Question to Mxmanic

DR writes:

Perhaps you are not considering all the causes of turbulence that follow
an aircraft (in it's wake)?

Perhaps others are not considering all the causes of turbulence besides
aircraft wakes.

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

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

Perhaps you are not considering all the causes of turbulence that follow
an aircraft (in it's wake)?

Perhaps others are not considering all the causes of turbulence besides
aircraft wakes.

You do a 360 and run into a bump when, and only when, you complete
the 360.

Invisible UFO's crossing at your exact starting point?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

You do a 360 and run into a bump when, and only when, you complete
the 360.

Or you run into bumps but only notice the one that you hit when you complete
the 360.

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

On a bumpy day you wouldn't be able to tell the wake from the overall
turbulence.

On an otherwise smooth day you can.

It can be done, Tony.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

You do a 360 and run into a bump when, and only when, you complete
the 360.

Or you run into bumps but only notice the one that you hit when you
complete
the 360.

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

mike regish writes:

On a bumpy day you wouldn't be able to tell the wake from the overall
turbulence.

I agree.

On an otherwise smooth day you can.

Probably--if you actually hit it.

It can be done, Tony.

Not without descending. The wake _must_ descend. This means that you cannot
catch it unless you descend, also. If you can explain how this rule can be
broken, I'm listening.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
mike regish writes:

On a bumpy day you wouldn't be able to tell the wake from the overall
turbulence.

I agree.

On an otherwise smooth day you can.

Probably--if you actually hit it.

It can be done, Tony.

Not without descending. The wake _must_ descend. This means that you
cannot
catch it unless you descend, also. If you can explain how this rule can
be
broken, I'm listening.


Total bull****. You haven't a clue.

Maxwell writes:

Total bull****.

No, I've already heard that. I was hoping for a scientific explanation.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
Not without descending. The wake _must_ descend. This means that you cannot
catch it unless you descend, also. If you can explain how this rule can be
broken, I'm listening.

Then listen hard. The wake consists of more than just the downwash you
are fixated on. If you have ever seen a sky-writer at work, you would
know, even without setting foot in a real aircraft, that it is possible
to return to the same parcel of air and pass through the smoke you had
left previously.
On a calm day, no descending or climbing is required.
Your problem is your fixation on your assumptions, and then insisting
that physical reality must be wrong when your limited assumptions don't
square with that reality, a true sign of immaturity and a basic
inability to assimilate the information that your own senses provide.
Anthony, I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you. I believe that
you have real, diagnosable mental issues.

Rip

"rq3" wrote in message
et...
Anthony, I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for you. I believe that you
have real, diagnosable mental issues.

I can assure you he does. He has proven it beyond a reasoanble doubt on far
too many occasions.

rq3 writes:

The wake consists of more than just the downwash you
are fixated on. If you have ever seen a sky-writer at work, you would
know, even without setting foot in a real aircraft, that it is possible
to return to the same parcel of air and pass through the smoke you had
left previously.

I never questioned that.

On a calm day, no descending or climbing is required.

How do you know? What skywriting have you done?

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