Text 8233, 95 rader
Skriven 2008-11-11 20:55:00 av Bob Klahn (1:124/311)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Excellent summation
===========================
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC> The Navy report concluded that he failed to "maintain an
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC> airspeed above the stall speed" while he was turning.  My
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC> mistake was in taking that to mean that he dropped the
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC> engine speed down to the point that it stalled.  The more
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC> detailed stories seem to indicate that the turn rubbed off
~>> ~>> ~>>  EC> airspeed that was not compensated for, resulting in the

~>> ~>>  ~>>  Not necessarily so.

~>> ~>>  EC> Since they did not say that it was "necessarily" so but
~>> ~>>  EC> only that it was so, your comment is meaningless.

~>>  EC> The relevant "portion" was the quote from the Navy report.
~>>  EC> Your "not necessarily so" was a hypothetical generality
~>>  EC> that had nothing to do with the specific instance, and that

~>>  As you can see the "not necessarily so" referred to the fact
~>>  that the air speed did not have to be reduced in the turn for
~>>  the lift to be reduced.

 EC> Once again you completely miss the point of everything that
 EC> went before in the thread.  The report did not say it "had
 EC> to" be reduced.  It said it was reduced.  You would have

 No, it did not. Read it again. You posted that, try to read it.
 The report did not say his air speed was reduced. It says he
 failed to maintain an airspeed above the stall speed. If the
 stall speed was 200MPH, and he was flying 220MPH, then the stall
 speed increased to 230MPH when he went into the turn, he either
 *INCREASED* his speed above 230MPH or he stalled. That is how
 stall speeds work.

 So, without reducing his air speed one MPH he still failed to
 maintain an airspeed above the stall speed.

 I should have explained this more fully to begin with, as you
 obviously are not familiar with basic aerodynamics.

 EC> known that if you had read the post that you
 EC> pseudo-responded to.

 I know what the post said, and I know how airspeed can be
 maintained, while *SUFFICIENT* airspeed is not maintained.

 It has been something like 40 years since I flew an airplane,
 but I do remember that much.

~>>  EC> would have drawn a report concluding that he "failed to
~>>  EC> increase" as opposed to "failed to maintain."  If you don't

 To maintain airspeed above the stall speed he would have had to
 increase his airspeed. That report was written for those
 familiar with the basics of aerodynamics. You obviously are not,
 so consult with someone who is, some local flight instructor or
 experienced pilot, before you post more nonsense.

~>>  The report did not say he
~>>  did not maintain his airspeed, it said he failed to maintain
~>>  an air speed above the stall speed.

 EC> It said he failed to maintain airspeed.  You want to

 Now that is just plain dumb. You posted it. Your post is at the
 top of this msg. It says he did not maintain airspeed above the
 stall speed. As I explained above, anyone familiar with basic
 aerodynamics understands that does not have to mean he reduced
 his airspeed, but, in this case, failed to increase it when
 required.

 ...

 EC> pretend that it said he failed to increase airspeed.  Why

 Anyone familiar with the concept of stall speed can understand
 that is exactly what the report was saying. They have spell it
 out for those of you who have no idea what they are talking
 about.

 EC> do you want to pretend that?  Because you are trying in
 EC> vain to defend a losing position.  In fact, in the context
 EC> of the whole thread, you are trying to divert attention
 EC> from a losing position where you repeatedly insisted a news
 EC> story said he LIED.

 No, the news stories said his statements did not jibe with the
 facts. I drew the conclusion he lied. Later I expanded that to
 include the possibility that he may not have lied, he may just
 be stupid.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Somethings that won't hurt you scare you so much you hurt yourself.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)