"NO mention of flight path angle."
What of it? You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s climbing=
vertically and when called on it you got pissy.
"I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
previous statement."
What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? And if you believe it t=
o be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.
"That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?"
The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with altitude. H=
owever the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight will achieve that =
angle of attack does change with altitude. If by "stall specs" you mean th=
e stall speed you are correct that it changes with altitude, but stall spee=
d is calculated from angle of attack and then verified by test.
Find a copy of "Theory of Wing Sections" and read through it and you'll end=
up with a much, much better understanding of stall. If you don't have an =
engineering or physics background though it's going to be a tough slog.
"In real time, we'd probably enjoy a few pints and get along just fine,
but in here you have to stop treating people like they're stupid."
Unlikely in the extreme--I'd have to leave early while I was still sober en=
ough to resist the urge to throttle you.
On Jan 31, 11:40=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> No. =A0If you are maintaining constant airspeed
STOP right here....
You mean... that if you change airspeed, things change?
And here *I* thought you said it was strictly a function of Angle Of
Attack... oh wait.. you DID say that....
.
.
.
sucks to be wrong, eh John?
"Robatoy" wrote:
>And I never disputed that.
What made me respond, is Clark's faux-authorative arrogant
assertiveness when he tosses out a statement which in itself is
incomplete.
He sure-as-hell would be all over somebody else were they to make an
incomplete statement like that.
...besides, I like jerking the asshole's chain. <G>
----------------------------------
You know you will have arrived when you force him to put you in his
kill file.
It takes a while, but worth the effort.
Lew
On Jan 30, 2:17=A0pm, "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>
>
> > Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
> > shows in almost all of your posts.
> > That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
> > Sad, really. Sad to the core.
>
> =A0All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is co=
rrect
> about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.
>
And I never disputed that.
What made me respond, is Clark's faux-authorative arrogant
assertiveness when he tosses out a statement which in itself is
incomplete.
He sure-as-hell would be all over somebody else were they to make an
incomplete statement like that.
...besides, I like jerking the asshole's chain. <G>
On Jan 30, 4:43=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Robatoy" wrote:
> >And I never disputed that.
>
> What made me respond, is Clark's faux-authorative arrogant
> assertiveness when he tosses out a statement which in itself is
> incomplete.
> He sure-as-hell would be all over somebody else were they to make an
> incomplete statement like that.
> ...besides, I like jerking the asshole's chain. <G>
> ----------------------------------
> You know you will have arrived when you force him to put you in his
> kill file.
>
> It takes a while, but worth the effort.
>
> Lew
:-)
On Jan 30, 2:17=A0pm, "Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
> picture and are related
...and this is different from what I said..how?
On Jan 31, 6:13=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > "NO mention of flight path angle."
>
> > What of it? =A0You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
> > climbing vertically and when called on it you got pissy.
>
> > "I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
> > in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
> > previous statement."
>
> > What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? =A0And if you
> > believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.
>
> > "That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
> > stall specs change with altitude?"
>
> > The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
> > altitude. =A0However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight
> > will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. =A0If by
> > "stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
> > changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
> > attack and then verified by test.
>
> Said another way:
>
> The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. The
> mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.
>
> As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle of
> attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while the
> aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given angle=
of
> attack, a stall will occur.
Soooo if air is thinner a stall would occur at a shallower angle or
lower airspeed? (trick question)
In article <[email protected]>, markem618
@hotmail.com says...
>
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:17:50 -0500, "Morgans"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
> >>
> >> Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
> >> shows in almost all of your posts.
> >> That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
> >> Sad, really. Sad to the core.
> >
> > All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is correct
> >about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.
> >
> >Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
> >picture and are related, but fact is that an angle of attack indicator is
> >what will tell you when the wing is going to or has already stall.
> >
> >That is one reason all modern airliners and heavy transports have a couple
> >of them on the side of their fuselages.
>
> When I was flying the best stall indicator was my ass in the seat, it
> went off before the audible stall indicator ever did. That is why you
> practice at altitude.
Yep, in many aircraft under many circumstances you can feel it coming.
However when there's half a kiloton of ammunition in the back and you're
coming into a short field with zero-zero visibility you want all the
help you can get.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > "NO mention of flight path angle."
> >
> > What of it? You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
> > climbing vertically and when called on it you got pissy.
> >
> > "I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
> > in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
> > previous statement."
> >
> > What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? And if you
> > believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.
> >
> > "That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
> > stall specs change with altitude?"
> >
> > The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
> > altitude. However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight
> > will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. If by
> > "stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
> > changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
> > attack and then verified by test.
>
>
> Said another way:
>
> The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. The
> mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.
>
> As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle of
> attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while the
> aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given angle of
> attack, a stall will occur.
No. If you are maintaining constant airspeed there is some altitude at
which for any given angle of attack the aircraft will be unable to
sustain level flight, however this is not a stall. A stall occurs when
flow detaches from the upper surface of the wing and further increases
in angle of attack result in less rather than more lift. And this
occurs at a specific angle of attack.
J. Clarke wrote:
> "NO mention of flight path angle."
>
> What of it? You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
> climbing vertically and when called on it you got pissy.
>
> "I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
> in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
> previous statement."
>
> What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? And if you
> believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.
>
> "That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
> stall specs change with altitude?"
>
> The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
> altitude. However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight
> will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. If by
> "stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
> changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
> attack and then verified by test.
Said another way:
The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. The
mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.
As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle of
attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while the
aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given angle of
attack, a stall will occur.
> On Jan 29, 10:17=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "In real time, we'd probably enjoy a few pints and get along just fine,
> > but in here you have to stop treating people like they're stupid."
Oh, and don't e-mail me behind the curtain... only my friends are
welcome to do that.
You're pathetic.
On Jan 29, 10:17=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "In real time, we'd probably enjoy a few pints and get along just fine,
> but in here you have to stop treating people like they're stupid."
>
> Unlikely in the extreme--I'd have to leave early while I was still sober =
enough to resist the urge to throttle you.
Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
shows in almost all of your posts.
That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
Sad, really. Sad to the core. (Boy, you really don't like it when
somebody points out your mistakes, eh?)
Oh.. and an attempt at throttling me would be a task which would
result in an unexpected reaction .. to the extreme.
On Jan 31, 11:40=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > J. Clarke wrote:
> > > "NO mention of flight path angle."
>
> > > What of it? =A0You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
> > > climbing vertically and when called on it you got pissy.
>
> > > "I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
> > > in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
> > > previous statement."
>
> > > What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? =A0And if you
> > > believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.
>
> > > "That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
> > > stall specs change with altitude?"
>
> > > The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
> > > altitude. =A0However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level fligh=
t
> > > will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. =A0If by
> > > "stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
> > > changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
> > > attack and then verified by test.
>
> > Said another way:
>
> > The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. Th=
e
> > mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.
>
> > As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle =
of
> > attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while th=
e
> > aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given ang=
le of
> > attack, a stall will occur.
>
> No. =A0If you are maintaining constant airspeed there is some altitude at
> which for any given angle of attack the aircraft will be unable to
> sustain level flight, however this is not a stall. =A0A stall occurs when
> flow detaches from the upper surface of the wing and further increases
> in angle of attack result in less rather than more lift. =A0And this
> occurs at a specific angle of attack.
http://tinyurl.com/4jcbswu
...then you can tell the class what the white segment of the airspeed
indicator means...
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:17:50 -0500, "Morgans"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
>> shows in almost all of your posts.
>> That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
>> Sad, really. Sad to the core.
>
> All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is correct
>about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.
>
>Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
>picture and are related, but fact is that an angle of attack indicator is
>what will tell you when the wing is going to or has already stall.
>
>That is one reason all modern airliners and heavy transports have a couple
>of them on the side of their fuselages.
When I was flying the best stall indicator was my ass in the seat, it
went off before the audible stall indicator ever did. That is why you
practice at altitude.
Mark
"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
> shows in almost all of your posts.
> That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
> Sad, really. Sad to the core.
All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is correct
about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.
Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
picture and are related, but fact is that an angle of attack indicator is
what will tell you when the wing is going to or has already stall.
That is one reason all modern airliners and heavy transports have a couple
of them on the side of their fuselages.
--
Jim in NC