The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Jose wrote:

Occom's Razor, Jose.


Yes, but Occam's razor needs to work with theories that explain the
facts. Fact is, the down on an airplane =is= laterally separated from
the up, and airplanes fly only when they move forward.

If Occam's razor were so simple, we wouldn't have million dollar grants.

Jose

OK, Jose (just had to say that one) explain delta wings.

http://ernest.isa-geek.org

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

OK, Jose (just had to say that one) explain delta wings.

http://ernest.isa-geek.org

Oh, that's a tough one. Looking at the CAD drawings, I was at first
inclined towards the helicopter methods (it's ugly; the earth repels it)
but the composite of several deltas belies that simpleminded conclusion.
It resembles a bird in flight, maybe the air can be fooled into
thinking feathers are on their way... but that requires the air to do
the lifting. We know this can't be true. Obviously some out-of-the-box
thinking is in order. Fortunately I'm up to the task; people have been
trying to put me back in my box for ages.

I am drawn to the 200 mph cruise speed; this is pretty fast for a single
engine prop plane. Maybe we are thinking this whole lift thing
backwards. An airplane's natural habitat is the air, and it =wants= to
go into the air. Very often what brings airplanes down are gremlins,
usually traced to the control system, the avionics, or even the pilot
himself. The object of the propeller is to shake the gremlins off the
plane and allow the plane to achieve its natural state. Since gremlins
are pretty fast, the airplane has to also move forward to keep them off
the plane.

This is a homebuilt, which is the natural habitat of gremlins. So, it
has to move =very= fast in order to shake them off and keep them off.

When you consider how hard gremlins are, and how soft feathers are, it's
a natural that feathers repel gremlins, and lift is sometimes
erroniously attributed to feathers. Many researchers have been down
this path, and there is a large body of accepted literature in support
of the feathers theory. At low speeds, the feather theory and the
gremlin theory give pretty much the same answers, but at high enough
speeds the relationship breaks down and the feather theory gives
erronious answers. This is where gremlin theory shines (it should be
noted that lift fairies are just gremlins gone bad).

Gremlin theory holds the potential for explaining a lot of aviation that
is otherwise unexplainable, but experiments are difficult and fraught
with peril. However, I would be happy to conduct the appropriate
research. Send grant money to Jose, care of Usenet.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

If you feed the gremlins hot chili with lots of beans, the
rocket like exhaust provided lift and propulsion.


"Jose" wrote in message
om...
| OK, Jose (just had to say that one) explain delta wings.
|
| http://ernest.isa-geek.org
|
| Oh, that's a tough one. Looking at the CAD drawings, I
was at first
| inclined towards the helicopter methods (it's ugly; the
earth repels it)
| but the composite of several deltas belies that
simpleminded conclusion.
| It resembles a bird in flight, maybe the air can be
fooled into
| thinking feathers are on their way... but that requires
the air to do
| the lifting. We know this can't be true. Obviously some
out-of-the-box
| thinking is in order. Fortunately I'm up to the task;
people have been
| trying to put me back in my box for ages.
|
| I am drawn to the 200 mph cruise speed; this is pretty
fast for a single
| engine prop plane. Maybe we are thinking this whole lift
thing
| backwards. An airplane's natural habitat is the air, and
it =wants= to
| go into the air. Very often what brings airplanes down
are gremlins,
| usually traced to the control system, the avionics, or
even the pilot
| himself. The object of the propeller is to shake the
gremlins off the
| plane and allow the plane to achieve its natural state.
Since gremlins
| are pretty fast, the airplane has to also move forward to
keep them off
| the plane.
|
| This is a homebuilt, which is the natural habitat of
gremlins. So, it
| has to move =very= fast in order to shake them off and
keep them off.
|
| When you consider how hard gremlins are, and how soft
feathers are, it's
| a natural that feathers repel gremlins, and lift is
sometimes
| erroniously attributed to feathers. Many researchers have
been down
| this path, and there is a large body of accepted
literature in support
| of the feathers theory. At low speeds, the feather theory
and the
| gremlin theory give pretty much the same answers, but at
high enough
| speeds the relationship breaks down and the feather theory
gives
| erronious answers. This is where gremlin theory shines
(it should be
| noted that lift fairies are just gremlins gone bad).
|
| Gremlin theory holds the potential for explaining a lot of
aviation that
| is otherwise unexplainable, but experiments are difficult
and fraught
| with peril. However, I would be happy to conduct the
appropriate
| research. Send grant money to Jose, care of Usenet.
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2006-03-01 20:42, Jose wrote:
-snip-
When you consider how hard gremlins are, and how soft feathers are, it's
a natural that feathers repel gremlins, and lift is sometimes
erroniously attributed to feathers. Many researchers have been down
this path, and there is a large body of accepted literature in support
of the feathers theory. At low speeds, the feather theory and the
gremlin theory give pretty much the same answers, but at high enough
speeds the relationship breaks down and the feather theory gives
erronious answers. This is where gremlin theory shines (it should be
noted that lift fairies are just gremlins gone bad).

Gremlin theory holds the potential for explaining a lot of aviation that
is otherwise unexplainable, but experiments are difficult and fraught
with peril. However, I would be happy to conduct the appropriate
research. Send grant money to Jose, care of Usenet.

Jose

I'm with you on the gremlins theory; since the feathers theory can be
proven to work or not in at least two disparate ways:

1. Why is is that a feathered prop does not provide more lift than an
unfeathered one? If the feather theory was correct, it would make sense
to feather all props to increase lift.

2. Manned flight would have been possible long ago, by just applying
feathers to the human body; while some think this is difficult to
achieve, I've read several successfull reports using tar for this
purpose. (It is the removing thereof that is the difficult part.)
None of the tarred aviators seemed to fly wery well afterwards, so the
feathers have been demonstrated not to work in this case.

(I note that the excact mass of feathers may have been too small,
according to calculations in this group, so I invite anyone to try this
method for themselves, to prove or disprove it.)

/Rolf