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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.)

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

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.

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)