Question to Mxmanic

Mxsmanic wrote:

Gary writes:


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


The part that is combined with rising air.


I'm new here and junk. I've read a boatload of these posts and I've
started to empathize with you. Why are these people calling you names?
Jeesh, they're just mean.

Except that I run into posts like this and go, "ah, I see."

Rising air and maintaining altitude does not decsending make. Bringing
your altitude closer to the ground makes a decsent. You can't maintain
altitude and decsend at the same time. I think that's one of the
questions in the written. Or it's in some FAR. They'll suspend your
cert for 5 years if you decsend whilst maintaining altitude.

Do yourself a big favor. Get out there and spend the $50-60 and get an
intro flight. Take some damn lessons. Hell, even get a CFI just to get
out there and do some of this. You'll see how vastly different it is
from MS's Flight sim.

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.


See, this is one of those posts. That's why you practice. A steep turn
is not supposed to be a descending turn.

I don't know why. It seems that the argument that you're not supposed
to hit your own wake seems to be pretty valid. You can also bring
evidence that supports the theory that the sky is not blue, but there it
is, blue as hell.

mike regish writes:

It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do.

No. There are nearly half a dozen relativistic effects that must be
compensated for in the GPS. The nominal clock frequencies, for example, must
be adjusted by slightly less than one part in two billion in order to adjust
for the cumulative relativistic effects.

I doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic effects at
our speeds.

Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic
effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate.

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

swag writes:

so didyou when you did your "test flight?"

In the sim? No, there was no bump.

You won't encounter a bump from wake turbulence unless you are
doing a steep turn ( like 45 degree bank angle which should
take 19 seconds to go 360)

Why would the steepness of a turn matter?

A 2-G turn is rather close to the load limits for many types of aircraft.

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

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

It is not acceleration. It is speed. GPS travels much faster than we do.

No. There are nearly half a dozen relativistic effects that must be
compensated for in the GPS. The nominal clock frequencies, for example,
must
be adjusted by slightly less than one part in two billion in order to
adjust
for the cumulative relativistic effects.

I doubt we have clocks accurate enough to measure the relativistic
effects at
our speeds.

Sure you do ... in your GPS receivers. The adjustments for relativistic
effects are necessary to make the receivers reasonably accurate.


Wow! That's useful information!

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

so didyou when you did your "test flight?"

In the sim? No, there was no bump.

You won't encounter a bump from wake turbulence unless you are
doing a steep turn ( like 45 degree bank angle which should
take 19 seconds to go 360)

Why would the steepness of a turn matter?

A 2-G turn is rather close to the load limits for many types of aircraft.


What a dumb ****! Are you kidding???

If someone rolled your brain up in to a ball, and rolled it down a razor
blade -
it would look like a B-B rolling down a four lane highway.

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

A 2-G turn is rather close to the load limits for many types of aircraft.

Yea, that puts you about 35% of the way to airframe damage.
Pretty damned reckless to only leave yourself a 180% margin.

With that level of fear, I'm surprised that you ever leave your room.

Er......Um................................Nevermin d.


I wonder if he has ever analyzed how much stress his fat butt is putting on
the floor joices in his bedroom. If he fell out of his computer chair from
18" or so, he might not have a 180% margin.

Maxwell wrote:
I wonder if he has ever analyzed how much stress his fat butt is
putting on the floor joices in his bedroom. If he fell out of his
computer chair from 18" or so, he might not have a 180% margin.

He'd just land on his ass and suffer a concussion........

On Apr 19, 9:00 am, Nomen Nescio wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

The clock on your aircraft runs slower as you accelerate, due to relativistic
effects. But then it also runs faster as you climb, again due to relativistic
effects. Do you take these effects into account in your on-board
calculations?

Only if I'm approaching light speed.
I also have to do a new weight & balance.

When you slow down you get heavy speed so the W&B shouldn't change
ROTFL

Nomen Nescio writes:

Only if I'm approaching light speed.

And I only worry about compressibility if I'm approaching Mach 1, which
doesn't happen often in a Baron. QED.

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