| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 85088 | 2007-11-29 09:40:00 | Controversial poll.. | russell108 (7499) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 616387 | 2007-11-30 07:06:00 | Are you saying that adverse yaw is not a problem on a heavy? That the pilots you know would rather fly an uncoordinated turn once flying? The yaw problem isn't so announced in a heavy . . . cross-wind landings are different, but most turns are gentle and not much yaw is involved . The dihedral and wash-in of the main wing takes care of that pretty much . The wash-in affects the outer wing in the turn more than the inner because of the higher airspeed/velocity during a turn . NACA airfoil numbers on the vertical stab aren't the same as the lifting body numbers and when these have a change in attitude, which is really angle of attack, (as in a slight or small turn) they lose "lift" on the inside of the turn side on the vertical stab, resulting in some self-correction . Hence, most pilots are negligent in using the rudder except in landing and take off or radical turns where the nose may dive . . but again, that is all a function of the dihedral too . . and most aircraft that carry passengers have a lot of dihedral . Newer designs use spoilerators and Hoerner tips to actually decrease lift on the outer wing during a turn to yaw the craft without much if any rudder input . . . this is all effectively minimizing the use of a rudder by the pilots . This will keep the nose up a little and acts much like a better-controlled and co-ordinated turn with very little input by the pilot . It's a stability and smooth ride design . . . and a trade-off for pilots as their skills grow a little stale from lack of use . Passengers in the tail area of a heavy are not then subjected to the G forces of the turn and they complain a lot less when they don't use all the barf bags in the plane . The pilots lose a little of their touch for the sake of a smoother ride for the passengers . My neighbor was a pilot for United, and he said that every time he flew general aviation (small craft) he had to crash course the rudder usage again . That's what I was saying . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 616388 | 2007-11-30 07:10:00 | zqwerty have you watched the movie then ? I have and it's a load of sh*t, I don't find any of their evidence credible at the least . The documentary is far from an objective view, it has a blind agenda to instil delusional myths in the minds of gullible people . If you got sucked in by that that zeitgiest movie, you are like sheep . Mindless sheep! Following conspiracy theories because it feels good . Zeitgiest and Loose Change are basically the same movies . Totally agree . I think it is an insult to all the lives lost in 911 to label it a conspiracy, when clearly it wasn’t . |
radium (8645) | ||
| 616389 | 2007-11-30 07:10:00 | What the hell are you people taking today, you have completely lost all sense of reason . Remote controlled airliners SJ - your posts are usually quite intelligent but you have lost all credibility with this one . Oh . . pooh! Every hear of Auto Pilot? Easy to hack . . . right up there with Windows XP . Tell me if you think it's possible or not . . . g'wan! These planes are all fly-by-wire . . right? I think the last cable-in-your-hands passenger plane was the C-47/DC3 . I could be wrong . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 616390 | 2007-11-30 07:55:00 | Haven't seen the movie in question, but don't have much time for conspiracy theories . . . I assume the gist is that the American government (or an agency thereof) was responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers . Given the American record of military actions that have gone wrong over the years, I find it impossible to believe that something like this could have been carried out by 'friendlies' - it was too successful in its level of destruction for it to be able to be attributed to American military planning . |
johcar (6283) | ||
| 616391 | 2007-11-30 08:26:00 | it was too successful in its level of destruction for it to be able to be attributed to American military planning.I think that this could be the quote of the year! :lol: :thumbs: | Greg (193) | ||
| 616392 | 2007-11-30 08:36:00 | I can not believe 5 People voted yes. How appalled I am at those results. http://www.debunking911.com/ This is just as stupid as the conspiracy theory that man didn’t land on the moon. Pfffffft. Some people buy Macs. A bit of flim - flam and they'll believe / buy anything. ;) |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 616393 | 2007-11-30 08:42:00 | Oh . . pooh! Every hear of Auto Pilot? Easy to hack . . . right up there with Windows XP . Tell me if you think it's possible or not . . . g'wan! These planes are all fly-by-wire . . right? I think the last cable-in-your-hands passenger plane was the C-47/DC3 . I could be wrong . For gods sake SJ go and have a lie down . You have been reading too many conspiracy web sites . Yeah I have heard of an Auto Pilot, I have worked on and maintained B757s and B767s and it is not easy to hack,and it is not like XP All B757s and B767s had cable controls to hydraulic actuators, they are not FBW to the main controls . All you are doing is spouting the same garbage you have seen on other web sites and I thought you were more intelligent and logical thinking than to be taken in by these other idiots . |
Safari (3993) | ||
| 616394 | 2007-11-30 09:35:00 | Looked up "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia. Found this little gem: "Conspiracy theories are often preferred by individuals as a way to understand what is happening around them without having to grasp the complexities of history and political interaction. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 616395 | 2007-11-30 10:28:00 | I've gotta say this has to be the most stupid thread, ever. | LiquidSolidity (1589) | ||
| 616396 | 2007-11-30 10:50:00 | I've gotta say this has to be the most stupid thread, ever. Why is that? |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 | |||||