If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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 |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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 |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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 he 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 |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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 |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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 |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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 |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Why airplanes fly
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New and Used Airplanes | [email protected] | Products | 0 | May 29th 07 05:02 PM |
How many GA airplanes... | john smith | Piloting | 2 | May 10th 06 05:19 PM |
Q On NYC Airplanes | John A. Weeks III | General Aviation | 3 | March 16th 06 12:35 PM |
AIRPLANES! | W P Dixon | Home Built | 10 | October 7th 04 11:28 AM |
E-bay airplanes | Paul Folbrecht | Owning | 11 | March 4th 04 12:00 AM |