Question to Mxmanic

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

"ManhattanMan" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"ManhattanMan" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley wrote:
"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
Half a bottle of Jack Daniel's


Half full or half empty?

from an engineering standpoint, the bottle wasn't designed
correctly...........

I was JUST about to say this!!! :-))
Dudley Henriques

GOTCHA!! d:-))

The way this one got twisted around down at the Naval Test Pilot School
was as follows;

Procurement Office ; "This bottle is half empty"
Maintainence Office ; " This bottle is half full"
Flight Test Engineering Office :
"Yo Jack....call those idiots over at Procurement and tell them this damn
bottle is twice as big as it has to be "
Dudley Henriques

Maintenance Shack: It's empty now.

"Steve Foley" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
...

"ManhattanMan" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
"ManhattanMan" wrote in message
...
Steve Foley wrote:
"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
Half a bottle of Jack Daniel's


Half full or half empty?

from an engineering standpoint, the bottle wasn't designed
correctly...........

I was JUST about to say this!!! :-))
Dudley Henriques

GOTCHA!! d:-))

The way this one got twisted around down at the Naval Test Pilot School
was as follows;

Procurement Office ; "This bottle is half empty"
Maintainence Office ; " This bottle is half full"
Flight Test Engineering Office :
"Yo Jack....call those idiots over at Procurement and tell them this damn
bottle is twice as big as it has to be "
Dudley Henriques

Maintenance Shack: It's empty now.

More likely....."those damn pilots will drink anything!!!"
:-))
Dudley Henriques

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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

Couldn't be more wrong. In real life, you most certainly know when
you succeed in avoiding wake turbulence.

No, you don't. You don't know if you avoided it, or if it simply wasn't there
to begin with.

In any case, avoidance is the only safe procedure. Trying to fly in wake
turbulence isn't a good idea.

And yet once again, you're a contradictory in terms. You say
you strive for realism in your sim and say something like the above,
but a few posts ago, you state:

"In real life, you simply take care to avoid wake turbulence;
in the sim, you can take the same precautions if you wish, but you don't
have to.

So basically, you can't even make up your mind on what you want
to do period.

You need help, Anthony. REAL WORLD help.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGIGoHyBkZmuMZ8L8RAs8GAJ4kMVv2A8HR27qkSmineB Ds3TUNTQCfQibx
wjyifAHmZlUbXb6EDXgBsJM=
=Cq4m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

Still, it's a gratifying feeling.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Are 360-degree turns common? Why would they encounter wake turbulence?

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

If there's a plane in front of you, or anywhere around you, there's wake
turbulence. If you don't get trashed by it, you've avoided it.

mike

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gary writes:

Couldn't be more wrong. In real life, you most certainly know when
you succeed in avoiding wake turbulence.

No, you don't. You don't know if you avoided it, or if it simply wasn't
there
to begin with.

In any case, avoidance is the only safe procedure. Trying to fly in wake
turbulence isn't a good idea.

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

eye'm purty shoor meye eye que iz ovur atey.

meyeke

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Mxsmanic

I'm always surprised by posts that simply say "wrong," but don't explain
why.

That's 'cause nobody with an IQ over 80 gives a **** about explaining
ANYTHING to you.
A simple answer of "WRONG" will help keep someone who is really trying
to learn about flying from giving your bull**** any credibility.

I would suggest substituting "IDIOT" for "wrong". It's much more
descriptive
of you.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBRiCIm5MoscYxZNI5AQGVBQP/YQrqiejDScxy3+IA36ho/UQESOU2HrWI
0C2Xyq2WTXbd0By1aEWgRJRcEgv0vqeH1/Zw5XgneNsq05CWPY1CCRNxaV2H11BV
kZdw1q1CDpozDbuuFFjh2HC7s2UhgjyD2YF9Ns68yTJpBKz/nxGmoTOZm8IVSoAl
d5bDd43d3cs=
=2gMp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

mike regish writes:

A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you, I'll
have to review my calculations.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
mike regish writes:

A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the
downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which
is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you,
I'll
have to review my calculations.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be
horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks
of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather
reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to
wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly
through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

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

That's a keeper.

This is actually a maneuver that's demonstrated and practiced very
early in flight training, so I'm sure all pilots and student pilots
have experienced this. But your calculations are fairly correnct--a 2
minute turn won't cut it. It's usually demonstrated with a 60 degree
bank turn. I'm not sure of the timing, but i'd guess 30 sec or less.

On Apr 14, 7:11 am, Mxsmanic wrote:
mike regish writes:
A sign of a well executed 360 is to encounter your own wake turbulence,
although the vortex generally sinks some in the intervening time and the
turbulence is usually no more than a slight bump.

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you, I'll
have to review my calculations.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

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

"Mxsmanic" wrote ...

From my back-of-envelope calculations, if it's a two-minute turn, the
downwash
and vortices would have descended by some 2000 feet or so by the time you
close the circle (depending on various factors). I'm surprised that there
would be anything to feel if you are maintaining the same altitude, which
is
why I didn't consider this. However, if it has actually happened to you,
I'll
have to review my calculations.

Tip vortices is not the only form of turbulence behind an aircraft. And an
airliner on approach has a different type of wake than a trainer at
altitude.

Anyway, while it might be interesting in real life, it would be
horrifically
CPU-intensive to simulate, since it would require modeling of large chunks
of
air away from the aircraft, which is as compute-bound as weather
reporting.

Indeed, modeling any sort of wake turbulence would be this way, unless the
simulation were canned and provided as a couple of fixed scenarios that
wouldn't require calculation of air movements. But then you have to
wonder if
it would be worthwhile, either, since it's a really bad idea to fly
through
another aircraft's wake turbulence. If it's mild there's not much to
simulate; if it's heavy it's too dangerous to approach.

The best value of a good simulator is that it enables training of situations
that would be unsafe to do in a real aircraft.Flying into wake turbulence is
a good example.