Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

"Gatt" wrote:
I recommend a Google Search of EB-6.

It's E-6B or just E6B. (I suppose E6-B is used also.)
But not EB-6.

I've been seeing the same typo repeated for quite a few postings on this
thread and until now had no reason to correct it.

Gee, Jim. the use of EB-6 was a dead give away that the sock puppet
didn't know **** from shinola.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"Gatt" wrote:
I recommend a Google Search of EB-6.

It's E-6B or just E6B. (I suppose E6-B is used also.)
But not EB-6.

I've been seeing the same typo repeated for quite a few postings on this
thread and until now had no reason to correct it.

Dang, I was trying to see how far it would go. I was being perfectly honest
when I said I never used an EB-6 for navigation.

-c

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 11, 12:38 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin writes:
For example, remember 29.92 on barometer is good, but would
be better if people had some idea of where 29.92 comes from. I asked
around the room, and no one knew, not even the CFI.

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. The CFI was a very likeable person, a bit young,
maybe mid 20's. I am sure he is competent as a pilot. I would not
hesitate to fly with him. But personally, I have a real hard time
being told to plug in numbers with no real understanding why. My
ability to retain quickly drops to zero doing that.


Who, exaclty, besides yourself, of course, do you think you are kidding?

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 11, 1:27 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
glegroups.com...

Why did you post "True Understanding Or Monkey Mode" about the
same thing in
rec.aviation.piloting. Are you accusing pilots of being monkeys?

No. If you read the posts, I was complaining about both the
students and the pilots, mostly the students.

You ARE a student. You, IIRC, where discussing the logarithmic flaws
of the "EB-6" if I remember correctly.

Nope. I mentioned that I had followed the yellow and blue book page
by page, and after that, I want to look at the EB-6 a little more, to
try to understand if there were any relationships on the scales to
help with memory. I asked if those relationships were linear, and one
or two other people said that it was logarithm, and another person
said that it is effectively a slide rule. I did not say whether it
was linear or logarithmic, except for the temperature scale.

As for the EB-6, no problem. I studied it in advance before the
ground school class.

I can tell. But, like I said in r.a.s, I made it clear through the
commercial license without ever once using an EB-6.

So, my question might have been, which B A R R Y seems to have
answered, is...

"Given all the things in the Jeppesen $200 kit, are we expected to
know those things or not?"

I had been assuming that the FAA actually wants people to know. I had
decided for myself not to take the KT yet even though I could probably
pass (barely) right now.


No, I don't think they want you to know.



But i'll tell you ,

Send me $4,ooo and I'll tell all.


Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message

Hmm...I re-read my original 3 posts, two to rec.aviation.piloting, and
I do not see much perversion in them. I have recopied the most
controversial post for benefit of people in sci.physics.
idiot

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:



????????



Hey, you could make this your sig, anthony..

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 11, 1:31 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...

How difficult is the oral part?.

It's easy if you know the material. It's going to be related to
practical things like airspace, regulations, medical and equipment
requirements, cross country planning, etc.

Time is limited so obviously they cannot ask every thing. Is it
possible for a student to slip by on the
oral portion and just do well on practical and still pass?

It's possible, but if you can't do well on the oral portion the
practical might really kick your ass, particularly in the flight
planning phase.

Hmm...that answers that question. We had some flight planning toward
end of class. That's when it really hit me that one actually has to
know what he's doing.


Ya think?

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 11, 12:31 pm, "BDS" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

As I mentioned, I was sitting in lobby of flight school one day,
toward the end of ground school class, and there were 7-8 students
cramming for their final and to take FAA KT. We were talking about
what we think we should know, and one of the students hintet that
understanding was not really important.

Anyone who thinks that will be in for a surprise when they take the
oral portion of the practical test, if they get that far. Good
instructors will be checking their students' comprehension of the
required knowledge on a continuing basis as flight lessons progress.
I doubt that you would get a signoff for your practical from an
instructor who suspected that you were only at the rote learning
level.

That brings me to next question:

How difficult is the oral part?.


For you?Impossible,.

You have to listen to the question before you answer it, ya see.

Also, he will not come to your bedroom to give it.

the flight test is going to be even more difficult unless you've
installed dual controls on your computer.



Bertie

The mad scientist! :-)

Excellent demonstrations. I liked when he held up the boomerang..."whatever
these do"

I used to make boomerangs out of 3/8" plywood. I made them by making each
wing an airfoil shape-the thick part of the airfoil on the outside on one
wing and on the inside of the other. Many commercial boomerangs have a sort
of aileron sanded into the bottom of one wing tip, but you don't need that.
As each wing starts moving forward in its rotation, that wing is moving
faster and provides more lift than the other, giving it an impulse to the
left. As the bottom wing comes around, it now provides more lift and gives
it another push-and so it goes. And the boomerang makes a curving flight
back to you.

mike

"Androcles"

wrote in message
.uk...

"CWatters" wrote in message
...
:
: "mike regish" wrote in message
: . ..
: I think that the shape of the wing simply allows for a greater range
of
: angles of attack. A sheet of plywood would provide lift, but only at a
: very
: precise and small angle of attack.
:
: The airfoil shape allows the wing to
: provide lift through a much larger range of angles of attack.
:
: Well sort of.
:
: Thick wings do tend to operate over a wider range of angles than thin
wings
: but most subsonic wing sections will work from 0 to 10 degrees or more.
It's
: above 12 or 15 degrees that the section becomes more critical.
:
: A conventional wing section with camber can produce +ve lift at zero
degrees
: AOA.
:
: The zero lift angle (the angle at which no lift is produced) is actually
: negative on many conventional sections.

Ever heard of Bernoulli?
Try this demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCcZyW-6-5o
A Tomahawk cruise missile uses its wings as a control surface more
than for lift. Straight and level is useful for the computer programmer.
He thinks that way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19XXTArAGaM

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

How difficult is the oral part?. Time is limited so obviously they
cannot ask every thing.

I don't know where you got the idea that time for the oral is limited. A
good examiner will take as much time as he feels appropriate. I know a
recent applicant that had a 3 1/2 hr. oral.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200710/1