Question to Mxmanic

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
swag writes:

This is actually a maneuver that's demonstrated and practiced very
early in flight training, so I'm sure all pilots and student pilots
have experienced this. But your calculations are fairly correnct--a 2
minute turn won't cut it. It's usually demonstrated with a 60 degree
bank turn. I'm not sure of the timing, but i'd guess 30 sec or less.

Don't you have to descend to catch the wake? Downwash should be moving
downward at a few knots and IIRC the vortices do as well, so after two minutes
at, say, 12 knots, the turbulence would be almost 2500 feet below you, if you
are staying at altitude. I don't see how you could run into it.

Real people in real airplanes training to become real pilots do real
45 degree bank, constant altitude turns on a regular basis and run into
their real wake.

It is just another thing you don't understand because you have no
context.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Real people in real airplanes training to become real pilots do real
45 degree bank, constant altitude turns on a regular basis and run into
their real wake.

My research indicates that this is not possible. The wake sinks at a rate
between 150 and 500 feet per minute (roughly). Thus, it would always be well
below the airplane by the time it closes its own circle, unless the airplane
is also descending.

I've seen reports of pilots descending in a 360-degree turn and running into
their own wakes. If they can descend and encounter their own wake, then they
cannot remain at the same altitude and encounter it. It cannot be in two
places at once.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Real people in real airplanes training to become real pilots do real
45 degree bank, constant altitude turns on a regular basis and run into
their real wake.

My research indicates that this is not possible.

Your research at what, at your desk in front of Microsoft Flight
Simulator?

In my experience as a real pilot of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the experience of many real pilots of real airplanes, it has happened.

The altitude tolerance on a 360 degree turn is +/- 100 feet from
start to finish.

Once again, you have no context for understanding.

snip ignorant nonsense

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Your research at what, at your desk in front of Microsoft Flight
Simulator?

No, my survey of the literature.

In my experience as a real pilot of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the experience of many real pilots of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the course of my research, it appears to be impossible. The sources I
consulted seemed more reliable than a name on a screen.

The altitude tolerance on a 360 degree turn is +/- 100 feet from
start to finish.

If you are not descending at the same speed as your wake, I don't see how you
can run back into it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Your research at what, at your desk in front of Microsoft Flight
Simulator?

No, my survey of the literature.

What does your "literature" say about the wake turbulance to be
found from a Cessna 172? How about a '47 Ercoupe?

In my experience as a real pilot of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the experience of many real pilots of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the course of my research, it appears to be impossible. The sources I
consulted seemed more reliable than a name on a screen.

I, and many, many other pilots have experienced it.

Yet another difference between simulated and real flight.

The altitude tolerance on a 360 degree turn is +/- 100 feet from
start to finish.

If you are not descending at the same speed as your wake, I don't see how you
can run back into it.

Because you have no context with which to even begin to understand it.

All your protestations do is show how unrealistic your flight simulator
and "experience" gained through playing flight simulator is.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Apr 15, 6:25 am, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

writes:
Your research at what, at your desk in front of Microsoft Flight
Simulator?
No, my survey of the literature.

What does your "literature" say about the wake turbulance to be
found from a Cessna 172? How about a '47 Ercoupe?

In my experience as a real pilot of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the experience of many real pilots of real airplanes, it has happened.
In the course of my research, it appears to be impossible. The sources I
consulted seemed more reliable than a name on a screen.

I, and many, many other pilots have experienced it.

Yet another difference between simulated and real flight.

The altitude tolerance on a 360 degree turn is +/- 100 feet from
start to finish.
If you are not descending at the same speed as your wake, I don't see how you
can run back into it.

Because you have no context with which to even begin to understand it.

All your protestations do is show how unrealistic your flight simulator
and "experience" gained through playing flight simulator is.


I always maintained altitude and rate of turn in steep turns with the
end result being hitting my own slipstream.
Its time mixup got into an aeroplane

george wrote:

I always maintained altitude and rate of turn in steep turns with the
end result being hitting my own slipstream.
Its time mixup got into an aeroplane

Who'd cleanup the vomit and brown runny stuff??? d:-))

On Apr 14, 4:27 pm, "george" wrote:
I always maintained altitude and rate of turn in steep turns with the
end result being hitting my own slipstream.

As have we all on nice days, and students like to brag about it. Yet
Mx is correct, in theory we should not be able to do this.

I seem to recall recent magazine (web?) articles where the idea that
you can hit your own wake while actually holding altitude, should be
downplayed nowadays. You _have_ to descend a little bit to do so,
which means that, while you might be within the +/- 100' test
scenario, you are NOT holding the same exact altitude.

Hmm. Or else it means that the wake doesn't necessarily descend as
we're taught. On a warm clear day (which is when I've hit my own
wake), I betcha that the wake is being held upward a tiny bit by the
heat from the ground.

Cheers, Kev

Mxsmanic,

In the course of my research, it appears to be impossible. The sources I
consulted seemed more reliable than a name on a screen.


Then what are you doing here?


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:

In my experience as a real pilot of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the experience of many real pilots of real airplanes, it has happened.

In the course of my research, it appears to be impossible. The sources I
consulted seemed more reliable than a name on a screen.

Pathetic, to say the least.

If you're doing such research, why don't you play devil's
advocate to make sure that your 'research' is right, and compare the
'names on a screen' to what is listed in the person's profile for their
log, hours flown, experience, how long they've had their tickets, etc.

However, since that is also just a 'name on a screen', with
your M.O. it is safe to assume you wouldn't count that as reliable
either.

In the end, all your research is put up by a 'name on a screen';
therefore, you can't trust that to be any more reliable than the people
here.

Your research, and your logic behind doing such research, is
flawed.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGIVqeyBkZmuMZ8L8RAsreAKCkJx7tKi5SnRoW2LlImx 1gBS89uwCghRK1
Ee30ex9bpkmRixhZD+RV4Hk=
=nM57
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----