Are You Flying a "Beater?"

Jack wrote:
The implication was operating at or above redline.
All those years as an engineer and you choose to communicate by implication
instead of by specific well-defined terms?

Honeck changed from the term "redline" to the term "full throttle", but it
is obvious that he was refering to the same thing.

My main objection is that operating in this manner "might" or "might
not" be safe, depending on the aircraft and it's not appropriate to make
the general statement that's it's safe. As I said, there might be young
pilots reading this newsgroup that will take this advice to heart.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Honeck changed from the term "redline" to the term "full throttle", but it
is obvious that he was refering to the same thing.

Interesting inference.

Just curious -- other than diving steeply, or misadjusting the prop pitch,
how does one operate an aircraft above redline?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

My degree is significant because we're trained to analyze technical issues
far better than some dumb ass english major.

Your degree -- or any degree, for that matter -- pales into insignificance
five years after graduating from college. What matters here is airplane
experience.

Somehow you've determined that operating an aircraft -- specifically a
Piper/Cessna/Beech/Cirrus spam can -- at full power is potentially
dangerous. I'd be interested to hear your evidence behind this assertion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article ,
"Bill Denton" wrote:

There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon (roughly a
quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a "fact".
But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.


One of the Apollo missions left a special prism like mirror set up on
the moon. They then bounced a laser off of it from Earth and were able
to measure the distance with extreme accuracy ( have to look it up but
memory says within a millimeter or so) ... at least the distance at that
particular moment in time (not a perfect circular orbit).


Edward

And you are perfectly making my point...

The only way we could be assured of the laser's accuracy would be to first
measure it with some sort of ruler, then compare the laser with the ruler
measurement. This has not yet been done.

In the US, we have an agency called something like the National Bureau Of
Standards. It's been years, so forgive any minor errors, but at that bureau
they have such things as a metal bar exactly one foot long, a metal weight
that weighs exactly one pound, and similar objects, These objects are made
of various metals and alloys to as best as possible minimize the effects of
expansion and contraction and similar effects.

These are the items that define the various weights and measures we use in
our country; other objects are compared to these to ensure their accuracy.

Now let's look at our laser device...

Something like a laser measuring device (for the purposes we are discussing
here) will be used to measure the distance to something that has been placed
one mile away by a ruler (or similar device). Then it will be used to
measure the distance to something that has been placed ten miles away by a
ruler (or similar device). And this might continue until the curvature of
the earth prohibits additional measurements.

So let's loop back to the original discussion, which had to do with facts
versus consensus.

Our laser measuring device will be examined by various scientists, the
theory behind it will be scrutinized, the testing methodology and results
will be examined, and eventually the scientists will come to a CONSENSUS
that this laser device can accurately measure 250,000 miles. And that's
fine, it probably will be more accurate than previous measurements. But you
will notice that every time a new measurement method comes into play the
distance changes.

But with our metal bar from the NBS, no consensus as to it's accuracy is
required. As it defines the measure, it is defacto correct.






"Edward Todd" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Bill Denton" wrote:

There is a generally accepted distance between Earth and the moon
(roughly a
quarter of a million miles). This would generally be described as a
"fact".
But no one has ever taken a ruler and actually measured that distance.


One of the Apollo missions left a special prism like mirror set up on
the moon. They then bounced a laser off of it from Earth and were able
to measure the distance with extreme accuracy ( have to look it up but
memory says within a millimeter or so) ... at least the distance at that
particular moment in time (not a perfect circular orbit).


Edward

In article lpGyc.36967$Sw.27358@attbi_s51, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

Just curious -- other than diving steeply, or misadjusting the prop
pitch,
how does one operate an aircraft above redline?

If I'm not careful, my 160hp 140 will redline after take-off.

--
Bob Noel

eventually the scientists will come to a CONSENSUS

but this consensus is not what makes something fact. And it is still
"falsifiable" - that is, susceptible to other experiments that could prove the
conclusion wrong.


But with our metal bar from the NBS, no consensus as to it's accuracy is
required.


Sure it is, in the same sense as the laser measurement. There are assumptions
being made when comparing lengths using a ruler - one of them is that length
doesn't change simply by being brought in proximity to a ruler, or that it
doesn't change simply by virtue of moving, or of having its position or
alignment changed.

As it turns out, those assumptions are in fact incorrect, though to only a
small degree.

Jose




--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote in message
news
just a
scuff and shoot job so many get.


Matt,
This is a major point. Many of these "scuff and shoots" go without
rebalancing the control surfaces. Not a good thing at all.

Marty

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
And you are perfectly making my point...

The point that you're going off on a wild blue tangent?


The only way we could be assured of the laser's accuracy would be to first
measure it with some sort of ruler, then compare the laser with the ruler
measurement. This has not yet been done.

And this has what to do with the original point?

In the US, we have an agency called something like the National Bureau Of
Standards. It's been years, so forgive any minor errors, but at that
bureau
they have such things as a metal bar exactly one foot long, a metal weight
that weighs exactly one pound, and similar objects, These objects are made
of various metals and alloys to as best as possible minimize the effects
of
expansion and contraction and similar effects.

These are the items that define the various weights and measures we use in
our country; other objects are compared to these to ensure their accuracy.

Now let's look at our laser device...

Something like a laser measuring device (for the purposes we are
discussing
here) will be used to measure the distance to something that has been
placed
one mile away by a ruler (or similar device). Then it will be used to
measure the distance to something that has been placed ten miles away by a
ruler (or similar device). And this might continue until the curvature of
the earth prohibits additional measurements.

So let's loop back to the original discussion, which had to do with facts
versus consensus.

Our laser measuring device will be examined by various scientists, the
theory behind it will be scrutinized, the testing methodology and results
will be examined, and eventually the scientists will come to a CONSENSUS
that this laser device can accurately measure 250,000 miles. And that's
fine, it probably will be more accurate than previous measurements. But
you
will notice that every time a new measurement method comes into play the
distance changes.

That's a consensus about the accuracy of the machine, not about a fact of
distance.


But with our metal bar from the NBS, no consensus as to it's accuracy is
required. As it defines the measure, it is defacto correct.


Boy...talk about a lot of nothing about nothing.

First of all, a consensus is a continuum, not discrete....

Nice attempt to come off like a deep thinker.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Nice attempt to come off like a deep thinker.

Speaking of deep thinking...... You talk too much.