JC

"J. Clarke"

28/01/2011 3:31 PM

Re: O.T. Euphemism runs amok.

OK, Robatoy, tell us of case in which an aircraft at a given angle of attack stalls at one airspeed but not at another.

What is becoming clear is that you do not know the difference between angle of attack and flight path angle.


This topic has 5 replies

Cc

"CW"

in reply to "J. Clarke" on 28/01/2011 3:31 PM

28/01/2011 5:35 PM


"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:beac1c71-6764-4a83-919f-233b5b03c4ef@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...


What is very clear to me J is that you changed something to avoid my (and
probably many other's) bozo bin.

Rc

Robatoy

in reply to "J. Clarke" on 28/01/2011 3:31 PM

31/01/2011 9:22 PM

On Jan 31, 11:40=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbell.dotnet says...
>
>
>
> > "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:beac1c71-6764-4a83-919f-233b5b03c4ef@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegrou=
ps.com...
>
> > > What is very clear to me J is that you changed something to avoid my =
(and
> > > probably many other's) bozo bin.
>
> > He does that so he can get into more arguements. =A0 Her we go again!
>
> Nope, I posted from my gmail account so I could see Robatwit's post.

Robatwit... how original Did you make that one up all by
yourself?...Is that why it took you so long to reply?

Rc

Robatoy

in reply to "J. Clarke" on 28/01/2011 3:31 PM

28/01/2011 3:56 PM

On Jan 28, 6:31=A0pm, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
> OK, Robatoy, tell us of case in which an aircraft at a given angle of att=
ack stalls at one airspeed but not at another.
>
> What is becoming clear is that you do not know the difference between ang=
le of attack and flight path angle.

You wrote:

"Stall warning works by angle of attack, not by airspeed. Angle of
attack was never unusual."

NO mention of flight path angle.
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.
That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?

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.

JC

"J. Clarke"

in reply to "J. Clarke" on 28/01/2011 3:31 PM

31/01/2011 11:40 PM

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...
>
> "CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:beac1c71-6764-4a83-919f-233b5b03c4ef@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > What is very clear to me J is that you changed something to avoid my (and
> > probably many other's) bozo bin.
> >
>
> He does that so he can get into more arguements. Her we go again!

Nope, I posted from my gmail account so I could see Robatwit's post.

Ll

"Leon"

in reply to "J. Clarke" on 28/01/2011 3:31 PM

31/01/2011 8:22 PM


"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:beac1c71-6764-4a83-919f-233b5b03c4ef@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> What is very clear to me J is that you changed something to avoid my (and
> probably many other's) bozo bin.
>

He does that so he can get into more arguements. Her we go again!


You’ve reached the end of replies