Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
How difficult is the oral part?. Time is limited so obviously they
cannot ask every thing.

I don't know where you got the idea that time for the oral is limited. A
good examiner will take as much time as he feels appropriate. I know a
recent applicant that had a 3 1/2 hr. oral.

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

...............and after this guy finishes impressing the examiner with
how much more he knows than the examiner knows, we might just be looking
at a new world record here :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

On Oct 10, 11:43 am, JimboCat wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Comments from anyone who knows physics welcome.

Hee, hee! You obviously don't know sci.physics!

You're right.

I've been watching sci.physics for the past few days for first time.

Certainly, while there are some really brilliant people here, not
everyone agrees on controversial topics, which is not a bad thing.

The difference I see between sci.physics and rec.aviation.piloting is
that, if someone attempts to re-examine long-standing accepted
theories, there is genuine debate, at least a lot more than ad hominem
attacks.

Perhaps I should have posed the question here first, then taken a
summary back to rec.aviation.piloting.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 10, 11:43 am, JimboCat wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Comments from anyone who knows physics welcome.

Hee, hee! You obviously don't know sci.physics!

You're right.

I've been watching sci.physics for the past few days for first time.

Certainly, while there are some really brilliant people here, not
everyone agrees on controversial topics, which is not a bad thing.

The difference I see between sci.physics and rec.aviation.piloting is
that, if someone attempts to re-examine long-standing accepted
theories, there is genuine debate, at least a lot more than ad hominem
attacks.


No, there is no debate. there is waht is, and then tere are k00ks.

I'll take a wild guess that you just might fall into the latter category.

Bertie

On Oct 12, 10:42 am, Jim Logajan wrote:
"Gatt" wrote:
I recommend a Google Search of EB-6.

It's E-6B or just E6B. (I suppose E6-B is used also.)
But not EB-6.

I've been seeing the same typo repeated for quite a few postings on this
thread and until now had no reason to correct it.

I use the old term whizz wheel :-)
No batteries no comms requirements.
Just rotate the bezel and read the answer...

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
oups.com...

The difference I see between sci.physics and rec.aviation.piloting is
that, if someone attempts to re-examine long-standing accepted
theories, there is genuine debate, at least a lot more than ad hominem
attacks.

Guys like Kelly Johnson didn't design the P-38, U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird
by not understanding aerospace physics. Basically, you came into r.a.p.
popping off like a sophomoric twit, and got called on it by everybody who
bothered to respond.

When I look out the window at 5,000 feet and see my wings continue to work
as described in the manual and the textbooks, just like they do in every
airplane I've flown, I'm dramatically more inclined to believe the physics
of the engineers who actually proved their worth by designed airplanes than
some usenet-know-it-all.

Perhaps I should have posed the question here first, then taken a summary
back to rec.aviation.piloting.

Perhaps before you come out here blathering about possible errors you see in
your flight computer, you should at least know what it's called. It's an
E6B, not an EB-6. (Been that way since before World War II.) Why invest
effort in a "genuine debate" with somebody who can't even correctly identify
his own tool? Even most student pilots learning in, as you called it,
"monkey mode", know that one.

"My question is: How many graduated students, in your opinion, have true
understanding of what is going on and how many have learned by
iliarity?" -you

-c
r.a.p.

On Oct 15, 5:32 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
Guys like Kelly Johnson didn't design the P-38, U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird
by not understanding aerospace physics. Basically, you came into r.a.p.
popping off like a sophomoric twit, and got called on it by everybody who
bothered to respond.

The fact remains that there is still considerable dispute about the
fundamentals of the dynamics of airfoils from multipile prominent
organizations involved in the theory of flight.

In the 2-3 weeks that I have been searching, I have found, with help
of others, countless examples of the fundamentals being disputed by
people who write textbooks, scientific papers, etc. There is also the
link at NASA that claims that many of the textbooks are wrong. I read
last night in another piloting book, again, that the common belief
about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong, but the explanation of what
was right contrasted with the other textbook's explanation.

When I look out the window at 5,000 feet and see my wings continue to work
as described in the manual and the textbooks, just like they do in every
airplane I've flown, I'm dramatically more inclined to believe the physics
of the engineers who actually proved their worth by designed airplanes than
some usenet-know-it-all.

Who said your textbooks are right? How do you determine that your
textbook is right and the others are wrong? It is not necessary for
you to have (true) understanding of airfoil dynamics to be able to fly
an aircraft. Many pilots might not understand the physics of
electrogmagnetic propagation, but they still use the radio.

My question was a statement of my opinion, something that I, like all
USENET posters, are entitled to. If you disagree with my opinion, it
is your right to not participate in the conversation.

The insults are really unnecessary. I read my original posts, and
there were little in them to warrant personal attacks other than that
I was broaching a subject that you and others felt should not be
discussed, at least by someone like me.

Perhaps before you come out here blathering about possible errors you see in
your flight computer, you should at least know what it's called. It's an
E6B, not an EB-6. (Been that way since before World War II.) Why invest
effort in a "genuine debate" with somebody who can't even correctly identify
his own tool? Even most student pilots learning in, as you called it,
"monkey mode", know that one.

E6B, EB-6...this has little to do with my original question. And what
it is called has no bearing on how it functions. And the topic I
introduced had nothing to do with an E6B, nor did I ever dispute teh
operation of it.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ups.com...

I read last night in another piloting book, again, that the common belief
about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong,

Yeah? Which one?

I'm dramatically more inclined to believe the physics
of the engineers who actually proved their worth by designed airplanes
than
some usenet-know-it-all.

Who said your textbooks are right?

No kidding. I mean, HOW DO I KNOW THE AIRPLANE I'M FLYING ACTUALLY FLIES?!


How do you determine that your textbook is right and the others are wrong?

Why do you repeatedly snip the bits about Kelly Johnson, the SR-71, etc?

E6B, EB-6...this has little to do with my original question.

It shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter and your lack of
attention to detail. As I told you before, physics is an exact science.
If you're unable to properly name the hammer, you're not going to convince
anybody you're a useful carpenter.

-c

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Oct 15, 6:42 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
: "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
oglegroups.com...
:
: I read last night in another piloting book, again, that the common
belief
: about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong,
:
: Yeah? Which one?
:
: I'd have to go back to bookstore to find the name.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Or back to sleep to dream again...

Gatt writes:

Guys like Kelly Johnson didn't design the P-38, U-2 and the SR-71 Blackbird
by not understanding aerospace physics.

Actually there was a lot of trial and error involved. They experimented and
found what worked.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 15, 6:42 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

I read last night in another piloting book, again, that the common
belief about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong,

Yeah? Which one?

I'd have to go back to bookstore to find the name.

I'm dramatically more inclined to believe the physics
of the engineers who actually proved their worth by designed
airplanes than
some usenet-know-it-all.

Who said your textbooks are right?

No kidding. I mean, HOW DO I KNOW THE AIRPLANE I'M FLYING ACTUALLY
FLIES?!

Seeing is believing.

How do you determine that your textbook is right and the others are
wrong?

Why do you repeatedly snip the bits about Kelly Johnson, the SR-71,
etc?

The snipping was not intended. In any case, are you sayin that Kelly
Johnson is the final authority on the dynamics of flight? Are you
saying that the design of the SR-71 would not have been possible if
the dynamics of flight were not resolved? If there is resolution, why
so much disagreement among experts?

No there isn't

At the very least, the textbooks
are wrong.



No they aren;t

You gotta go deeper than the "little golden book of airplanes" to get a
grip on aeodynamics, fjukwit.





Bertie
E6B, EB-6...this has little to do with my original question.

It shows your lack of understanding of the subject matter and your
lack of attention to detail. As I told you before, physics is an
exact science. If you're unable to properly name the hammer, you're
not going to convince anybody you're a useful carpenter.

So basically you are saying that people who make typographical errors
demonstrate their lack of understanding.

What is it that you do not understand by writing "iliarity" in the
post you wrote today?

-Le Chaud Lapin-