that flow in a new
direction. Newton's second law tells us that force is directly
proportional to acceleration (F=ma). Therefore, we must conclude from
Newton's third law that the force accelerating the air downward must
be accompanied by an equal and opposite force pushing the airfoil
upward. This upward force is lift.


Circulation theory:

The most mathematical explanation for lift is the circulation theory.
Circulation can be thought of as a component of velocity that rotates
or swirls around an airfoil or any other shape. In a branch of
aerodynamics called incompressible flow, we can use potential flow
relationships to solve for this circulation for a desired shape. Once
this quantity is known, the force of lift can be solved for using the
Kutta-Joukowski theorem that directly relates lift and circulation.
This approach tends to be more mathematically intense than I wish to
get into here, and it's really more of a method of calculating lift in
an ideal flowfield than an explanation of the physical origins of
lift.


Conclusion:

So the reader may be asking which of these theories is correct?
In TRUTH, each is valid in some respect and useful for certain
applications, but the ultimate question is which is the most
fundamental explanation.

Mathematicians would surely prefer the circulation theory, which is
certainly a very elegant approach firmly based on mathematical
principles, but it fails to explain what force of nature creates
circulation or lift. Many would argue that the Newtonian explanation
is most fundamental since it is "derived" from Newtonian laws of
motion. While this is true to some degree, the theory lacks an
explanation as to why an airfoil deflects the flow downward in the
first place. Even accepting this principle, the idea that an airfoil
deflects the flow and therefore experiences lift also fails to capture
the fundamental tools of nature (pressure and friction) that create
and exert that force on the body.

Proponents of this explanation generally deride the Bernoulli theory
because it relies on less fundamental concepts, like the Bernoulli and
Continuity equations. There is some truth to this complaint, and the
theory may be more difficult for the novice to understand as a result.
However, both equations are derived from Newtonian physics, and I
would argue from more fundamental and more mathematically sound
premises than the Newtonian theory.

In the end, I leave it up to the reader to decide.

Attrib:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...cs/q0005.shtml




But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the WTC


from Jones paper:

Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
on 9-11:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg

We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law
of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

" Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

Maybe someone can make a Flash animation about it