Question to Mxmanic

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

I can. 150 feet is not tall at all for a wake.

It's extremely tall for a small aircraft. The wake would probably be about 50
feet high.

Remember, the air around the wake is also being dragged by the wake vortex.

But at very slow speed. Even the downwash itself is moving slowly, only a few
knots. Any of the winds that one often encounters at altitude would be enough
to rapidly disperse it.

You have no idea of the altitudes or winds aloft at which most people
practice maneuvers in real airplanes.

Wind by itself will not "disperse" anything, it will just move it.

It takes turbulant air to disperse things in the air.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"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.

Mxsmanic wrote:
My study of aerodynamics thus far indicates that it is impossible, unless you
descend to catch your descending wake. Wakes _always_ descend.
SNIP
Still fixated on the idea that the downwash is the only component of
wake, huh, Anthony?

No, it means that I look at the facts, and I don't depend on the legends.
SNIP
No, it means that you look at SOME of the facts, and then draw incorrect
conclusions from limited information.

Rip

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Upon what do you base the assumption your wake should decend 150'?

All wakes descend; they have to, otherwise the aircraft could not stay aloft.
They move at a few knots, which still amounts to some 500 fpm.

No, they don't, and no it doesn't.

You have nothing to back up what you say.

I have never heard of any study of the wake properties of GA aircraft
and the wake of a C172 is very different than the wake of a 747 ...

Since you haven't heard of any study of the wake properties of GA aircraft,
you cannot possibly know whether the wake of a C172 is "very different" from
that of a 747 or not. Oops!

If I fly through the wake of a 747 I risk things like suddenly finding
myself inverted or structural failure.

If I fly through the wake of a C172 I feel a slight bump.

Oops!

In fact, the general principle is the same for all aircraft wakes. They
always move downward gently. You cannot catch them in a turn unless you move
downward, too. If you are in rising air, the wake might remain stationary
relative to the ground, but then your aircraft would be rising, so you'd still
have to descend relative to the surrounding air in order to catch your wake.
And smoothly rising air isn't that common, although it's not that rare.

Is this knowledge based upon your many years of playing the Flight
Simulator game?

Just because playing a Microsoft game gives you no basis for understanding
something that many thousands of people have experienced does not mean
that it doesn't exist.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
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.

What rule?

All we have is the babblings of a Microsoft game player.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Just because you have never experienced it and can't understand it
from your many hours of playing the Flight Simulator game doesn't
mean it doesn't exist.

My study of aerodynamics thus far indicates that it is impossible, unless you
descend to catch your descending wake. Wakes _always_ descend. It's a
consequence of the mechanism that produces the lift that sustains the
aircraft, and it's unavoidable. Every source that I have consulted points
this out, without exception. Your mere assertion to the contrary is
completely unpersuasive in comparison.

Then obviously your study of aerodynamics thus far is incomplete as
it can not explain what really happens in real life to real pilots.

Theory is confirmed or invalidated by experiment.

Your theories are invalidated by years of experiments, i.e. actual
pilots flying actual airplanes.

It just means you don't know a whole lot about real flying or what
happens in a real airplane.

No, it means that I look at the facts, and I don't depend on the legends.

So now your are reduced to the semantic arguement that the experiences
of thousands of pilots for many, many years are but a legend?

Have you ever done a short field take off in your Flight Simulator
Cessna with the springy gear and had the mains vibrate for a few
seconds shaking the airplane?

I don't fly the Cessna, and I fly only at airports with hard, smooth runways
that won't bounce the aircraft around.

Yet another statement that only goes to show a Microsoft flying game
is not an accurate representation of what happens in real airplanes.

The surface of the runway has nothing to do with the effect mentioned
and a whole lot with the maneuver performed.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

You have no idea of the altitudes or winds aloft at which most people
practice maneuvers in real airplanes.

Neither does anyone else. You don't know until you get there.

Wind by itself will not "disperse" anything, it will just move it.

Winds interacting with each other will disperse lots of things.

It takes turbulant air to disperse things in the air.

See above.

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

writes:

You have nothing to back up what you say.

I have NASA, the FAA, a couple of engineering schools at universities, and
other sources that back up what I say. I'm simply standing on the shoulders
of giants.

Is this knowledge based upon your many years of playing the Flight
Simulator game?

No, it is based upon years of studying aviation.

Flight Simulator allows me to put theory into practice, mainly.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

You have nothing to back up what you say.

I have NASA, the FAA, a couple of engineering schools at universities, and
other sources that back up what I say. I'm simply standing on the
shoulders
of giants.

Is this knowledge based upon your many years of playing the Flight
Simulator game?

No, it is based upon years of studying aviation.

Flight Simulator allows me to put theory into practice, mainly.


You forgot to deduct for your learning disability and selective
comprehension skills.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

You have no idea of the altitudes or winds aloft at which most people
practice maneuvers in real airplanes.

Neither does anyone else. You don't know until you get there.

Another essentially true, but worthless statement that serves no
purpose other than to play semantic word games.

Most practice maneuvers are done in a small altitude box for reasons
that Microsoft flying games do not simulate.

Wind by itself will not "disperse" anything, it will just move it.

Winds interacting with each other will disperse lots of things.

There is no such thing as "winds" at a particular point in the sky,
there is only the wind.

It takes turbulant air to disperse things in the air.

See above.

Turbulant air is caused by differences in wind over an area.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.