![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 15, 4:42 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
george writes: Graveyard spiral dive Which probably isn't a coincidence, since pilots likely get into these precisely because they maintain "normal" G forces. Berties right! You are every thing he says.. FYI a noninstument rated pilot entering IFR conditions has about 90 seconds of life remaining. The resulting high speed spiral dive is a result losing all visual references and becoming disorientated in cloud... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thought it was 158 seconds before he loses orientation and then whatever it
takes to crash into the hard edge of the sky. mike "george" wrote in message oups.com... Berties right! You are every thing he says.. FYI a noninstument rated pilot entering IFR conditions has about 90 seconds of life remaining. The resulting high speed spiral dive is a result losing all visual references and becoming disorientated in cloud... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 06/14/07 15:29, Jim Stewart wrote:
wrote: Hang on, let's keep things simple: 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs. 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs. If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a descending turn without any change in Gs. Just as long as I continously feed in enough down elevator to offset the increasing Gs from the turn, the force on the airframe and me, the pilot, will stay at 1 G. Isn't there some sinister name for this when it happens to a non-IFR pilot in a cloud? Actually, the same name applies whether or not the pilot holds an Instrument Rating. -- Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane, USUA Ultralight Pilot Cal Aggie Flying Farmers Sacramento, CA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs.
2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs. If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a descending turn without any change in Gs. Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift downward at a constant rate. Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted. Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will require a change in G force. I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that people can believe that changes in direction are possible without accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these people are actually correct. Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no change in the force felt by the pilot? Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin. What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no change in G force! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message oups.com... 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs. 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs. If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a descending turn without any change in Gs. Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift downward at a constant rate. Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted. Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will require a change in G force. I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that people can believe that changes in direction are possible without accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these people are actually correct. Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no change in the force felt by the pilot? Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin. What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no change in G force! A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change in direction *is* acceleration. You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity, a change in velocity, or change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any maneuver giving a net result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a high gee turn. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
muff528 wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs. 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs. If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a descending turn without any change in Gs. Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift downward at a constant rate. Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted. Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will require a change in G force. I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that people can believe that changes in direction are possible without accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these people are actually correct. Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no change in the force felt by the pilot? Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin. What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no change in G force! A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change in direction *is* acceleration. You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity, a change in velocity, or change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any maneuver giving a net result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a high gee turn. What's a gee? Is that like a gee whiz? :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... muff528 wrote: wrote in message oups.com... 1. If I enter a coordinated turn, I experience an increase in Gs. 2. If I enter a descent, I experience a decrease in Gs. If I do these two things at the same time, it is possible to enter a descending turn without any change in Gs. Yes. Note, however, that you must _accelerate_ downward, and not merely drift downward at a constant rate. Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling without accelerating the plane. Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted. Note that the I am not denying that the aircraft is accelerating in this situation. But it is doing so without a change in force being felt. So where your argument breaks down is in the assumption that if changing the direction requires acceleration, then acceleration will require a change in G force. I am not saying that this is, in of itself, proof of the possibility of the 1G barrel roll. It does, however, clearly indicate a flaw in your argument. I find it odd that you find it so hard to believe that people can believe that changes in direction are possible without accelerations being felt, given that by your own admission, these people are actually correct. Of course, all combinations are indeed possible. But this interesting special case of the situation exists, doesn't it, in which there is no change in the force felt by the pilot? Yes. It sounds a lot like a spin. What? It sounds very little like a spin - try entering a spin with no change in G force! A change in direction does not *require* acceleration..........a change in direction *is* acceleration. You "feel" the effects of acceleration, whether it is caused by gravity, a change in velocity, or change in direction. All of these factors come into play when doing any maneuver giving a net result that you interpret as gee's, whether you are in freefall or in a high gee turn. What's a gee? Is that like a gee whiz? :-) No... it's like geez whiz......you spread it on bread to get a geez sammich. ![]() |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mxsmanic wrote in
: writes: Right. A major part of your argument in this thread has been that it is impossible to change the direction in which the plane is travelling without accelerating the plane. Yes. Your own analysis, based on my questions, clearly shows that it is possible to change the direction the plane is going in without deviating from the 1G being exerted. Accelerations sometimes reinforce each other, and sometimes cancel each other. Even when they cancel each other, they do not disappear. Wrong again bankruptcy boi. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dispelling the Myth: Hillary Clinton and the Purple Heart | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 21st 06 05:41 AM |
Impossible to ditch in a field (almost) | mindenpilot | Piloting | 29 | December 11th 04 11:45 PM |
bush: impossible to be AWOL (do vets give a sh!t) | B2431 | Military Aviation | 7 | September 8th 04 04:20 PM |
cheap, durable, homebuilt aircrafts- myth or truth? | -=:|SAJAN|:=- | Home Built | 27 | January 8th 04 09:05 AM |
The myth that won't die. | Roger Long | Piloting | 7 | December 19th 03 06:15 PM |