Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
True enough, but if you've just allowed one of Chairman Mao's precious airplanes to be destroyed and didn't go down with your ship, your courage (and your political reliability) are suspect, your nine lives are all expended, and you almost certainly have an appointment with a firing squad. Might as well go down swinging! Failure in combat is a crime against the people, a crime against the state, and a crime against your comrades.Punching political officers (probably the same one as the intelligence officer) in the nose is probably a good idea, but also likely to be a career (or life) limiting move. Any fighter pilot should know that a swept-wing jet will not be able to hang with a straight-wing prop, regardless of what the intelligence officer is or isn't saying. Trying to hang with a Gladiator in a FW190 would be a similar error in judgement.
Any fighter pilot should know that a swept-wing jet will not be able to hang with a straight-wing prop, regardless of what the intelligence officer is or isn't saying. Trying to hang with a Gladiator in a FW190 would be a similar error in judgement.
Oh, I thought it was during...Zipper730, i'm the one who brought up the fact that A1's had shot down some Lavochkins AFTER the Korean war, exactly what model Lavochkin nobody knew at the time. La5, 7, 9 11, ?
OkI'm the one that brought La? verses A1 up
Not at all, there were many cases where aircraft used the vertical plane or some combination of the vertical and horizontal, as well as exploited a lucky opportunity.I suspect Zipper equates a kill with getting inside your victim.
Actually, my questions start out with "which could turn better" and then it turns into a discussion about mathematics, at which point I press the issue further and get called McNamara, or told I need to learn a thing or two *rolls eyes* -- well duh! If I knew why the hell would I ask the question?Zipper has earned the callsign "McNamara" for his obsession with mathematizing everything.
Well with the MiG-17 or two that got bagged, I should point out that the North Vietnamese were not the most skilled pilots early on. Some of them would try and turn with it rather than use the vertical, and make slashing attacks.As for the Skyraider's Mig victims, they should go punch their intelligence officer in the nose for not warning them of the rattlesnake nature of their opponent. "Know thine enemy!"
So the angle of thrust reduces effective thrust compared to flying straight at low speed at 1g; and the increase in AoA producing greater drag?Plus the slower the airspeed the more angle of attack it takes to stay up, so the more the thrust line diverges from the flight path. Only the flight path component of the thrust vector is useful propulsion.
So, the blades are sort of in a position that is progressively less ideal as the AoA increases? Is there any connection with this and p-factor (I ask because they both revolve around propeller blades at AoA that vary).Also, the greater the angle of the prop shaft to the relative wind, the more variation there is in propeller blade AOA around the propeller disc. Thus at only two positions in the propeller disc are the blades operating at the optimum AOA that the governor is seeking. Everywhere else around the disc the AOA is greater or less than optimum.
I misunderstood, I figured as AoA increased the CL goes up, so I figured he somehow wrote it backwards. My question was intended to clarify.Jees, man, get a clue! DrGondog knows his stuff and explained it in plain English, then you turn it around and get it back-to-front!
So you're producing lift sideways and upwards? Is coefficient of lift related to pressure differential?The greatest CLmax occurs in straight-and-level flight, 1G, minimum airspeed: your basic power-off stall. In an accelerated stall such as you might encounter in a combat turn the aircraft's lift vector is near 90 degrees to the force of gravity
So accelerated stalls occur at lower AoA too?for all the reasons quoted by DrGondog, the (rather violent) stall break occurs long before the straight-and-level power-off CLmax is reached.
Snap roll...If there's the slightest assymetry in airflow, one wing stalls a split second before the other, and the plane stalls with a neck-wrenching helmet-bashing corkscrew motion.
OkayThose PROC pilots weren't undertrained, they were underproficient due to their degraded physical condition and insufficient monthly flying time to stay sharp.
I didn't intend to get it wrong.Drgondog (Bill) stated the facts. He is correct. No use trying to turn it around somehow and getting it wrong in other words.
I screwed up that onePeople have been shot down because they were weary and sleepy.
No, but I'm taking a look at itHey Zipper,
Do you know how to draw a vector diagram?
I can actually visualize that in my head...Look it up if you don't, then draw a side view of an airplane in a fifteen degrees nose up attitude.
Yeah the thrust is pointing 15-degrees down so basically 5/6 of it is pushing forward and the other 1/6 is pushing down at an angle.Assume it's flight path is horizontal. Now draw the vector diagram of its thrust with its horizontal and vertical components. You'll see what I mean. The steeper the pitch attitude the smaller the portion of the total effective thrust there is acting along the flight path.
So could I put in a hypothetical bank angle that corresponds to a g-load I know (i.e. 60-degrees) for the purpose of getting the hang of the diagram, and make up a specified weight (15,000 pounds sounds good for now)? If so, I got 33,541 for the hypoteneuse, and for weight that gives me a g-load of 2.2361 rounded off. Is that the point, that you'll stall earlier than expected in level flight because the g-load is higher than it "should" be?Now draw a head-on view of a plane in an eighty degree bank and draw in the lift vector. That skinny little vertical component is all that's holding you up. Now if you make that vertical component equal to the weight of the plane, the horizontal component is turning force ACCELERATING the plane away from its original straight course, and the lift vector (hypotenuse) is the G load on the plane.
Neither seems exceedingly expensive...[/quote][/quote]Now go read "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and "Fly the Wing". Both are old standbys and the technowonks will say they're outdated and over simplified, but they'll give you a good start.
Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper.
....
Wait! This post is as long yours above!
Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...
It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there.
So you'd rather I post ten replies on the same thread than one that covers everything?GregP said:Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone
My knowledge of calculus and trig is very little, I can learn like anybody else.If you are conversant in algebra and calculus, Drgondog can and usually does help, but not without limits, especially time limits.
I had no ideaYou may not know he is an author (I have two of his books)
The raw numbers are staggeringis currently researching data on accurate aerial victories in a specific Allied theater of war. NOT an easy task, if you can even collect all the combat reports and missing aircrew reports (MACRs)
As I said, I'm willing to learn.If you are not up on the math, explanations won't make a lot of sense at times, and it might be better to stay qualitative rather than quantitative.
That sounds about right, the obsession with figures, facts, details, concepts.You're not Macnamara because of only math, it's sort of obsession with everything, all at the same time, in ONE thread.
I try to avoid bringing politics into the equation unless it is absolutely necessary to the discussion, as for religion, I'm not really religious, so that's not an issue, and I don't recall ever talking about probiotics.I hope we at LEAST stay away from politics, religion, probiotics, and fluids. Well, maybe aslo ex-wives ...
Good to know, plus I'm a fan of salsaPost as many salsa or beef jerky recipes as you can think of, anytime ... in any thread ... nobody will mind!
Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)
Yeah, I know, I could still squeak by the eye exam and get a Waiver of Demonstrated Ability for a third class medical. My local glider club has been bugging me to come instruct for them. While that might be legal, it wouldn't be safe. Flight physical eye tests can't detect sky blindness. I have a difficult time seeing planes in the air until they're closer than is comfortable. Low contrast targets are practically invisible to me, especially if they have little to no relative motion (as in collision course). Much as I'd like to be flying, it's not the wise thing to do, given the circumstances.there is always ultralights and sport aviation ( if you didn't fail your last med exam )....its all well and good if you can handle low, slow and no fancy maneuvers.
Your long replies are sort of wearing on everyone, Zipper. I can tell from the replies as well as my own initial responses ... before typing and committing social suicide ...
It would help a lot if you'd address one subject at a time, ON THE THREAD TOPIC, and not try to learn the entire war or all of aerodynamic theory in one post that is not about the entire war or aerodynamic theory. Just a suggestion. You are the only person in here who posts such rambling replies that cover 10+ subjects. That should tell you seomthing, right there. If you want to stray, it would help to start a new thread on it. That said, I am guilty of it, too, at times. I think we all are, but not almost every time we post.
Just as an excuse for ME only, coming up with a decent reply sometimes takes thinking and time. For myself, I don't usually have the time or inclination to address 5 - 10 things when looking one ething takes awhile. I have no kids, but wouldn't for them, either. It's like talking with someone who asks, "did you walk to work or bring your lunch?" There's no good reply ...
Maybe slow down, take your time, fit in while staying on-subject and staying reasonably short, and you might find out everything you want to know within a reasonable time, and create some good discussion, all at the same time. That's a good thing. Just saying .... you have some interesting questions, but you choose to throw them all out at the same time in a thread about a narrow subject not related to most of them.
Maybe I am seeing it wrong. If so, I am sorry and apologize.
Cheers to you and keep coming back, maybe a bit more focused on the thread topic. Discussion is a good thing, as I mentioned in a PM. If you are conversant in algebra and calculus, Drgondog can and usually does help, but not without limits, especially time limits. You may not know he is an author (I have two of his books) and is currently researching data on accurate aerial victories in a specific Allied theater of war. NOT an easy task, if you can even collect all the combat reports and missing aircrew reports (MACRs). So, while he isn't exactly the resident teacher of aerodynamics, he provides many explanations that satisfy a lot of folks in here. If you are not up on the math, explanations won't make a lot of sense at times, and it might be better to stay qualitative rather than quantitative. Saves time, too. Bill answers regularly, but not all the time. He has a life away from the internet and research to do as well as writing. Can't publish without writing ... and reviewing. I bet that takes as long as writing or longer!
He almost absolutely WILL give textbook names and authors, for you to buy, read, and absorb. But he'll also know right away that you didn't if you keep asking questions covered in the text. Then, answers get less frequent. Many people SAY they'll get it and don't. In my case, I HAVE often gotten it, and haven't read it yet due to ongoing teaching activities. Makes no difference, but I don't argue about it much anymore. Every time I challenge Drgondog on aeroidynamics, he turns out to be right in the end. I am very glad he isn't a gunfighter. I'd be dead.
FYI, our chief moderator, DerAdler ... etc. was and maybe still IS in military heliicopters. FlyboyJ both flies and is also in aircraft maintenance, including warbirds and Reno race planes (regular race crew). Biff15, not a moderator, was an F-15 pilot until recently. And that's just three guys plus our aeronautical engineer/author/P-51 pilot, Drgondog. You know XBe02Drvr flies , too. There are many others as well as guys so well versed in engines and engine technology as to be scary. You know who they are. They are the ones who reply with meaningful information , and at length. It's hard to stump Wuzak, Shortround5, SwampYankee, MikeWint, and Kutscha, too. Apologies if I missed some, but I AM time-limited, too! A LOT of names, and all good people with good knowledge. Nobody in there wants to answer 20 questions all at once ...
You're not Macnamara because of only math, it's sort of obsession with everything, all at the same time, in ONE thread. But that can easily change, if you will. I hope you try it. We need some good discussion, a bit at a time, since a single subject opens up into others at an alarming rate ... I hope we at LEAST stay away from politics, religion, probiotics, and fluids. Well, maybe aslo ex-wives ...
Post as many salsa or beef jerky recipes as you can think of, anytime ... in any thread ... nobody will mind! They may wonder what it has to DO with anything, but some may at least try it, if it sounds good ...
Hope it is conveyed above, but no insult intended. Trying to help out a little.
Wait! This post is as long yours above! And covers too many off-topic (A-1 Skyraider vs. A-26) subjects, too. OK, I'll shut up now.
Sorry ... rambling. D'oohhhhhhh ....... it's LATE!
View: https://youtu.be/0bceCDG0lXk
Thanks, Greg! (BTW, the "X" in my handle is real. I've been grounded twenty years now.)
Yeah, I know, I could still squeak by the eye exam and get a Waiver of Demonstrated Ability for a third class medical. My local glider club has been bugging me to come instruct for them. While that might be legal, it wouldn't be safe. Flight physical eye tests can't detect sky blindness. I have a difficult time seeing planes in the air until they're closer than is comfortable. Low contrast targets are practically invisible to me, especially if they have little to no relative motion (as in collision course). Much as I'd like to be flying, it's not the wise thing to do, given the circumstances.
Cheers,
Wes