Question to Mxmanic

Mxsmanic wrote:
Rip writes:


About 200 hours aerobatics with smoke.


No skywriting?


What skywriting have YOU done?


None.

But you've sure blown a lot of smoke!
By the way, where's the reliable reference for the
"all wake descends" statement you made earlier?

Rip

Mxsmanic wrote:

Rip writes:


Please provide a reliable reference for that staement.


Every reference I can find mentions it.

Quote one.

Rip

Mxsmanic,

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


Another priceless gem! What practice???

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

mike regish writes:

We have. Rising air. It happens all the time over the plowed cornfields I
fly over. The plane doesn't also rise with the air because we are
maintaining out altitude above the ground.

Therefore you are descending into your wake. QED.

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

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.

Maxwell wrote:
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.

And yet there are still over 50 posts in this thread encouraging his
behavior.

Good job guys. He owns you.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200704/1

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?"

On Apr 16, 3:06 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
mike regish writes:
We have. Rising air. It happens all the time over the plowed cornfields I
fly over. The plane doesn't also rise with the air because we are
maintaining out altitude above the ground.

Therefore you are descending into your wake. QED.

What part of "maintaining our altitude" sounds like "descending" to
you?