Lancair crash at SnF

On Apr 27, 5:40*am, I Speak White wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:
I can see you missed the point entirely.

DickHead:

This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
in a barrel, it's just too easy.

What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
pedophilia.

Cheers

On Apr 26, 12:56*pm, Robert Moore wrote:


Hmmmm.....I wonder why we have "V" speeds, you know V1, Vso, etc.?


Some German origin?

Cheers

On Apr 26, 11:18 am, WingFlaps wrote:
On Apr 27, 3:31 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

WingFlaps wrote :

On Apr 26, 12:58 pm, Michael Ash wrote:

Actually, though I'm too lazy to go look it up, in your original post I
also got the impression that you were talking about having to accelerate
with the wind.. Much as I hate to agree with the clockwork ****. ( Stefan)

Yes, I was and that was the point. You do have to accelerate and it
does cost some energy -but the cost is not due to the change in ground
speed (I never mentioned the change in ground speed you will note).
What is interesting is how quickly people grabbed the idea
incorrectly, and how willling they were to strut their limited
understanding without giving some careful thought as to what might be
going on.

Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required to
accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed out
in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so tiny
that it's not worth fooling with at all. Other factors, such as the
increase in stall speed that comes with a turn, along with the
increased drag that costs altitude if the speed is kept up, along with
the lack of practice, along with the sweaty-palms fear that make
accurate judgement all but impossible, along with the normal desire to
avoid breaking the airplane at *any* cost hence the reason for turning
around even when there's nothing but small trees ahead, are going to
end up in disaster in many cases.

Dan

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:57:13 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

Yes. I just hope you don't have to explain it again and again like I
had to because it got really tedious.

http://tinyurl.com/3ywonc

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:26:58 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

I'm not mixed up,

http://tinyurl.com/6gxx3n
--
R.I.P to Dead Tull Morons
http://www.tullzine.org/Jc/tribute.html

On Apr 27, 6:04*am, wrote:
* * * * Lots of people had the impression you were talking about the
dreaded downwind turn, with all the talk about the energy required to
accelerate to maintain airspeed. The energy required, as pointed out
in a much earlier post with several very good references, is so tiny
that it's not worth fooling with at all.

Perhaps you could put a number on that? Could you try a gliding turn
with stopwatch and altimeter and compare that to a straight glide?

Cheers

Robert Moore wrote:
WingFlaps wrote

Is there anyone here who thinks velocity is not used by pilots as a
vector (apart from Stefan)? I say the common parlance for the
magnitude of velocity is SPEED that is why you have an ASI in your
plane and a speedometer in your car. Anyone disagree?


Hmmmm.....I wonder why we have "V" speeds, you know V1, Vso, etc.?


Quite simple: In physics, the abbreviation of 'velocity'
has been 'v' for a long time. The indices then describe
which speed it is.

Velocity is the value of speed vector without direction
information.

--

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Tauno Voipio wrote:

Velocity is the value of speed vector without direction
information.

Incorrect. It is the other way around (Velocity includes speed and
direction).

Ron Lee

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
pedophilia.

It's not ambiguous no matter how hard you try and wriggle out of your
own imbecility by pretending it is. It's a clear statement of fact that
proves you unequivocally wrong, made by the people you were "citing" in
an attempt to prop up that imbecility.

Sorry about your luck, sucks to be you, have a nice day.

--
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:50:43 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:

On Apr 27, 5:40*am, I Speak White wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:45:41 -0700 (PDT), WingFlaps wrote:
I can see you missed the point entirely.

DickHead:

This is kind of like teasing you, a retarded kid, until he gets so
angry you **** yourself. Sure, in a perverse way, it's funny to watch
you stand there and scream and deny, all red-faced with **** dripping
from your cuffs of your shorts and down your pasty white legs. But,
still, I feel bad for you in a way, too. It's worse than shooting fish
in a barrel, it's just too easy.

What a vivid little imagination you have, with just a hint of
pedophilia.

Cheers

Maybe after a bit. That crunching sound of you under my heel is just too
attractive at the moment. Sorta like a little symphony, being backed up
your squealing and all.

*snicker*

Don't worry little one, I know how important it is for people like you
to get the last word in. When I decide that time has come, I'll let you
know.

--
skype:mranep
cell:813-610-2978; work:813-386-4500; work2:813-915-1663
Motto: Why face the world myself when my wife's skirt, it is so dark and
comfy under it?
Proclamation: "A man can have sex with sheep, cows and camels and so on.
However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should
not sell the meat to the people in Nepal; Ok I did so beat me with a
Yeti dick.