![]() |
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 |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is no | gasman | Soaring | 0 | August 26th 05 06:39 PM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Excelsior | Home Built | 0 | April 22nd 05 01:11 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |