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 |
#131
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Rip writes:
But you do have time to make aleph null cross posts to USENET. How convenient. When I originate posts, I post them to relevant newsgroups, usually no more than three, often only one. When I reply, I leave the list of groups untouched. USENET doesn't require much time, particularly for selective readers and fast typists like myself. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Rip writes:
MSFS is basically video eye candy, with little basis in reality, other than its representation of pretty pictures. Either you have no experience with MSFS, or you are deliberately and rather egregiously exaggerating for reasons I do not know. In either case, your post is highly misleading. If you insist on simming without trying reality, you might at least consider a simulator that makes at least SOME attempt at real world physics, like X-Plane. X-Plane is less comprehensive than MSFS and has fewer aftermarket options, although I've considered it, if I can find an English version. Should you ever make it back to the states, please do e-mail me. I'd be more than happy to let you try everything you think you know in my own aircraft. What type of aircraft do you have? Ideally, if I were to try flying a real aircraft, I'd prefer one that I've flown in simulation, which would especially mean a Baron 58 or a 737-800. I'd prefer a full-motion simulator, though. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#133
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Walt writes:
Nowadays my relationship with stars centers around my 12" Dob, but every evening I still look up at the sky and think, "okay, which three stars will give me the best fix". And you actually did this in aircraft? I thought aircraft moved too much for this sort of thing. Don't you have to sight them through a sextant or similar instrument? Doesn't it bounce around a lot? I've never learned astral navigation but I think it would be interesting, even if it might not be practical very often these days. I've always been fascinated by the SR-71 ANS, which would find and lock onto stars even in broad daylight from the ground. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#134
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Mxsmanic wrote: Walt writes: Nowadays my relationship with stars centers around my 12" Dob, but every evening I still look up at the sky and think, "okay, which three stars will give me the best fix". And you actually did this in aircraft? I thought aircraft moved too much for this sort of thing. Don't you have to sight them through a sextant or similar instrument? Doesn't it bounce around a lot? I've never learned astral navigation but I think it would be interesting, even if it might not be practical very often these days. I've always been fascinated by the SR-71 ANS, which would find and lock onto stars even in broad daylight from the ground. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. Yes, in a KC-135 going 450 knots. Each shot would take one minute; the sextant had a built-in height averager. An assumed position was calculated for each shot. We used a bubble sextant, since a typical nautical sextant, which uses an artificial horizon, wouldn't work very well; even if you could see the horizon there would be an error since you were typically 6-7 miles above the earth's surface. Conversely, a bubble sextant wouldn't work very well on a boat because of acceleration/deceleration errors induced by riding up and down waves. Or so I've been told. I've never taken a celestial shot on a boat, although I thought about doing it once when sailing my Hobie Cat on Boulder Reservoir in Colorado. Wasn't much point though. I could see Longs Peak so I knew where I was. :) Each star shot would create a Line Of Position. A three-star shot would, ideally, create a small triangle, and you knew you were somewhere in that triangle. With any luck your DR (dead reckoning) position calculated from your last known position 30 minutes before would be in the triangle. If not, that's when navigation quits being a science and becomes more of an art. Of course, we had other state-of-the-art tools, such as pressure pattern navigation, but I think I explained that in a previous post. :) --Walt |
#135
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
Michael Rhodes wrote in
: This is an apology to Allen Lieberma for a previous reply of mine. I was out of line. By your warning against mxs (or was it me?), I had felt singled out, and inferred reasons external to this news group, (answering in that direction). But that was not so. Not a problem Michael. :-) I did not mean to single you out in any manner shape or form. Just been advising names that I don't recognize as regulars that they are dealing with a troll. I had asked a question concerning leaning, in a thread which was revolutionizing its method. I am not a pilot, and felt like a troll doing it. So your words might be interpreted as directed at others so as not to feed me an answer. That was not what you meant. No, I haven't seen you be confrontational. Inquizative (sp?) and question is good, but when a person becomes confronatational based on NO experience, that becomes an issue with me. As I have been stating all along, Mx questions are very good. His responses are out of line, based on MSFS which in no manner shape or form is a foundation for flight experience opinions. The human physiology of flight simply is not simulated. I sure cannot imagine getting the leans in front of my flat screen panel screen playing MSFS under IMC. I cannot imagine the feeling of G force for steep turns. I can't imagine the magic of flight on the days where the air is glassy smooth on a Dell computer with a screen in front of me. You at least, can relate (even if it's a little) to the above as you been in a real plane. It is his responses that makes him a troll when he confronts real time experiences based on his MSFS experiences. The two don't intermingle when you are talking human physiology. complaint of mine is the feeding nature of discussion on the usenet. Not enough of it. There are certain rules, however, by which that should be done. My reply does not fit them. In that regard I think we agree. Absolutely agree. The only way Mx will dissapear will be as a group, we do not respond to his postings. This will be the only way these groups will go back to normalcy. Anybody that feels the need to respond to his postings should just email him PRIVATELY. This way any new people won't be subjected to his nonsense, and we don't have to waste time warning them they are dealing with a troll. Regulars already know he is a troll and for the most part do not respond to him, so he is wanting new people to fall into his trolling ways. Trolls need an audience, no audience (I.E. no replies), he will get bored and move on. Allen |
#136
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, Mxsmanic wrote:
BT writes: if you would take a ground school course.. they would teach you the FARs If you don't know the answer, you can save your time and not mine by skipping the reply. I think his point (or at least a corollarry to it) was, if you'd educate yourself just a bit, you could save not only yourself, but a lot of others, quite a bit of time and trouble. If your goal is just to learn more about airplanes and flying, but not actually get a licence, then no need to take ground school, just buy and read the book: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Priva.../dp/1560274492 ..or check half.com for a cheaper outdated edition. There. Now we'll see if your real interest is to learn, or just to harass the aviation newsgroups. -Dan (Yes, I know the answer to your question, and so does BT.) |
#137
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
And for thermometers, it seems that is precisely what Fahrenheit was up to. Fahrenheit was playing around and playing around and finally set ice water at 32, and body temperature at 96, so that there were 64 divisions between the two. That way, no matter where you are in the world, you can re-generate his thermometer. You stick the thermometer in ice water, and mark it there. Then you stick it under your tounge, and mark it there. Then you get a string, and fold it in half 6 times, and you have the 64 divisions between 32 and 96! The way I was taught: Fahrenheit sent his new thermometer with an assistant to the far north to find the coldest temperature and mark the thermometer at zero. Appears that the fella didn't try too hard, perhaps not enjoying the cold, or else global warming was having an up-cycle at that time. Then Fahrenheit took his wife's temperature and called that 100, and it appears that she wasn't feeling so well that day. The mixing of systems sometimes is puzzling. It shows up in the amounts of Tetraethyl Lead per gallon of avgas: 0.5 ml per gallon for 80, and 2.0 for 100LL. Metric per U.S. Why would they do that? Dan |
#138
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
The way I was taught: Fahrenheit sent his new thermometer with an
assistant to the far north to find the coldest temperature and mark the thermometer at zero. What I was taught (it may well be only half right) is that zero is the freezing point of salt water (as salty as possible) and that 100 is body temperature (he got that wrong). To the first part, it's why "below zero" is significant - salt won't help on the roads. 0.5 ml per gallon for 80, and 2.0 for 100LL. Metric per U.S. ml is a common small unit, and gallon is a common large unit, especially in the context of gasoline. Jose -- He who laughs, lasts. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#139
|
|||
|
|||
Absolute lowest altitude you can fly (legally)
The way I was taught: Fahrenheit sent his new thermometer with an
assistant to the far north to find the coldest temperature and mark the thermometer at zero. Appears that the fella didn't try too hard, perhaps not enjoying the cold, or else global warming was having an up-cycle at that time. Different stories around, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit. I was taught the "lowest in Danzig" variant. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
why is intercept altitude labeled "LOC only"? | Gary Drescher | Instrument Flight Rules | 32 | September 23rd 06 09:00 PM |
The Deaf vs. The Colorblind | Bret Ludwig | Piloting | 17 | August 21st 06 02:08 AM |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
GPS Altitude with WAAS | Phil Verghese | Instrument Flight Rules | 42 | October 5th 03 12:39 AM |