The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the proper ratio
and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should be "on
the bottom".

You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals. Such
simple sounding theories are usually wrong, and in this case you have
neglected forward motion, which provides many secondary effects. This
is why the down part of an airplane is at the BACK, not the BOTTOM. The
airplane is travelling through the air, and the first thing the air gets
is the up, and the last thing it gets is the down. Of course, as far as
the air is concerned, it's backwards (plane goes up, air goes down, at
least for a while). That's what makes the vortex.

Money is needed primarily to achieve forward motion. While an airplane
on the ground will consume a certain amount of money, flying it consumes
far more. You put some in at the beginning, and the bills come =after=
the flight. This is what causes the money vortex, which is exactly
analogous to the air vortex that holds the wing up. It is impossible to
put all the money in one place and have the airplane fly.

It is just as impossible to put the up and the down where it seems they
"should" go and get the plane to fly. Only a rocketship can do that,
and there is a =lot= of down coming out of the bottom, and a lot of up
where the top is. But there's no sideways motion (at least there
shouldn't be!)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:23:55 GMT, Jose
wrote:

You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals.

I hope you're going to cut and paste this all together and put it on a
Web site somewhere. Decades from now, persons yet unborn will be
asking, "Does anybody have a link . . .?

Don

The disk is constantly transferring momentum to the air below it,
which is transferring it right back after bouncing off of the floor.


There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force on
either the air or the disk. The molecules next to the disk have a
pressure equal to the weight of the disk below it and the actual disk
above it. There is no net force and thus no momentum change.

Momentum = mass * velocity, and the vertical velocity of the air and
the disk are zero.

There is the question of gliders and airplanes. Airplanes
don't need any help to get it up and glider pilots need help
to get it up. But once they get it up, glider pilots have
more skill at keeping it up.


"Richard Lamb" wrote in message
nk.net...
| ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
|
|
| Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided
to see why you got the
| result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded
research project and
| made many new scientific discovery's such as:
|
| -Pillows are not Gooses
| -Gooses have feathers
| -Pillows have down
| -Gooses feathers are outside
| -Pillows down is inside
| -Gooses have down that is in under the feathers
| -Gooses are hard to catch ...alive
| -Pillows are easy to catch
| -Gooses bite...hard
| -Pillows are soft
| -Gooses keep you awake
| -Pillows make you sleepy
| -Gooses get grumpy
| -Pillows are calm
|
|
| snipped out the complicated part to avoid getting lost
again
|
| See ya
|
| Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor)
S
|
|
|
| I got it, Chuck.
|
| Tim's eloquent theorem showed me the error of my ways.
|
| Richard
|
| still trying to figure out the Helium but tho...

Dan wrote:
TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

Richard Lamb wrote:

"How does a wing generate lift?"
Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/
As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
with
the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
in
time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
response to all of them?

Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
takes
2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
ready
to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
holidays
it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.

On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
genning
up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.

Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
action
would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?
NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
since
9/11 tend to make the news?

Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired





According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?

FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried
before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything
like scrambled eggs?

strewth watches to many WW2 BoB type films.
The kerosine taste would put me off scrambled jets

Jose wrote:
I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the
proper ratio
and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should
be "on
the bottom".


You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals. Such
simple sounding theories are usually wrong, ...

snipped the expensive part

Jose

Occom's Razor, Jose.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Cup holders allowed drinking in flight and that in turn
required "draining the pilot's sump" more often in flight.
This required relief tubes, but then women started flying
and that requires the potty. The potty requires plumbing
and that means plumbers. More money "down the drain" [pun
intended] and then the government started buying toilet
seats and we all heard what THAT cost.


Maybe we could try to build a jet engine that burned paper
trash instead of petroleum products. This could save a lot
of oil and several steps in the process of flight, they
could just directly burn money.



The oil companies will be knocking at your door soon

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
In article , Richard Isakson
says...

As further proof that Chuck's theory doesn't work, I tried an experiment
this morning. I took a pillow off my bed. It is mostly feathers, after
all. To give it a proper test, I hiked up the Ebey's Landing Bluff Trail to
the edge of the cliff. Having great faith in Chuck and fully expecting my
pillow to soar up over my head, I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
Nope. It went staight down. Splat! Right into the Puget Sound.

Thanks to Chuck, I'll be sleeping on a soggy pillow tonight!

Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided to see why you got the
result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded research project and
made many new scientific discovery's such as:

-Pillows are not Gooses
-Gooses have feathers
-Pillows have down
-Gooses feathers are outside
-Pillows down is inside
-Gooses have down that is in under the feathers
-Gooses are hard to catch ...alive
-Pillows are easy to catch
-Gooses bite...hard
-Pillows are soft
-Gooses keep you awake
-Pillows make you sleepy
-Gooses get grumpy
-Pillows are calm

After obtaining this data I decided to pull all the feathers off a Goose and
leave the down attached.The Goose didn't seem happy, maybe I could get a
research grant to determine if the Gooses get grumpy because they are half naked
or because they're cold.But that's a whole nuther topic. I then proceeded to the
Clark ave bridge (altitude about 75') and pitched this unhappy Goose off to see
him fly .He didn't and boy he was really mad when I went down to
retrieve him.
Then it became obvious that feathers are for flying and down is for "down".
After the first test I thought that possibly I was in an area of high gravity so
I went to where gravity is less ...the airport. Everyone knows airports are
built in low gravity areas.But that's another topic in itself as to how I
discovered that.I then went to the top of the highest hangar and threw the Goose
off. He failed to fly again and was REALLY ****ed off at me.

So therefore it is logical to conclude that Gooses have 2 types of feathers ,one
for flying and one for landing.Pillows are filled with the "down" feathers
.That's why your pillow went "down" when you launched it. This is an example of
why this type of testing must be conducted by experts.

More research must be done so please send money so this very important research
can continue. I'd also like to get a stunt double for the Goose as well. Now I'm
off to see if the reports of an aviator looping,rolling and spinning a cow are
true!!

See ya

Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor) S

Chuck, um, ask Moller how to get gummint grants to pursue your
research. You may be onto something.

As for the aviator looping, spinning and rolling a cow must you bring
Zoom into this?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

george wrote:
Dan wrote:
TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:

TRUTH wrote:
Dan wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

Richard Lamb wrote:

"How does a wing generate lift?"
Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/
As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
with
the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
in
time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
response to all of them?

Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
takes
2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
ready
to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
holidays
it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.

On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
genning
up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.

Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
action
would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?
NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
since
9/11 tend to make the news?

Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired




According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?
FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried
before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything
like scrambled eggs?

strewth watches to many WW2 BoB type films.
The kerosine taste would put me off scrambled jets


In all fairness to the whacko who started all this, when I sat nuke
alert in the late 1970s they still announced "scramble, scramble,
scramble" over the P.A. when launching.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force

.... averaged over a whole bunch of molecules, yes. But considering each
molecule separately, there certainly =is= momentum change at each
collsision.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.