Question to Mxmanic

Mark Hansen wrote in news:132a5ke4urbdub5
@corp.supernews.com:

It's funny. Anthony's always said that real pilots don't know what they
are talking about, yet he seems to feel the ones that worked on the MSFS
game do.

He plays word games so that he can say he was right.

My daughter does the same thing, but she [usually] does it specifically to be
a smart-ass.

Oh, and she's 8.

Tim writes:

Yes, it will. Try it - if you're good enough you will see it happen. If
not, you have to practice your 360s.

It doesn't happen. I did try it, in perfect weather, at 2500' MSL over
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, using the autopilot to make a perfect turn
with a constant altitude. No bump.

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

wrote in :

Thereby crowning you King of Semantic Word Games.

Nonono. He was right the first time.

"He's Henery the Eighth he is..."
"Henery the Eighth he is he is..."

"Second verse same as the first!"

[ad nauseum]

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
Tim writes:

Yes, it will. Try it - if you're good enough you will see it happen. If
not, you have to practice your 360s.

It doesn't happen. I did try it, in perfect weather, at 2500' MSL over
Southwest Oregon Regional Airport, using the autopilot to make a perfect turn
with a constant altitude. No bump.

Why would anyone need an autopilot to do a 360 in CAVU?

You mean your chair didn't bump?

What a surprise.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Why would anyone need an autopilot to do a 360 in CAVU?

So that no one would be able to tell me that I didn't do a perfect turn.

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:


Why would anyone need an autopilot to do a 360 in CAVU?


So that no one would be able to tell me that I didn't do a perfect turn.

You didn't, dear boy, because your autopilot hasn't a clue where it is
in any axis. Microsoft Flight Simulator is a game, always has been,
always will be. You may as well ponder why your apartment isn't full of
gold coins and Elvin weaponry after a long bout with "Dungeons and
Dragons". Both games are equally representative of reality.

Rip

The only dynamic is between the pilots on the group, certainly not with
MX. But, as I mentioned, the thread forced me to ask myself just what it
was I am "running over" when I hit my own wake turbulence. Does it
matter? Probably not, but this enquiring mind wants to know. I still
don't have the answer. Rising wingtip vortices in warm air? Prop wash?
"Burbles" from the passage of non-lifting surfaces like the fuselage?

We all know it happens. I'm just one of those weirdos that wants to know
WHY it happens. As a result of this thread, it appears that nobody
knows. It's an unstudied regime of flight. I find THAT interesting!
Perhaps it could lead to some super-terrific drag reduction technique,
like surfing on your own wake? After all, that's why geese fly in "V"
formation.

Rip

As you correctly point out, we all know that it happens because we have all
done it; and when we flew eights around pilons, we hit our own wake quite
decisively each time we crossed the center point.

Thus, clearly, it doesn't matter whether we might have found a more
impressive bump lower down; the salient point is that a portion of the wake
was above the flight path when we returned to that place in the atmosphere.

Actually, most of the writings about wakes and sinking air, insofar as I can
tell, only discuss the motion of the central portion of the wake.
Additional writings, regarding the (very reall) potential for upset discuss
the central area of the vorticies--which settle at a lesser rate and expand
as they settle. Our actual experience strongly implies that the vortices
expand at least as rapidly as they settle.

I see that Snowbird has already posted links to my favorite illustration of
this, plus quite a few more, so I'll stop.

Peter

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Snowbird writes:

Now, the induced drag is
creating the tip vortices, which presumably descend, but parasite
drag has no vertical component, so in theory it should stay in place.
So according to this, the higher the airplane's relative speed, the
slower the wake will descend (if at all).

The entire air mass behind the aircraft is descending.

No,m it isn't., fjukktard.

you're wrong... again..


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Snowbird writes:

I guess Mxmanic uses the FAA AIM as his main source in his
"research".

That is only one of many sources. They all say the same thing.

a) "Flight tests have shown that the vortices from larger (transport
category) aircraft sink at a rate of several hundred feet per minute,
slowing their descent and diminishing in strength with time and
distance behind the generating aircraft."

Note the explicit reference to large aircraft. In fact, it seems all
actual wake turbulence safety studies have involved large aircraft,
i.e. B707 and larger. This is in fact quite natural, as there was no
real safety issue before the large jetliners appeared.

The wakes of smaller aircraft descend as well.

b) "Test data have shown that vortices can rise with the air mass in
which they are embedded."

There you are, official proof to the statements of several of our
contributors.

Including myself.

c) "The greatest vortex strength occurs when the generating aircraft
is HEAVY, CLEAN, and SLOW."

Yes. Although the downwash itself should be strongest when the
aircraft is dirty and slow. The reason clean and slow produces
stronger _vortices_ is that it only produces one pair, whereas flaps
and other control surfaces can produce multiple vortices of smaller
size that tend to interfere with each other and reduce overall
turbulence.

In contrast, a light aircraft doing a 360 is usually LIGHT, CLEAN and
(relatively speaking) FAST. Very different conditions, especially
regarding two major sources of wake: the AoA of the wing (which
affects the tip vortices) and the power setting (which affects the
propwash strength).

Which makes it all the more difficult to understand how a pilot could
feel his own wake in a level 360-degree turn.

The interesting study question here, for the light airplane case,
would be the relation between the tip vortices (which presumably
sink, as for large aircraft) and the propwash (which is basically
horizontal). I think glider pilots can testify that the propwash is
the dominant one, at least close behind the tug airplane - any
soarers out there who can comment?

You're neglecting the downwash, which is present in all aircraft.
Downwash tends to pull all turbulence behind the aircraft down with
it.


No, it doesn't, fjukkwit. Only most of it.

Send me fifty bucks and I'll explain why to you


bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Jim Stewart writes:

*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.

If you meet your wake, you're descending.


Not neccesarily, moron.


You're an idiot.

Bertie