Flyboys?

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

snort ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...


--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Correct as always!
1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at 61
if
the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from the
statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
DH


Poor Dudley sigh

I notice that "poor Dudley" doesn't address constant speed prop governor
high rpm limiter does it Gordo? Com'on, you can do better than this can't
you? After all, you have 26 years experience dealing with these things. Go
on; tell me how the seizure momentum is the same at 15 inches as it is at
61?

and oh yes, let's not forget;

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Waiting for your answer on seizure! :-)

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

snort ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...


--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Correct as always!
1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at 61
if
the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from the
statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
DH


Poor Dudley sigh

I notice that "poor Dudley" doesn't address constant speed prop governor
high rpm limiter does it Gordo? Com'on, you can do better than this can't
you? After all, you have 26 years experience dealing with these things. Go
on; tell me how the seizure momentum is the same at 15 inches as it is at
61?

and oh yes, let's not forget;

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Waiting for your answer on seizure! :-)



Oh God...what an unmitigated fool you are sir...you're even worse
than JT pretends to be, he at least is just yanking chains for
fun. You really have convinced yourself that you're right even
though you've been told by several that you're not. It does no
good to prove to you that you're in error because you just
obfuscate until nobody can tell what you believe.

I'm quite done with you now. Goodnight.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

snort ...you -are- a piece of work indeed...


--Gord.

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Correct as always!
1. Manifold pressure and rpm equal power
2. The rotational energy of a 24D50 is less at 15 inches than it is at
61
if
the power is brought back past the high rpm limiter.
Simple! Since the limiter is physically impossible to eliminate from
the
statement, it's existence and function is assumed.
Is there something about all this you don't understand? :-))
DH


Poor Dudley sigh

I notice that "poor Dudley" doesn't address constant speed prop governor
high rpm limiter does it Gordo? Com'on, you can do better than this can't
you? After all, you have 26 years experience dealing with these things.
Go
on; tell me how the seizure momentum is the same at 15 inches as it is at
61?

and oh yes, let's not forget;

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

Waiting for your answer on seizure! :-)



Oh God...what an unmitigated fool you are sir...you're even worse
than JT pretends to be, he at least is just yanking chains for
fun. You really have convinced yourself that you're right even
though you've been told by several that you're not. It does no
good to prove to you that you're in error because you just
obfuscate until nobody can tell what you believe.

I'm quite done with you now. Goodnight.
--

-Gord.


Is THIS how you deal with a request to engage in a dialog on engine seizure
and rotational force? :-))))))
Seems a bit lacking in content don't you think?
Here. I'll give you an opening for one of your "windbag" answers
:-)

Keep in mind old buddy, that what I'm writing here is as much for other
readers as it is for you personally, so don't think I'm going to all this
trouble just for you :-)))

I'll make it simple for you. Since I'm writing it here, it can't be changed
by me at any time and as such can't be "obfuscated" as you like to say.
" When you bring the power back on a P51 Mustang from cruise with the prop
set at a median cruise setting such as 2500RPM, the rotational force of the
prop if the engine seizes at idle power (using 15 inches with normal air
loads on the prop) will be LESS, not the same, as it would have been had the
engine seized at the cruise setting; due to the prop exceeding the high rpm
stop on the governor as it tries to maintain the constant speed setting as
the power comes back to idle, thus reducing the RPM, which is the
determining factor for rotational force" Therefore, it is entirely proper to
say that the rotational velocity (force) of this prop will be less at 15
inches than it is at 61 inches.
I realize you're having trouble understanding this, but here it is AGAIN in
black and white. Perhaps some of those people who agree with you on this
would care to comment. I can't make it any more open and available for
dissent than I have right here.
Now, either confirm this as being true or false with your countering
explanation, or copy and paste the EXACT post you say you made to me to
"explain" all this to me because I didn't know it.
Fair enough?


You know, I think this "being right" thing might mean a lot more to you than
it does to me. I honestly think you might have a problem being in too deep
in this and you simply can't respond at this point. That's why you keep
posting all this useless bull**** while evading me on the issue. I'll play
this game with you without using any personal attack response if possible
and see if I can get you to respond in a normal manner and deal with the
issue itself rather than who's right and who's wrong.
This is Usenet fella. Nobody cares if I'm right or you're right, or even
who's wrong. I'm giving you every opportunity to respond to the issue and
get away from the personal attack mode you constantly use with me. I could
just ignore you, but you interest me for some unknown reason. I don't mind
the insults. They're amusing really. My personal email on our little
difference of opinion is highly in favor of ignoring you I might add.
Anyone who knows me doesn't need to be convinced about the information I
give on Usenet. Hell, I've been posting around here for years. I think I
understand your problem with this thing. You feel that I'm some idiot pilot
who didn't respond to your explanation about rotational forces and props.
Problem is, you entered a thread under me with this "lecture" of yours and
you forgot the prop limiter. I can't help that. It isn't my problem. My
problem is that I went about two posts with you in that thread before I
realized you didn't have a clue about the limiter. Now you're in too deep
with all this posting of quotes that you think makes your case. Hell man,
don't you realize by now that I don't give a hoot who thinks I know this
about that and who doesn't.
I'm not your enemy but I am having some fun with you FWIW. If you're right,
engage me on the issue. Then there will be no doubt will there? But don't
just post all this bull crap. Take me on! Don't be afraid. I won't bite you!
Let's talk props, not "obfuscation"!! What more can I do? Tell me!! Hell,
I'm asking you to take me on in a public forum. Do you actually think I
would give you such an open opportunity if I was afraid of the outcome?
Think man....think!!!! :-)
I'll tell you this Gordo. It's you who keeps posting under me with all this
crap....not me posting under you. I have the choice to respond or ignore
you. I've chosen to engage politely in response.The more you flame around
with this thing the nicer I'm going to be:-) If you keep posting the
personal remarks and evading the issue, I'll just keep prodding you to
respond. Sooner or later you'll either take the friendly challenge or stop
all this foolishness of yours.
I'll tell you this also. I'm not trying to prove you wrong either. I know
you know props. You just inserting yourself under me before your brain is
engaged. I've done it myself, so don't feel bad.
Com'on Gordo.....isn't there ANYTHING I can do or say that will get you to
openly discuss this prop thing with me? I promise I'll keep trying as long
as you keep posting to me in the manner you have chosen.

and let's not forget..........

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques

So which is it gonna be tonight Gordo, an answer dealing with the issue, or
just another "God, what a windbag" post? Your choice
:-))
DH

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

--reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--

and let's not forget..........

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques


Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
going to believe it?...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

--reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--

and let's not forget..........

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques


Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
going to believe it?...
--

-Gord.

Then you're saying this statement is correct?

If that's so, and you have been "telling me this for months" why have you
been posting it all this time without further comment? :-) That would make
no sense at all to a sane person. CLEARLY the inference in posting this as
it is with no further comment from you about it would be for the person
reading it to come away with the impression that the statement is totally
incorrect would it not? In fact, I can produce in your own words a post that
states emphatically that this quote is incorrect. Why did you post it if
it's correct? Do you simply wish to affirm it's truth ? Seems to me that if
you wanted to use it in a negative context like you have been doing for
about thirteen posts now, you would have added something about me not
knowing this was correct until you had to tell me each time you posted it.
That would make sense Gordo!!! :-) But you haven't done that have you Gordo?
You just put it out there word for word without comment didn't you; and now
you're saying it's correct....and that's EXACTLY what you have just posted
above. "Certainly" you said, I've been telling you this for months.....when
am I going to believe it"
Well, let me put your mind at ease at least. I believe it! In fact, I
believed it all along......even before you barged in with your lecture on
rotational velocity.
How do you get out of this one Gordo? Is the statement correct or incorrect?
And if it's correct, how do you explain "teaching" someone about something
that they obviously already knew WAS correct, since your "lecture" came
AFTER the statement was made! :-)
Your move chess player!! This ought to be good. At least make it good will
you. I'm saving these "exchanges" of ours for my grandchildren to read over
the holidays. -))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

"Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

--reams of obfuscation mercifully removed--

and let's not forget..........

"Bull ****! This is a constant speed prop. RPM is a
set value. The RPM can be set at 3000 and the
manifold pressure can be anywhere between 15 inches
and 61 inches, and it's the manifold pressure
combined with the set RPM that will determine the
power.....NOT the RPM!!! Are you trying to tell
me that the rotational (energy) of a propeller is
the same at 15 inches as it is at 61?".
-D Henriques


Certainly...I've been telling you that for months...when are you
going to believe it?...
--

-Gord.

Then you're saying this statement is correct?

If that's so, and you have been "telling me this for months" why have you
been posting it all this time without further comment? :-) That would make
no sense at all to a sane person. CLEARLY the inference in posting this as
it is with no further comment from you about it would be for the person
reading it to come away with the impression that the statement is totally
incorrect would it not? In fact, I can produce in your own words a post that
states emphatically that this quote is incorrect. Why did you post it if
it's correct? Do you simply wish to affirm it's truth ? Seems to me that if
you wanted to use it in a negative context like you have been doing for
about thirteen posts now, you would have added something about me not
knowing this was correct until you had to tell me each time you posted it.
That would make sense Gordo!!! :-) But you haven't done that have you Gordo?
You just put it out there word for word without comment didn't you; and now
you're saying it's correct....and that's EXACTLY what you have just posted
above. "Certainly" you said, I've been telling you this for months.....when
am I going to believe it"
Well, let me put your mind at ease at least. I believe it! In fact, I
believed it all along......even before you barged in with your lecture on
rotational velocity.
How do you get out of this one Gordo? Is the statement correct or incorrect?
And if it's correct, how do you explain "teaching" someone about something
that they obviously already knew WAS correct, since your "lecture" came
AFTER the statement was made! :-)
Your move chess player!! This ought to be good. At least make it good will
you. I'm saving these "exchanges" of ours for my grandchildren to read over
the holidays. -))))

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


Poor dude...you're really having trouble with your reading
comprehension aren't you?. Calling that 'sig' that I use
occasionally a 'statement' when it's really about three
statements, an expletive and a question. I suppose that I could
break it down and teach you something about props but why
bother?. yawn


-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Dude Henrickles

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...

-Gord.

"You are completely focused on RPM as the
single factor producing rotational velocity"
-Dude Henrickles

..........whereas the high rpm governor limit, impossible to eliminate from
the equation for the purpose of establishing seizure momentum as power is
reduced , (and thus affecting the rpm) is the other factor. :-)

and that's Dudley Henriques.

No flame from me.....no return misuse of your name.....no personal attack;
simply the issue. This will be my return policy with you from now on. :-)
DH

Gord Beaman wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

C'mon, guys... you are both demeaning yourselves (not to
mention clobbering the ng). You both have contributed to
the group in the past, and will again, I am sure.

Let it go.


Jeff