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 |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
On May 24, 2:59*am, wrote:
On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote i * * * So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like, which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive. Actually it's a synonym for blade. Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: * * Foil: 1 obsolete : trample 2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat always able to foil her enemies b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot) synonyms: see frustrate. * * * So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate." * * * *Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary's definitions: If you look a bit further in the MW disctionary you will see both blade and keaf. But the key is to use a proper dictionary like the OED. Your definition of foil is a verb, not a noun and an aerofoil or air foil is a noun. Cheers |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
On May 22, 6:00 am, Mxsmanic wrote: I'm only interested in flying. You should try it sometime. -c |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
On May 22, 1:08 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work? Simple action and reaction. Mmmm...but your action has nothing to react against, there's nothing to push down on like you said with downwash producing lift for an airplane wing. |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
On May 19, 2:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Daedalus wrote : On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Daedalus wrote in m: On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip wrote: "Ken S. Tucker" wrote in news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3 : On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: Ken S. Tucker wrote: On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote: Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote: "Dudley Henriques" wrote in message ... ... Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical sensation should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an instrument reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique is all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary, but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical cues and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle ans should be followed to the letter. ... I won't argue with a single word of that. But... That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that are very important in the sense that, if you don't have significant experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead (in real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations don't happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes flying in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life. And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop simulation will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that can happen when things aren't going well in real life soup. One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is to ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't really have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet that an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off in less than 3 minutes in real life. I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps something being misread. The understanding of sensations and how they interact with the IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack of this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything else I can think of at the moment. Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an instrument reading with a physical sensation was important. My point was that instrument verification should be done against other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation from that equation. When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it took a concentrated focus on some point to sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that doesn't work in a fog. Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus) screwed my inner ear. (That is my weakness). I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours, my flight instructor got me going on IFR. He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and algebra so he was the type to promote the advance early on in instruction. Ken I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It helps to hide my shortcomings :-) After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged by instruments. Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator, put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available. Ken I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to get their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of these nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the panel. Different strokes for different folks Dudley Henriques I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so understand the attitude. Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha! We did about 5 hours of night flying together, he didn't say much by that time, except the odd ancedote. "oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit. Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote" Maybe it's an antidote! Jade Maybe it was an antecedant. BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number. Bertie Is that who keeps calling and breathing heavily? THXS! He mayb be crude, but he's cheaper than those 1-900 numbers. Bertie Speaking of cheap; you can replace the artificial horizon- how can you tell when the wings are level? Wait for it. The CFI drools out of both sides of his mouth. |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
|
#337
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as being seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create lift and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is rigid! Bertie Posted by a forger. |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... Nope, I know it. Bertie Posted by a forger. |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ... So I'd say arfoil was not used becasue of it's ability to frustrate air ( engineers just don't think like that, they seek harmony) but more because of their resemblance to a leaf or blade. Actually, the one in that link that stands out is the architectural one. Bertie Posted by a forger. |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff
More_Flaps wrote in
: On May 24, 2:59*am, wrote: On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote: wrote i * * * So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like, which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive. Actually it's a synonym for blade. Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary: * * Foil: 1 obsolete : trample 2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat always able to foil her enemies b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot) synonyms: see frustrate. * * * So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate." * * * *Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary' s definitions: If you look a bit further in the MW disctionary you will see both blade and keaf. But the key is to use a proper dictionary like the OED. Your definition of foil is a verb, not a noun and an aerofoil or air foil is a noun. Cheers Yeah, but the verb as it;s used has also become a noun. But I do believe that the noun as it applies to a blade is probably the origin of it being applied to wings and fins and other bits. Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apology re mxsmanic | terry | Piloting | 96 | February 16th 08 05:17 PM |
I saw Mxsmanic on TV | Clear Prop | Piloting | 8 | February 14th 07 01:18 AM |
Mxsmanic | gwengler | Piloting | 30 | January 11th 07 03:42 AM |
Getting rid of MXSMANIC | [email protected] | Piloting | 33 | December 8th 06 11:26 PM |
Feeling aircraft sensations | Ramapriya | Piloting | 17 | January 12th 06 10:15 AM |