Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums > >

Technical Technical aspects of flying

 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums

    Already registered? Login above

OR
 
To take advantage of all the site's features, become a member of
the largest community of airline pilots in the U.S. and beyond.

The advertising to the left will not show if you are a registered user.

Join the Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-02-2017, 03:07 PM   #51
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 51
Default

Beaker, it is true that the original poster asked an academic, hypothetical question. And you gave an answer that is somewhat technically correct under a certain set of circumstanstances that may or may not have been implied by the question. But the issue is that the technically correct answer is dangerously wrong when applied in an operational sense - like a drug that seemed simple and effective in the lab but have life threatening interactions in the real world. This is the reason your responses makes everyone's hair stand up on their backs. And the fact that it dosent for you, or it does, and you didn't feel responsible enough to dilute your answer with an accompanying disclaimer highlighting how this could be dangerously misleading in the real world - just gives the impression that either you don't have much real world experience, or that you just don't care.

You kinda sound like these 3 examples- you just need to add the bit at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/AK3gB7DpaM0

Last edited by flyingchicken; 01-02-2017 at 03:19 PM.
flyingchicken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 10:26 AM   #52
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyingchicken View Post
Beaker, it is true that the original poster asked an academic, hypothetical question. And you gave an answer that is somewhat technically correct under a certain set of circumstanstances that may or may not have been implied by the question. But the issue is that the technically correct answer is dangerously wrong when applied in an operational sense
With respect flying chicken, my original response was a neutral response, that made no operational suggestions whatsoever. I must admit to have been taken aback by the response, so I actually suggested leaving the discussion, it was your kind self that invited me to stay for a technical discussion.

But in all seriousness, you acknowledge my reply was under a certain set of circumstances technically correct, or a least somewhat...
If may paraphrase what you have just said. Thank you!

On the issue of safety, having taught people of wide backgrounds, I do understand the importance of having a mental model which when called upon will support making the right decision. The fact the mental model may be technically incorrect is less important and sometimes more appropriate so long as it supports making the right decision.

However this is not a flight instruction forum? I thought it might be a place where professionals might discuss technical issues, with a certain maturity.
Perhaps I made another mistake

I had started a post with an attempt to provide a better explanation of the inverse advance ratio versus thrust/torque graph posted (figure 4), in your previous post it was not clear to me if you had understood it fully, apologies if you did. I shall refrain unless someone wants to continue the discussion.
Captain Beaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 11:42 AM   #53
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,661
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Beaker View Post
Perhaps I made another
It wouldnt be difficult. Nothing you've stated thus far has been correct.
JohnBurke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 01:58 PM   #54
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Guppy Capt
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Beaker View Post
I thought it might be a place where professionals might discuss technical issues, with a certain maturity.
People have honestly tried. Your information is simply incorrect, yet you continue to argue. What you are seeing is their frustration. Arguing with the Flat Earth Society gets tiresome.
Freight Dawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 04:04 PM   #55
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jul 2016
Posts: 24
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freight Dawg View Post
People have honestly tried. Your information is simply incorrect, yet you continue to argue. What you are seeing is their frustration. Arguing with the Flat Earth Society gets tiresome.
Only FlyingChicken directly addressed the research reports. Perhaps authors EDWIN P. HARTMAN and Peter Sprunger are simply incorrect too... But never mind, I will refrain from posting, unless asked.

From the OP
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuggyU2 View Post
And that will explain it without formulas that take up 7 pages. I'd like something that can be understood by a History major.
A windmilling propeller regardless of type,shape, pitch or whatever, creates significantly more drag than the same stationary feathered propeller (sic), there is NO EXCEPTION. That's the simple and correct answer, if anything there is total agreement on this point.
Captain Beaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2017, 08:01 PM   #56
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2012
Position: Guppy Capt
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Beaker View Post
A windmilling propeller regardless of type,shape, pitch or whatever, creates significantly more drag than the same stationary feathered propeller (sic), there is NO EXCEPTION. That's the simple and correct answer, if anything there is total agreement on this point.

You're a piece of work.....
Freight Dawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 11:43 AM   #57
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
HuggyU2's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2008
Position: Desk
Posts: 747
Default

OK, OK...
I never imagined this would turn into 6 pages when I asked.
Thanks for the replies.
HuggyU2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2017, 12:38 PM   #58
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 147
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Beaker View Post
But never mind, I will refrain from posting, unless asked.

This is the smartest thing you've said so far.
dontcare4U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 08:28 PM   #59
New Hire
 
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 2
Default

Just my .02: All multi AC have a published VMC (the blue line). This is determined by the manufacturer during the most unfavorable conditions ie windmilling propeller of the critical engine ect. This is not disputable........
AtPcFiAnPiA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2017, 08:41 PM   #60
Gets Every Day Off
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 3,362
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtPcFiAnPiA View Post
This is not disputable........
Welcome to APC, where everything is disputable.
tomgoodman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CRJ or ERJ or Prop? Dark Knight Technical 34 07-31-2009 09:06 AM
Dead stick takeoff and landing usmc-sgt Hangar Talk 11 08-28-2008 09:33 AM
Jet or Prop? xjtr Regional 15 05-15-2007 10:13 AM
How does a constant speed prop work? bigtime209 Hangar Talk 3 02-07-2007 08:10 AM
Turbo Prop VS. Turbo Jets CaptainTeezy Regional 32 01-12-2007 10:28 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:10 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.0, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
Copyright 2000 - 2012 Internet Brands, Inc.