Thomas Borchert wrote:
Mxsmanic,


Steep turns tend to be descending turns.



Why does anyone bother arguing with this idiot? Please!

No, no, Thomas. He's right, but you have to force fit your mental
processes into a replica of his very limited ones. As everyone else but
Anthony knows, steep turns do indeed TEND to be descending turns, unless
specific action is taken to remain at a constant altitude. The fact that
any competent pilot can complete a 360 within 10 feet of the initial
altitude seems to escape him.

Unfortunately, Anthony cannot make the simple leap from assuming his
vaunted "research" is correct, even though it provides the wrong answer,
to asking himself, "Let me assume that the empirical experiments
conducted by hundreds of thousands of real world pilots provide
hypothetical proof that an aircraft, completing a 360 degree turn at a
constant altitude, can indeed run through its own wake. What new
assumptions must I make to make this so, and how can I verify those
assumptions?"

That's how science works. Anthony thinks it's done by referring to
un-quotable armchair research about very restricted, generally incorrect
assumptions on his part. Then, when he is wrong, he becomes repetitive,
pedantic, and frustrated.

Oh well. The entire thread has forced me to ask myself just what the
wake behind an aircraft looks like. Like every other pilot, I know you
can intercept your own wake during a constant altitude turn, but it
would be neat to be able to SEE all of the air masses at work. Modern
computation isn't up to the task of separating out all of the variables
involved. Which is why a simulator, any simulator, is a very limited
substitute for reality. Poor Anthony.

Rip