On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Just like everything else he spews, this GnatTurd > > > > > >>>>>>>> idiot can't get anything right. I sure hope to hell he > > > > > >>>>>>>> never pilots an airplane. What an idiot. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Yikes. At least he won't be chopping up people with that > > > > > >>>>> propeller. > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>> Has Flyspeck ever said what kind of airplane he owns? > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>> ASH 31Mi > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>>> Watching some YouTubes, sometimes they sound a bit creaky > > > > > >>>>> after the engine is shut off. Yours do that? > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> There have only been 100 made. Scrutinous pilots and buyers > > > > > >>>> must know something. > > > > > >>> I found FOUR accident reports for them. One of them a mere > > > > > >>> wheel-up landing, another had the pilot bail out. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Another was a fatality when the ridge-soaring pilot hit a ridge. > > > > > >>> The maggot probably just thermals over flatlands. > > > > > >> Even that can kill you. One of my wife's graduate students lost her > > > > > >> fiance to a crash in an international soaring competition in Poland > > > > > >> (which is pretty flat). > > > > > > > > > > > > Flying gliders IS a high-risk activity - I will not deny that. You > > > > > > spend A LOT of your flight time in a classic stall-spin regime: high > > > > > > bank angle at near stall speed. And the air around you can be quite > > > > > > turbulent, which can lead to a sudden tail gust that stalls you. At > > > > > > altitude, this is a non-event, but close to the terrain, it is > > > > > > deadly. A good friend of mine, highly experienced with thousands of > > > > > > hours in all types of aircraft, commercial and military, was killed > > > > > > in this manner. > > > > > > > > > > A tail gust doesn't stall the wing. That's like the 'downwind turn' > > > > > myth. Nor does the nebulous "near stall speed". Bank angle doesn't do it > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever been in a spin, maybe in a C150 during training? > > > > > I imagine the glider is not approved for intentional spins, but it must > > > > > spin r-e-a-l-l-y slowly if it happens. Is there enough rudder to stop > > > > > it? Are you the test pilot? > > > > > > > > A tail gust certainly CAN and sometimes DOES stall a glider. Being flown close to stall speed to being with, a tail gust effectively reduces the airspeed to below the stall speed. Really, this involves the critical angle of attack, which is over the head of the readers of this newsgroup, so I won't discuss it. > > > > > What's complicated about the critical angle of attack? I learned about it as a kid when I was making and flying model aircraft. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack > > > > Answer: there is NOTHING complicated about angle of attack, fool. > But you didn't feel able to talk about it any kind of detail, which makes you the fool here.Hardly, Bozo. I know my audience, unlike you, which non-pilots, just like you. You can't see angle of attack, but people understand speed, or the lack of it. ALL wings stall when the critical AOA is exceeded, which can occur at any airspeed. Probably something you haven't thought about.> > > > The bank angle is critical because the inside (down) wing is flying slower than the outside (up) wing, and stalls first. With the outside wing still generating lift that is no longer balanced by the inside wing, the aircraft rotates "over the top" and enters a spin. The rotation rate is relatively slow, but the glider rapidly accelerates being a low drag aircraft to begin with. You only have seconds to recover from the spin before the Vne (never exceed speed) is reached. Beyond this the wings will separate from the aircraft. The ONLY control surface available to you to stop this is the rudder, which must be applied counter to the direction of rotation. Once the spin is arrested you are STILL falling straight down and must CAREFULLY pull out of the dive being careful not to overstress the wings (or they will fold up like a book). Spins have been successfully recovered from in innumerable situations, but not always: > > > > > > > https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-05-09/final-report-sailplane-wing-failure-killed-engen-and-friend > > > > > You've got to stall one of the wings to enter a spin, but if you aren't turning, you can stall without entering a spin. > > > > Non-sensical. I was talking about stall-spin entries in particular. > But corvid wasn't, so as usual you are moving the goal-posts to let yourself rant about stuff you think you understand. > > > You typically circle a thermal to pick up height, and that does mean banking the glider to some extent, but flying excessively tight circles would mean that you'd pick up less height that you might. > > > > You are not a pilot, definitely not a glider pilot. > Agreed. > > Thermal strength is the largest at the center, so maintaining the tightest circle, i.e. the slowest speed, results in the highest climb rate. This is limited by the increased sink rate as bank angle increases. > A thermal bubble is actually a vortex ring, so you are talking nonsense, as you make clear by admitting that any bank angle makes your sink rate worse.Thermal bubbles are NOT usable lift, being so transitory. But you would have no way of knowing that, not being a glider pilot. In fact, they can be distracting, making you think that they are a real thermal and trick you into making a circle or two before you realize that it is a bubble. A real thermal is EXACTLY as I described because the conservation of momentum requires an equal amount of descending air that occurs immediately outside of the thermal. The interface between them slows down the ascending air mass, making the interior of the thermal rise faster. So, Bozo, it is YOU that is talking nonsense, which is understandable because you know NOTHING about the topic. I, on the other hand, have been flying gliders for over forty years.> > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > > > puts the typical diameter of a thermal at about 1000 feet, which doesn't sound all that tight. > > As said by a non-glider pilot. To circle with a diameter less than 1000 feet requires a 45 degree bank angle close to stall speed. Try looking up turn radius vs speed. > Why bother. You can't do quantitative argument,and you ignore detailed numbers when they are thrown at you. How much less than my 1000 foot diameter circle requires a 45 degree bank angle?Certainly in the range of 700 to 800 feet. You can see it for yourself on the Youtube video I provided. And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is.
A letter to President Biden
Started by ●October 19, 2022
Reply by ●November 6, 20222022-11-06
Reply by ●November 6, 20222022-11-06
On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 1:05:46 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Just like everything else he spews, this GnatTurd > > > > > > >>>>>>>> idiot can't get anything right. I sure hope to hell he > > > > > > >>>>>>>> never pilots an airplane. What an idiot. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Yikes. At least he won't be chopping up people with that > > > > > > >>>>> propeller. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>> Has Flyspeck ever said what kind of airplane he owns? > > > > > > >>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>> ASH 31Mi > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Watching some YouTubes, sometimes they sound a bit creaky > > > > > > >>>>> after the engine is shut off. Yours do that? > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> There have only been 100 made. Scrutinous pilots and buyers > > > > > > >>>> must know something. > > > > > > >>> I found FOUR accident reports for them. One of them a mere > > > > > > >>> wheel-up landing, another had the pilot bail out. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Another was a fatality when the ridge-soaring pilot hit a ridge. > > > > > > >>> The maggot probably just thermals over flatlands. > > > > > > >> Even that can kill you. One of my wife's graduate students lost her > > > > > > >> fiance to a crash in an international soaring competition in Poland > > > > > > >> (which is pretty flat). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flying gliders IS a high-risk activity - I will not deny that. You > > > > > > > spend A LOT of your flight time in a classic stall-spin regime: high > > > > > > > bank angle at near stall speed. And the air around you can be quite > > > > > > > turbulent, which can lead to a sudden tail gust that stalls you. At > > > > > > > altitude, this is a non-event, but close to the terrain, it is > > > > > > > deadly. A good friend of mine, highly experienced with thousands of > > > > > > > hours in all types of aircraft, commercial and military, was killed > > > > > > > in this manner. > > > > > > > > > > > > A tail gust doesn't stall the wing. That's like the 'downwind turn' > > > > > > myth. Nor does the nebulous "near stall speed". Bank angle doesn't do it > > > > > > either. > > > > > > > > > > > > Have you ever been in a spin, maybe in a C150 during training? > > > > > > I imagine the glider is not approved for intentional spins, but it must > > > > > > spin r-e-a-l-l-y slowly if it happens. Is there enough rudder to stop > > > > > > it? Are you the test pilot? > > > > > > > > > > A tail gust certainly CAN and sometimes DOES stall a glider. Being flown close to stall speed to being with, a tail gust effectively reduces the airspeed to below the stall speed. Really, this involves the critical angle of attack, which is over the head of the readers of this newsgroup, so I won't discuss it. > > > > > > > What's complicated about the critical angle of attack? I learned about it as a kid when I was making and flying model aircraft. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack > > > > > > Answer: there is NOTHING complicated about angle of attack, fool. > > But you didn't feel able to talk about it any kind of detail, which makes you the fool here. > Hardly, Bozo. I know my audience, unlike you, which non-pilots, just like you. You can't see angle of attack, but people understand speed, or the lack of it. ALL wings stall when the critical AOA is exceeded, which can occur at any airspeed. Probably something you haven't thought about. > > > > > The bank angle is critical because the inside (down) wing is flying slower than the outside (up) wing, and stalls first. With the outside wing still generating lift that is no longer balanced by the inside wing, the aircraft rotates "over the top" and enters a spin. The rotation rate is relatively slow, but the glider rapidly accelerates being a low drag aircraft to begin with. You only have seconds to recover from the spin before the Vne (never exceed speed) is reached. Beyond this the wings will separate from the aircraft. The ONLY control surface available to you to stop this is the rudder, which must be applied counter to the direction of rotation. Once the spin is arrested you are STILL falling straight down and must CAREFULLY pull out of the dive being careful not to overstress the wings (or they will fold up like a book). Spins have been successfully recovered from in innumerable situations, but not always: > > > > > > > > > https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-05-09/final-report-sailplane-wing-failure-killed-engen-and-friend > > > > > > > You've got to stall one of the wings to enter a spin, but if you aren't turning, you can stall without entering a spin. > > > > > > Non-sensical. I was talking about stall-spin entries in particular. > > But corvid wasn't, so as usual you are moving the goal-posts to let yourself rant about stuff you think you understand. > > > > You typically circle a thermal to pick up height, and that does mean banking the glider to some extent, but flying excessively tight circles would mean that you'd pick up less height that you might. > > > > > > You are not a pilot, definitely not a glider pilot. > > Agreed. > > > Thermal strength is the largest at the center, so maintaining the tightest circle, i.e. the slowest speed, results in the highest climb rate. This is limited by the increased sink rate as bank angle increases. > > A thermal bubble is actually a vortex ring, so you are talking nonsense, as you make clear by admitting that any bank angle makes your sink rate worse. > Thermal bubbles are NOT usable lift, being so transitory. But you would have no way of knowing that, not being a glider pilot. In fact, they can be distracting, making you think that they are a real thermal and trick you into making a circle or two before you realize that it is a bubble. A real thermal is EXACTLY as I described because the conservation of momentum requires an equal amount of descending air that occurs immediately outside of the thermal. The interface between them slows down the ascending air mass, making the interior of the thermal rise faster. So, Bozo, it is YOU that is talking nonsense, which is understandable because you know NOTHING about the topic. I, on the other hand, have been flying gliders for over forty years. > > > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > > > > > puts the typical diameter of a thermal at about 1000 feet, which doesn't sound all that tight. > > > As said by a non-glider pilot. To circle with a diameter less than 1000 feet requires a 45 degree bank angle close to stall speed. Try looking up turn radius vs speed. > > Why bother. You can't do quantitative argument,and you ignore detailed numbers when they are thrown at you. How much less than my 1000 foot diameter circle requires a 45 degree bank angle? > Certainly in the range of 700 to 800 feet. You can see it for yourself on the Youtube video I provided. > And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is.Here is a good video explaining glider bank angles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhoOwKM7pOA
Reply by ●November 6, 20222022-11-06
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:05:46 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote: > > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:<snip>> > > > > A tail gust certainly CAN and sometimes DOES stall a glider. Being flown close to stall speed to being with, a tail gust effectively reduces the airspeed to below the stall speed. Really, this involves the critical angle of attack, which is over the head of the readers of this newsgroup, so I won't discuss it. > > > > > > > What's complicated about the critical angle of attack? I learned about it as a kid when I was making and flying model aircraft. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack > > > > > > Answer: there is NOTHING complicated about angle of attack, fool. > > > But you didn't feel able to talk about it any kind of detail, which makes you the fool here. > > Hardly. I know my audience, unlike you, which non-pilots, just like you.Gantguy does enjoy his self-servng delusions.> You can't see angle of attack, but people understand speed, or the lack of it. ALL wings stall when the critical AOA is exceeded, which can occur at any airspeed. Probably something you haven't thought about.Of course you can see angle of attack. It would help if you could see the boundary layer separating from the top of the airfoil, which does happen when the angle of attack gets too high, but any respectable mental model of what's going on will include that.> > > > > The bank angle is critical because the inside (down) wing is flying slower than the outside (up) wing, and stalls first. With the outside wing still generating lift that is no longer balanced by the inside wing, the aircraft rotates "over the top" and enters a spin. The rotation rate is relatively slow, but the glider rapidly accelerates being a low drag aircraft to begin with. You only have seconds to recover from the spin before the Vne (never exceed speed) is reached. Beyond this the wings will separate from the aircraft. The ONLY control surface available to you to stop this is the rudder, which must be applied counter to the direction of rotation. Once the spin is arrested you are STILL falling straight down and must CAREFULLY pull out of the dive being careful not to overstress the wings (or they will fold up like a book). Spins have been successfully recovered from in innumerable situations, but not always: > > > > > > > > > https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-05-09/final-report-sailplane-wing-failure-killed-engen-and-friend > > > > > > > You've got to stall one of the wings to enter a spin, but if you aren't turning, you can stall without entering a spin. > > > > > > Non-sensical. I was talking about stall-spin entries in particular. > > > > But corvid wasn't, so as usual you are moving the goal-posts to let yourself rant about stuff you think you understand. > > > > > > You typically circle a thermal to pick up height, and that does mean banking the glider to some extent, but flying excessively tight circles would mean that you'd pick up less height that you might. > > > > > > You are not a pilot, definitely not a glider pilot. > > > > Agreed. > > > > > Thermal strength is the largest at the center, so maintaining the tightest circle, i.e. the slowest speed, results in the highest climb rate. This is limited by the increased sink rate as bank angle increases. > > > > A thermal bubble is actually a vortex ring, so you are talking nonsense, as you make clear by admitting that any bank angle makes your sink rate worse. > > > Thermal bubbles are NOT usable lift, being so transitory. But you would have no way of knowing that, not being a glider pilot.A thermal bubble is one of stream of vortices being shed by an area of hot ground.> In fact, they can be distracting, making you think that they are a real thermal and trick you into making a circle or two before you realize that it is a bubble.There's as bubble - vortex ring - above you, and another one below you, and you are in between. If you were dumb enough not to know that you'd miss out. > A real thermal is EXACTLY as I described because the conservation of momentum requires an equal amount of descending air that occurs immediately outside of the thermal. Gantguy tells us half the story, and thinks that he's demonstrated that he knows what going on.>The interface between them slows down the ascending air mass, making the interior of the thermal rise faster. So, Bozo, it is YOU that is talking nonsense, which is understandable because you know NOTHING about the topic. I, on the other hand, have been flying gliders for over forty years.And learned very little, most of which you seem to have forgotten.> > > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > > > > > puts the typical diameter of a thermal at about 1000 feet, which doesn't sound all that tight. > > > > > > As said by a non-glider pilot. To circle with a diameter less than 1000 feet requires a 45 degree bank angle close to stall speed. Try looking up turn radius vs speed. > > > Why bother. You can't do quantitative argument,and you ignore detailed numbers when they are thrown at you. How much less than my 1000 foot diameter circle requires a 45 degree bank angle? > > Certainly in the range of 700 to 800 feet. You can see it for yourself on the Youtube video I provided.A Youtube video is an quantitative argument?> And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is.The wingspan of the aircraft would seem to be part of the question. I can imagine that dihydral angle would come into it too. If you'd posted a link to the formulas, that kind of detail would probably have been mentioned. https://skybrary.aero/articles/radius-turn is probably what you had in mind, but it doesn't include any formula and is - in fact - a diabolically poor exposition. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 6, 20222022-11-06
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:18:59 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 1:05:46 PM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote: > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:> > And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is. > Here is a good video explaining glider bank angles: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhoOwKM7pOAAs if anybody sane would waste their time watching a video clip recommended by Gnatguy. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 7, 20222022-11-07
On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:05:46 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > <snip> > > > > > > A tail gust certainly CAN and sometimes DOES stall a glider. Being flown close to stall speed to being with, a tail gust effectively reduces the airspeed to below the stall speed. Really, this involves the critical angle of attack, which is over the head of the readers of this newsgroup, so I won't discuss it. > > > > > > > > > What's complicated about the critical angle of attack? I learned about it as a kid when I was making and flying model aircraft. > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack > > > > > > > > Answer: there is NOTHING complicated about angle of attack, fool. > > > > > But you didn't feel able to talk about it any kind of detail, which makes you the fool here. > > > > Hardly. I know my audience, unlike you, which non-pilots, just like you. > > Gantguy does enjoy his self-servng delusions.Clearly, you DO NOT know your audience, EVEN YOURSELF!> > You can't see angle of attack, but people understand speed, or the lack of it. ALL wings stall when the critical AOA is exceeded, which can occur at any airspeed. Probably something you haven't thought about. > Of course you can see angle of attack. It would help if you could see the boundary layer separating from the top of the airfoil, which does happen when the angle of attack gets too high, but any respectable mental model of what's going on will include that.No, the FUCK YOU CAN'T!!! The ONLY way of visualizing it is in a wind tunnel with smoke streams - then it is clearly visible. When I am flying it is NOT in a wind tunnel and there are NO smoke streams. Honestly, Bozo, your IGNORANCE knows NO BOUNDS!!> > > > > > The bank angle is critical because the inside (down) wing is flying slower than the outside (up) wing, and stalls first. With the outside wing still generating lift that is no longer balanced by the inside wing, the aircraft rotates "over the top" and enters a spin. The rotation rate is relatively slow, but the glider rapidly accelerates being a low drag aircraft to begin with. You only have seconds to recover from the spin before the Vne (never exceed speed) is reached. Beyond this the wings will separate from the aircraft. The ONLY control surface available to you to stop this is the rudder, which must be applied counter to the direction of rotation. Once the spin is arrested you are STILL falling straight down and must CAREFULLY pull out of the dive being careful not to overstress the wings (or they will fold up like a book). Spins have been successfully recovered from in innumerable situations, but not always: > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/aviation-international-news/2008-05-09/final-report-sailplane-wing-failure-killed-engen-and-friend > > > > > > > > > You've got to stall one of the wings to enter a spin, but if you aren't turning, you can stall without entering a spin. > > > > > > > > Non-sensical. I was talking about stall-spin entries in particular. > > > > > > But corvid wasn't, so as usual you are moving the goal-posts to let yourself rant about stuff you think you understand. > > > > > > > > You typically circle a thermal to pick up height, and that does mean banking the glider to some extent, but flying excessively tight circles would mean that you'd pick up less height that you might. > > > > > > > > You are not a pilot, definitely not a glider pilot. > > > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > Thermal strength is the largest at the center, so maintaining the tightest circle, i.e. the slowest speed, results in the highest climb rate. This is limited by the increased sink rate as bank angle increases. > > > > > > A thermal bubble is actually a vortex ring, so you are talking nonsense, as you make clear by admitting that any bank angle makes your sink rate worse. > > > > > Thermal bubbles are NOT usable lift, being so transitory. But you would have no way of knowing that, not being a glider pilot. > A thermal bubble is one of stream of vortices being shed by an area of hot ground.Bozo, you don't know WTF you are talking about - you have NEVER been in a glider and have NEVER thermalled. You are just a stream of IGNORANCE!!> > In fact, they can be distracting, making you think that they are a real thermal and trick you into making a circle or two before you realize that it is a bubble. > There's as bubble - vortex ring - above you, and another one below you, and you are in between. If you were dumb enough not to know that you'd miss out.No, Bozo, it is YOU that are TOO DUMB to know how ignorant you are!!!!> > A real thermal is EXACTLY as I described because the conservation of momentum requires an equal amount of descending air that occurs immediately outside of the thermal. > Gantguy tells us half the story, and thinks that he's demonstrated that he knows what going on.You just continue EMBARASSING yourself with such IGNORANT statements! Do you think ANYBODY (excepting, perhaps, DecayedBrainMatter) gives you an ounce of credibility?> >The interface between them slows down the ascending air mass, making the interior of the thermal rise faster. So, Bozo, it is YOU that is talking nonsense, which is understandable because you know NOTHING about the topic. I, on the other hand, have been flying gliders for over forty years. > And learned very little, most of which you seem to have forgotten.I have FORGOTTEN more than you will EVER KNOW.> > > > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > > > > > > > puts the typical diameter of a thermal at about 1000 feet, which doesn't sound all that tight. > > > > > > > > As said by a non-glider pilot. To circle with a diameter less than 1000 feet requires a 45 degree bank angle close to stall speed. Try looking up turn radius vs speed. > > > > > Why bother. You can't do quantitative argument,and you ignore detailed numbers when they are thrown at you. How much less than my 1000 foot diameter circle requires a 45 degree bank angle? > > > > Certainly in the range of 700 to 800 feet. You can see it for yourself on the Youtube video I provided. > A Youtube video is an quantitative argument?You haven't even watched it.> > And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is. > The wingspan of the aircraft would seem to be part of the question. I can imagine that dihydral angle would come into it too.NO, the wingspan IS NOT part of the equation - it is pure physics. Can you be that STUPID??? And the wing dihedral (note the correct spelling) has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turn radius, you fool.> > If you'd posted a link to the formulas, that kind of detail would probably have been mentioned.I already did, but you were too stupid to notice.> > https://skybrary.aero/articles/radius-turn > > is probably what you had in mind, but it doesn't include any formula and is - in fact - a diabolically poor exposition.Your reference says NOTHING quantitatively - try again Bozo. You are the one demanding quantities!
Reply by ●November 7, 20222022-11-07
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 3:59:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:05:46 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:<snip>> > > > > > > A tail gust certainly CAN and sometimes DOES stall a glider. Being flown close to stall speed to being with, a tail gust effectively reduces the airspeed to below the stall speed. Really, this involves the critical angle of attack, which is over the head of the readers of this newsgroup, so I won't discuss it. > > > > > > > > > > > What's complicated about the critical angle of attack? I learned about it as a kid when I was making and flying model aircraft. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack > > > > > > > > > > Answer: there is NOTHING complicated about angle of attack, fool. > > > > > > > But you didn't feel able to talk about it any kind of detail, which makes you the fool here. > > > > > > Hardly. I know my audience, unlike you, which non-pilots, just like you. > > > > Gantguy does enjoy his self-servng delusions. > > Clearly, you DO NOT know your audience, EVEN YOURSELF!More complacent delusions. I've been posting here for more than twenty years.> > > You can't see angle of attack, but people understand speed, or the lack of it. ALL wings stall when the critical AOA is exceeded, which can occur at any airspeed. Probably something you haven't thought about. > > > Of course you can see angle of attack. It would help if you could see the boundary layer separating from the top of the airfoil, which does happen when the angle of attack gets too high, but any respectable mental model of what's going on will include that. > > No, the FUCK YOU CAN'T!!! The ONLY way of visualizing it is in a wind tunnel with smoke streams - then it is clearly visible. When I am flying it is NOT in a wind tunnel and there are NO smoke streams. Honestly, Bozo, your IGNORANCE knows NO BOUNDS!!Gnatguy can't visualise anything without his helpful smokes streams. I worked a vortex-shedding flow meter for a while, and didn't any visual aids to recognise a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_vortex_street <snip>> > > > A thermal bubble is actually a vortex ring, so you are talking nonsense, as you make clear by admitting that any bank angle makes your sink rate worse. > > > > > > > Thermal bubbles are NOT usable lift, being so transitory. But you would have no way of knowing that, not being a glider pilot. > > > > A thermal bubble is one of stream of vortices being shed by an area of hot ground. > > You don't know WTF you are talking about - you have NEVER been in a glider and have NEVER thermalled. You are just a stream of IGNORANCE!!This is what you are writing off as a stream of ignorance. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf I did post it earlier in this thread, but presumably you were much too self-confident to pay any attention.> > > In fact, they can be distracting, making you think that they are a real thermal and trick you into making a circle or two before you realize that it is a bubble. > > > > There's as bubble - vortex ring - above you, and another one below you, and you are in between. If you were dumb enough not to know that you'd miss out. > > No, it is YOU that are TOO DUMB to know how ignorant you are!!!!Gnatguy does like making that kind of claim. He doesn't realise quite how funny they are.> > > A real thermal is EXACTLY as I described because the conservation of momentum requires an equal amount of descending air that occurs immediately outside of the thermal. > > > Gantguy tells us half the story, and thinks that he's demonstrated that he knows what going on. > > You just continue EMBARASSING yourself with such IGNORANT statements! Do you think ANYBODY (excepting, perhaps, Decadent Linux User Numero Uno) gives you an ounce of credibility?Gantguy's extreme ignorance is coupled with a matching level of over-confidence.> > >The interface between them slows down the ascending air mass, making the interior of the thermal rise faster. So, Bozo, it is YOU that is talking nonsense, which is understandable because you know NOTHING about the topic. I, on the other hand, have been flying gliders for over forty years. > > > > And learned very little, most of which you seem to have forgotten. > > I have FORGOTTEN more than you will EVER KNOW.I'm sure that you like to think that. You certainly don't seem to know much now.> > > > > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > puts the typical diameter of a thermal at about 1000 feet, which doesn't sound all that tight. > > > > > > > > > > As said by a non-glider pilot. To circle with a diameter less than 1000 feet requires a 45 degree bank angle close to stall speed. Try looking up turn radius vs speed. > > > > > > > Why bother. You can't do quantitative argument,and you ignore detailed numbers when they are thrown at you. How much less than my 1000 foot diameter circle requires a 45 degree bank angle? > > > > > > Certainly in the range of 700 to 800 feet. You can see it for yourself on the Youtube video I provided. > > A Youtube video is an quantitative argument? > > You haven't even watched it.I rarely do. Even when recommended by people who know what they are talking about, they provide very little information per unit time spent watching them.> > > And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is. > > The wingspan of the aircraft would seem to be part of the question. I can imagine that dihedral angle would come into it too. > > NO, the wingspan IS NOT part of the equation - it is pure physics. Can you be that STUPID??? And the wing dihedral has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turn radius, you fool.So you know enough to tell me that you didn't like my response, but you still can't come up with the formulas that you claim exist. It seems odd that wing span doesn't come into turn radius. The difference in air-speed from on end of the wing to the other does depend on how far they are apart.> > If you'd posted a link to the formulas, that kind of detail would probably have been mentioned. > > I already did, but you were too stupid to notice.So post the link again.> > https://skybrary.aero/articles/radius-turn > > > > is probably what you had in mind, but it doesn't include any formula and is - in fact - a diabolically poor exposition. > > Your reference says NOTHING quantitatively - try again Bozo. You are the one demanding quantities!And you aren't producing them. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●November 7, 20222022-11-07
On 11/6/22 23:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:>> NO, the wingspan IS NOT part of the equation - it is pure physics. >> Can you be that STUPID??? And the wing dihedral has ABSOLUTELY >> NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turn radius, you fool. > So you know enough to tell me that you didn't like my response, but > you still can't come up with the formulas that you claim exist. > > It seems odd that wing span doesn't come into turn radius. The > difference in air-speed from on end of the wing to the other does > depend on how far they are apart.4:32 into the video, it explicitly says that wing length is a factor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhoOwKM7pOA I don't know what unaccounted-for "thing" Flyspeck doesn't want to reveal. Typically, you'd want to add power in a tight turn, and gliders don't have it to add.
Reply by ●November 8, 20222022-11-08
On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 11:23:34 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 3:59:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:05:46 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > A tail gust certainly CAN and sometimes DOES stall a glider. Being flown close to stall speed to being with, a tail gust effectively reduces the airspeed to below the stall speed. Really, this involves the critical angle of attack, which is over the head of the readers of this newsgroup, so I won't discuss it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's complicated about the critical angle of attack? I learned about it as a kid when I was making and flying model aircraft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack > > > > > > > > > > > > Answer: there is NOTHING complicated about angle of attack, fool. > > > > > > > > > But you didn't feel able to talk about it any kind of detail, which makes you the fool here. > > > > > > > > Hardly. I know my audience, unlike you, which non-pilots, just like you. > > > > > > Gantguy does enjoy his self-servng delusions. > > > > Clearly, you DO NOT know your audience, EVEN YOURSELF! > More complacent delusions. I've been posting here for more than twenty years. > > > > You can't see angle of attack, but people understand speed, or the lack of it. ALL wings stall when the critical AOA is exceeded, which can occur at any airspeed. Probably something you haven't thought about. > > > > > Of course you can see angle of attack. It would help if you could see the boundary layer separating from the top of the airfoil, which does happen when the angle of attack gets too high, but any respectable mental model of what's going on will include that. > > > > No, the FUCK YOU CAN'T!!! The ONLY way of visualizing it is in a wind tunnel with smoke streams - then it is clearly visible. When I am flying it is NOT in a wind tunnel and there are NO smoke streams. Honestly, Bozo, your IGNORANCE knows NO BOUNDS!! > Gnatguy can't visualise anything without his helpful smokes streams. I worked a vortex-shedding flow meter for a while, and didn't any visual aids to recognise a > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_vortex_street > > <snip> > > > > > A thermal bubble is actually a vortex ring, so you are talking nonsense, as you make clear by admitting that any bank angle makes your sink rate worse. > > > > > > > > > Thermal bubbles are NOT usable lift, being so transitory. But you would have no way of knowing that, not being a glider pilot. > > > > > > A thermal bubble is one of stream of vortices being shed by an area of hot ground. > > > > You don't know WTF you are talking about - you have NEVER been in a glider and have NEVER thermalled. You are just a stream of IGNORANCE!! > > This is what you are writing off as a stream of ignorance. > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > I did post it earlier in this thread, but presumably you were much too self-confident to pay any attention. > > > > In fact, they can be distracting, making you think that they are a real thermal and trick you into making a circle or two before you realize that it is a bubble. > > > > > > There's as bubble - vortex ring - above you, and another one below you, and you are in between. If you were dumb enough not to know that you'd miss out. > > > > No, it is YOU that are TOO DUMB to know how ignorant you are!!!! > > Gnatguy does like making that kind of claim. He doesn't realise quite how funny they are. > > > > A real thermal is EXACTLY as I described because the conservation of momentum requires an equal amount of descending air that occurs immediately outside of the thermal. > > > > > Gantguy tells us half the story, and thinks that he's demonstrated that he knows what going on. > > > > You just continue EMBARASSING yourself with such IGNORANT statements! Do you think ANYBODY (excepting, perhaps, Decadent Linux User Numero Uno) gives you an ounce of credibility? > > Gantguy's extreme ignorance is coupled with a matching level of over-confidence. > > > >The interface between them slows down the ascending air mass, making the interior of the thermal rise faster. So, Bozo, it is YOU that is talking nonsense, which is understandable because you know NOTHING about the topic. I, on the other hand, have been flying gliders for over forty years. > > > > > > And learned very little, most of which you seem to have forgotten. > > > > I have FORGOTTEN more than you will EVER KNOW. > I'm sure that you like to think that. You certainly don't seem to know much now. > > > > > > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > puts the typical diameter of a thermal at about 1000 feet, which doesn't sound all that tight. > > > > > > > > > > > > As said by a non-glider pilot. To circle with a diameter less than 1000 feet requires a 45 degree bank angle close to stall speed. Try looking up turn radius vs speed. > > > > > > > > > Why bother. You can't do quantitative argument,and you ignore detailed numbers when they are thrown at you. How much less than my 1000 foot diameter circle requires a 45 degree bank angle? > > > > > > > > Certainly in the range of 700 to 800 feet. You can see it for yourself on the Youtube video I provided. > > > A Youtube video is an quantitative argument? > > > > You haven't even watched it. > I rarely do. Even when recommended by people who know what they are talking about, they provide very little information per unit time spent watching them. > > > > And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is. > > > The wingspan of the aircraft would seem to be part of the question. I can imagine that dihedral angle would come into it too. > > > > NO, the wingspan IS NOT part of the equation - it is pure physics. Can you be that STUPID??? And the wing dihedral has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turn radius, you fool. > > So you know enough to tell me that you didn't like my response, but you still can't come up with the formulas that you claim exist. > > It seems odd that wing span doesn't come into turn radius. The difference in air-speed from on end of the wing to the other does depend on how far they are apart. > > > If you'd posted a link to the formulas, that kind of detail would probably have been mentioned. > > > > I already did, but you were too stupid to notice. > So post the link again.No Bozo, the link IS in my previous post - go review it.> > > https://skybrary.aero/articles/radius-turn > > > > > > is probably what you had in mind, but it doesn't include any formula and is - in fact - a diabolically poor exposition. > > > > Your reference says NOTHING quantitatively - try again Bozo. You are the one demanding quantities! > And you aren't producing them.YOU are the one that want's it - YOU produce it.
Reply by ●November 8, 20222022-11-08
On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 12:02:02 PM UTC-8, corvid wrote:> On 11/6/22 23:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote: > >> NO, the wingspan IS NOT part of the equation - it is pure physics. > >> Can you be that STUPID??? And the wing dihedral has ABSOLUTELY > >> NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turn radius, you fool. > > So you know enough to tell me that you didn't like my response, but > > you still can't come up with the formulas that you claim exist. > > > > It seems odd that wing span doesn't come into turn radius. The > > difference in air-speed from on end of the wing to the other does > > depend on how far they are apart. > 4:32 into the video, it explicitly says that wing length is a factor. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhoOwKM7pOA > > I don't know what unaccounted-for "thing" Flyspeck doesn't want to > reveal. Typically, you'd want to add power in a tight turn, and gliders > don't have it to add.Sorry, but your ignorance is showing. He was talking about the difference in wing tip speeds, NOT the radius of the turn. Pay better attention next time. I will give you credit for actually WATCHING the video, however, unlike Bozo.
Reply by ●November 8, 20222022-11-08
On Tuesday, November 8, 2022 at 5:12:40 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 11:23:34 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 3:59:07 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:50:19 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > On Monday, November 7, 2022 at 8:05:46 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, November 5, 2022 at 11:03:25 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, November 6, 2022 at 4:49:04 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 2:58:07 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, November 4, 2022 at 4:18:21 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, November 3, 2022 at 12:04:47 PM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 11/3/22 08:28, Flyguy wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >> On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 12:15:51 PM UTC+11, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>> On 11/1/22 15:14, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>> corvid <b...@ckb.ird> wrote in news:tjn2j0$7te$1...@gioia.aioe.org: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> On 10/30/22 12:11, Flyspeck wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> On Sunday, October 30, 2022 at 11:38:36 AM UTC-7, corvid wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> On 10/30/22 09:32, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > > > > A tail gust certainly CAN and sometimes DOES stall a glider. Being flown close to stall speed to being with, a tail gust effectively reduces the airspeed to below the stall speed. Really, this involves the critical angle of attack, which is over the head of the readers of this newsgroup, so I won't discuss it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What's complicated about the critical angle of attack? I learned about it as a kid when I was making and flying model aircraft. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_attack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Answer: there is NOTHING complicated about angle of attack, fool. > > > > > > > > > > > But you didn't feel able to talk about it any kind of detail, which makes you the fool here. > > > > > > > > > > Hardly. I know my audience, unlike you, which non-pilots, just like you. > > > > > > > > Gantguy does enjoy his self-servng delusions. > > > > > > Clearly, you DO NOT know your audience, EVEN YOURSELF! > > > > More complacent delusions. I've been posting here for more than twenty years. > > > > > > > You can't see angle of attack, but people understand speed, or the lack of it. ALL wings stall when the critical AOA is exceeded, which can occur at any airspeed. Probably something you haven't thought about. > > > > > > > Of course you can see angle of attack. It would help if you could see the boundary layer separating from the top of the airfoil, which does happen when the angle of attack gets too high, but any respectable mental model of what's going on will include that. > > > > > > No, the FUCK YOU CAN'T!!! The ONLY way of visualizing it is in a wind tunnel with smoke streams - then it is clearly visible. When I am flying it is NOT in a wind tunnel and there are NO smoke streams. Honestly, Bozo, your IGNORANCE knows NO BOUNDS!! > > > > Gnatguy can't visualise anything without his helpful smokes streams. I worked a vortex-shedding flow meter for a while, and didn't any visual aids to recognise a > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rm%C3%A1n_vortex_street > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > A thermal bubble is actually a vortex ring, so you are talking nonsense, as you make clear by admitting that any bank angle makes your sink rate worse. > > > > > > > > > > > Thermal bubbles are NOT usable lift, being so transitory. But you would have no way of knowing that, not being a glider pilot. > > > > > > > > A thermal bubble is one of stream of vortices being shed by an area of hot ground. > > > > > > You don't know WTF you are talking about - you have NEVER been in a glider and have NEVER thermalled. You are just a stream of IGNORANCE!! > > > > This is what you are writing off as a stream of ignorance. > > > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > I did post it earlier in this thread, but presumably you were much too self-confident to pay any attention. > > > > > > > In fact, they can be distracting, making you think that they are a real thermal and trick you into making a circle or two before you realize that it is a bubble. > > > > > > > > There's as bubble - vortex ring - above you, and another one below you, and you are in between. If you were dumb enough not to know that you'd miss out. > > > > > > No, it is YOU that are TOO DUMB to know how ignorant you are!!!! > > > > Gnatguy does like making that kind of claim. He doesn't realise quite how funny they are. > > > > > > > A real thermal is EXACTLY as I described because the conservation of momentum requires an equal amount of descending air that occurs immediately outside of the thermal. > > > > > > > Gantguy tells us half the story, and thinks that he's demonstrated that he knows what going on. > > > > > > You just continue EMBARASSING yourself with such IGNORANT statements! Do you think ANYBODY (excepting, perhaps, Decadent Linux User Numero Uno) gives you an ounce of credibility? > > > > Gantguy's extreme ignorance is coupled with a matching level of over-confidence. > > > > > > >The interface between them slows down the ascending air mass, making the interior of the thermal rise faster. So, Bozo, it is YOU that is talking nonsense, which is understandable because you know NOTHING about the topic. I, on the other hand, have been flying gliders for over forty years. > > > > > > > > And learned very little, most of which you seem to have forgotten. > > > > > > I have FORGOTTEN more than you will EVER KNOW. > > > > I'm sure that you like to think that. You certainly don't seem to know much now. > > > > > > > > > > https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/glider_handbook/media/gfh_ch09.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > puts the typical diameter of a thermal at about 1000 feet, which doesn't sound all that tight. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As said by a non-glider pilot. To circle with a diameter less than 1000 feet requires a 45 degree bank angle close to stall speed. Try looking up turn radius vs speed. > > > > > > > > > > > Why bother. You can't do quantitative argument,and you ignore detailed numbers when they are thrown at you. How much less than my 1000 foot diameter circle requires a 45 degree bank angle? > > > > > > > > > > Certainly in the range of 700 to 800 feet. You can see it for yourself on the Youtube video I provided. > > > > > > > > A Youtube video is an quantitative argument? > > > > > > You haven't even watched it. > > > > I rarely do. Even when recommended by people who know what they are talking about, they provide very little information per unit time spent watching them. > > > > > > > And there ARE formulas for calculating turn radius vs airspeed. There is one thing they don't take into account, however, and I wonder if you can figure out what that is. > > > > The wingspan of the aircraft would seem to be part of the question. I can imagine that dihedral angle would come into it too. > > > > > > NO, the wingspan IS NOT part of the equation - it is pure physics. Can you be that STUPID??? And the wing dihedral has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with turn radius, you fool. > > > > So you know enough to tell me that you didn't like my response, but you still can't come up with the formulas that you claim exist. > > > > It seems odd that wing span doesn't come into turn radius. The difference in air-speed from on end of the wing to the other does depend on how far they are apart. > > > > > > If you'd posted a link to the formulas, that kind of detail would probably have been mentioned. > > > > > > I already did, but you were too stupid to notice. > > > > So post the link again. > > No Bozo, the link IS in my previous post - go review it.You may think so. You make that kind of claim at regular intervals. and most of them are mistaken. I'm to going to waste my time/\> > > > https://skybrary.aero/articles/radius-turn > > > > > > > > is probably what you had in mind, but it doesn't include any formula and is - in fact - a diabolically poor exposition. > > > > > > Your reference says NOTHING quantitatively - try again. You are the one demanding quantities! > > > > And you aren't producing them. > > YOU are the one that want's it - YOU produce it.And if I did you'd tell me that they weren't the quantities you had in mind. Not that anybody here thinks that you have a mind. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
