![]() |
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 4, 6:39 am, Tina wrote:
Still waiting for the conservation of momentum derivation. My husband, also trained as an engineer, casually remarked he didn't think you could get from Newton's First Law to the that confirms my memory, but we are both willing to have that belief rebutted. My apologies for broaching the subject. Frankly, I would rather save it for the physicists. ![]() He also pointed out that how a CFI might explain how a VOR works would not satisfy an engineer. For that matter, the physics of flight as explained to a student pilot would not satisfy someone who might be interested in designing, as opposed to flying, an airplane, but I don't think the manuals you are looking at are in error. If the manuals are in error, then they are in error. If the manual issues a disclaimer, saying something, like, "this is not really what is happening, but this will suffice for us..." that would be ok. That's not what's happening. The manual mentions things like Bernoulli, Newtons laws of motion. It even uses vector notation for a few of the formula's. When one gets that close to the merchandise, they need to purchase it. I would point out that each field has its own language, and you denying the conventions used in aviation -- drag, lift and so on -- demonstrates an unbecoming trait for a student, and even a worse one for an employee. You may want to rething that attitude if you use it in real life. There is a difference between convention and errononeous information. I never discounted drag, lift, or so on...I discounted the explanations given some of my flight education materials. If it's wrong, it's wrong. If someone reading it gets comfort from thinking they understand, or whatever, that's fine for that person. But the writers of those manuals should know that their audience is broad, and should not publish erroneous information (after they know that it is erroneous). There is gross difference between explaining something in simple terms and being correct, versus explaining something in moderately-difficult terms, and being incorrect. I could probably explain VOR to a 10-year-old, without ever mentioning things like counters, angular frequency, anisotropic radiation, frequency bands, sub-carriers, convolution, etc....and my explanation would still be correct. "When you drink from a straw, there is no suction force." -Le Chaud Lapin- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much lift do you need? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 3 | April 16th 07 02:46 PM |
Theories of lift | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 3 | April 28th 06 07:20 AM |
what the heck is lift? | buttman | Piloting | 72 | September 16th 05 11:50 PM |
Lift Query | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 8 | April 21st 05 07:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |