A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #231  
Old March 2nd 06, 04:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Very long boring technical discussion of Lift Faries adn Thrust

On 2006-03-01 20:42, Jose wrote:
-snip-
When you consider how hard gremlins are, and how soft feathers are, it's
a natural that feathers repel gremlins, and lift is sometimes
erroniously attributed to feathers. Many researchers have been down
this path, and there is a large body of accepted literature in support
of the feathers theory. At low speeds, the feather theory and the
gremlin theory give pretty much the same answers, but at high enough
speeds the relationship breaks down and the feather theory gives
erronious answers. This is where gremlin theory shines (it should be
noted that lift fairies are just gremlins gone bad).

Gremlin theory holds the potential for explaining a lot of aviation that
is otherwise unexplainable, but experiments are difficult and fraught
with peril. However, I would be happy to conduct the appropriate
research. Send grant money to Jose, care of Usenet.

Jose


I'm with you on the gremlins theory; since the feathers theory can be
proven to work or not in at least two disparate ways:

1. Why is is that a feathered prop does not provide more lift than an
unfeathered one? If the feather theory was correct, it would make sense
to feather all props to increase lift.

2. Manned flight would have been possible long ago, by just applying
feathers to the human body; while some think this is difficult to
achieve, I've read several successfull reports using tar for this
purpose. (It is the removing thereof that is the difficult part.)
None of the tarred aviators seemed to fly wery well afterwards, so the
feathers have been demonstrated not to work in this case.

(I note that the excact mass of feathers may have been too small,
according to calculations in this group, so I invite anyone to try this
method for themselves, to prove or disprove it.)

/Rolf
  #233  
Old March 3rd 06, 12:40 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:15:59 -0600, Immanuel Goldstein
wrote:

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

And absolutely no common sense, but being this has to be a troll what
would you expect.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
  #234  
Old March 3rd 06, 01:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:35:13 -0600, Immanuel Goldstein
wrote:

On 2/22/2006 11:07 AM, Robert M. Gary wrote:
A local pilot at our airport who owns a small Cessna 210 went to Boeing
737 school a few years back. He was able to shoot approaches to mins
and fly quite nicely without any heavy iron training outside of some
books and manuals he picked up. Of course, the work gets harder when
the instructor starts to simulate things failing. Airline pilots are
grossly over paid 99% of the time and grossly under paid 1% of the
time. As long as everything is working its pretty easy.


Thank you, Robert. This is exactly the reason I chose these groups for my
_original_ post. I have a couple of follow-up questions.

The local pilot you mentioned was already _quite_ capable of flying a Cessna
210, before attempting a 737. Would someone with little or no flight experience
be able to fly a 737, 747, or 757, and also make steep dives and sharp turns?

The *big* mistake here is making some wild assumptions.
1. Assuming the pilot is worried about exceeding some or any of the
aircraft's limitations. (afraid of breaking it)
2. Afraid of injury. (He plans on dying.)
3. That all maneuvers are performed according to the book.

So, steep dives and sharp turns are indeed easy once you have
determined the pilot does not care what happens to the airplane, the
passengers, what every they might hit, or himself.

Standard Boeing commercial aircraft have locks on the cockpit doors. How
difficult would it be break one down?


Before 9/11 they often stood open whether they were supposed to be
shut or not.


What are the chances that 8 trained pilots and co-pilots, with military
backgrounds, could be physically overpowered by a few thugs with box-cutters?


Quite good when you consider back then the training was to try and
keep the hijacker calm and reason with them, particularly if they have
a hostage. The rule was, "don't make waves" as we might get sued if
any passengers get hurt through your actions.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
  #235  
Old March 3rd 06, 01:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student,alt.politics
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:28:52 -0500, Bryan Martin
wrote:

I don't know if it was the first time, but it happened once back in the
early '80s in, I think, Arizona. I believe it was a PSA DC-9. A disgruntled
ex-employee snuck a gun on board and forced his way into the cockpit and
shot the flight crew and then dove the plane into the ground. Of course in
that case the hijacker had a real weapon and about the only thing that might
have stopped him was someone else with a gun. Then of course there is the
case of the FedEx DC-10 where the crew barely managed to prevent a nut case
soon to be ex-employee from doing the same.

The 9-11 hijackers weren't even armed. No mater what anybody says, a box
cutter is not a weapon. The only way you can do any serious damage with one
is if your victim stands there and lets you do it. Real weapons in the hands
of the crew could have stopped them cold. The passengers could have rushed
them and put a stop to it. This last scenario has happened at least twice
since 9-11. The "shoe bomber' was subdued by passengers. In another case a
drunk passenger tried to force his way onto the flight deck and was stopped
by several passengers who damn near beat him to death.


He was DOA at the airport. Said his heart failed as I recall.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

in article ,
at
wrote on 2/27/06 12:10
PM:


Bryan Martin wrote:
...
Now we all know just how stupid this policy
was. They should have known it before, 9-11 is not the first time a hijacker
has taken over an airliner and deliberately crashed it.


When was the first time a hijacker took over an airliner and
deliberately crashed it?

That particular scenario had been considered plausible since
at least eh early 1960's and was one of the design criteria
for the outermost containment domes at nuclear power plants.

  #236  
Old March 3rd 06, 02:00 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training


Dan wrote:
Richard Lamb wrote:
Bryan Martin wrote:


Bryan,

Ex-nay!

Or wander over to alt.politics to feed the loons...

I brought up this whole Bernouli mess just to get
rid of these guys.

It worked quite well.

Now don't screw it up again!

Richard


Isn't a Bernouli what an Arab wears?


under his theorum :-)

  #238  
Old March 3rd 06, 02:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default lift, wings, and Bernuolli

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 at 22:43:58 in message
.com,
" wrote:

It discussed the Bernuolli theory of flight- and (if I recall) quite
conclusively proved that one of the _fundamental_ assumptions of the
Bernuolli theory- that air that travels path over the top of the wing
is flowing appreciably faster than air that flows over the bottom- is
simply incorrect in a compressible fluid....


There is not really a Bernoulli theory of lift. Bernoulli's theory
shows the relationship between the velocity and pressure of fluid flow
when energy is not added or removed and the flow is subsonic. It is a
very simple theory which is correct for much of the time. It quite
accurately, at lower speeds, represents the velocity and pressures
between streamlines.

The air does flow faster over the top than the bottom and for the lower
subsonic region air behaves very closely to being incompressible.
Generally pressure changes are transmitted at the velocity of sound.

At high subsonic and of course at supersonic speed the effect of
compressibility cannot be ignored.

Shock waves form, first on places like the top surface of the wing where
the air first reaches the velocity of sound. As the speed rises they
become bigger and move towards the leading and trailing edges. Above
Mach one the air does not detect the approaching aircraft! :-)

I have just read a few more messages in this thread and discussing lift
in this general way without maths and without using at least simple
physics and slowly developing the methods is almost futile.

What's it matter about lift as long as the aircraft fly? !!!!!
--
David CL Francis
  #239  
Old March 3rd 06, 03:27 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default lift, wings, and Bernuolli

David CL Francis wrote:

The air does flow faster over the top than the bottom and for the lower
subsonic region air behaves very closely to being incompressible.
Generally pressure changes are transmitted at the velocity of sound.


I hate to be a spoil sport (or dullard?), but...

the (stationary) air does WHAT (as the wing passes by)???


))
  #240  
Old March 3rd 06, 02:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,rec.aviation.homebuilt,rec.aviation.student
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default lift, wings, and Bernuolli


Jose wrote:
Most aerodynamic equations dealing with low subsonic speeds treat air as an
incompressible fluid because compressibility doesn't have a significant
effect until you approach sonic speeds.


Isn't compressiblity what causes pressure changes (absent temperature
changes)?


No.

Compressible fluids (commonly called liquids) also experience
pressure changes. THis is used advantageously for hydraulic
power.

The distinction is that a compressible fluid (commonly called gas)
undergoes a volume change proportionate to the pressure change,
while the volume of an incompressible fluid changes little with
pressure. Compressible fluids obey Charles' law,
(or is it Boyle's law?):

P1 * V2 = P2 * V1

--

FF

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy Mike Naval Aviation 0 December 27th 05 07:23 PM
Washington DC airspace closing for good? tony roberts Piloting 153 August 11th 05 12:56 AM
Sport Pilot pilots not insurable? Blueskies Piloting 14 July 12th 05 05:45 AM
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools RT Military Aviation 104 September 25th 03 03:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.