At 05:00 12 March 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Kilo Charlie wrote:
Don't argue with 9B re the logic of the math issue....trust
me....he's a
very bright guy and never leaves his calculator!
He is offering the
mathematical explanation of why cylinder finishes
may not be any safer. Of
course it supports my point so I'm thinkin' he's a
rad dude!

Hmm, I pegged him for a lawyer or politician, the numbers
may have some
basis in reality (assuming you fly in a vacuum), but
the logic is, uh,
'interesting'.

The point was pretty simple - I added the analysis
because without it I'm just a guy with an opinion (no
shortage of those here). So here's the point in simple
language: A low energy finish at 500' and 1 sm is
not significantly 'safer' than a low energy finish
at 50' over the airport. Either way you will be low
and slow in the pattern.

The numbers assume viscous, incompressible flow - gliders
can't fly in a vacuum. Bet you knew that. ;-)

9B