Question to Mxmanic

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
JB writes:

You are such an idiot! Probably every GA pilot-in-training with a
C152/172 or something similar has experienced hitting their own wake
when performing their first steep turn with an instructor.

Steep turns tend to be descending turns.


Trim Luke! Trim. You forgot the Jedi Trim.

Maxwell writes:

Trim Luke! Trim.

Add power.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Maxwell writes:

Trim Luke! Trim.

Add power.


That's right Luke, add the power of the trim!!!!! Now your are getting
it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

You are such an idiot! Probably every GA pilot-in-training with a
C152/172 or something similar has experienced hitting their own wake
when performing their first steep turn with an instructor.

Steep turns tend to be descending turns.

Yeah, when playing Microsoft flying games; not for real pilots.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mxsmanic,

Steep turns tend to be descending turns.


Why does anyone bother arguing with this idiot? Please!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

I don't know if he "cannot" or will not or just wants to get under
everyone's skin. What you say in this post is correct. But why do people
keep responding and arguing ad nauseum with someone who can't or won't
get it? What's the dynamic? I doubt that there has ever been a pilot who
has not flown into his own wake in a constant altitude 360. So this is
not a topic that one pilot needs to prove to another pilot with a
different opinion.

Rip wrote:


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?"

"Rip" wrote ...

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.

Thanks for your smoke insights ;-)
There are some great photos depicting the tip vortices he
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1091105/M/
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1008033/M/

Here are some real masterpieces :

http://www.airtoair.net/gallery/gallery-vortices.htm


I guess Mxmanic uses the FAA AIM as his main source in his "research".
Section 7.3.1 is about wake turbulence. A couple of interesting quotes from
that section, that Mx has not seen fit to share with us:

a) "Flight tests have shown that the vortices from larger (transport
category) aircraft sink at a rate of several hundred feet per minute,
slowing their descent and diminishing in strength with time and distance
behind the generating aircraft."

Note the explicit reference to large aircraft. In fact, it seems all actual
wake turbulence safety studies have involved large aircraft, i.e. B707 and
larger. This is in fact quite natural, as there was no real safety issue
before the large jetliners appeared.
b) "Test data have shown that vortices can rise with the air mass in which
they are embedded."

There you are, official proof to the statements of several of our
contributors.

c) "The greatest vortex strength occurs when the generating aircraft is
HEAVY, CLEAN, and SLOW."

In contrast, a light aircraft doing a 360 is usually LIGHT, CLEAN and
(relatively speaking) FAST. Very different conditions, especially regarding
two major sources of wake: the AoA of the wing (which affects the tip
vortices) and the power setting (which affects the propwash strength).

The interesting study question here, for the light airplane case, would be
the relation between the tip vortices (which presumably sink, as for large
aircraft) and the propwash (which is basically horizontal). I think glider
pilots can testify that the propwash is the dominant one, at least close
behind the tug airplane - any soarers out there who can comment?

But realistically, as the wake behind a light aircraft is no real safety
hazard, there is no compelling reason to study this case. So unless someone
can produce a reference, let's rely on the observational data from countless
pilots.

Rip,

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.


Can't follow you there. That's as useful a statement as "airplanes tend to
be stationary objects..."

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Mxsmanic wrote:
JB writes:


You are such an idiot! Probably every GA pilot-in-training with a
C152/172 or something similar has experienced hitting their own wake
when performing their first steep turn with an instructor.


Steep turns tend to be descending turns.

Anthony, this is exactly why you antagonize so many
people in the aviation forums.

*Every* pilot (at least in the US) learns steep turns
in the context of the FAA's practical test standard.
That's a steep turn while holding your altitude +/- 100
feet. In reality, we train to hold the altitude constant
during the turn, so that involves modulated back pressure
on the stick and probably more throttle.

http://www.faa.gov/education_researc...S-8081-14A.pdf

PDF page 48.

Your original response would possibly meaningful on
a simulator forum. On a flying forum, you should
understand your lack of background and context before
posting presumptuous statements.