Originally Posted by flyingchicken
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.