-
Interesting discussion Alan. The US seemed to move away from the delta wing design way back in the 60's whereas the French continued with that type of design all the way through to the current Typhoon Eurofighter.
What do you think is the superior aircraft. Typhoon Eurofighter or F-18A Superhornet?
I personally think the US designs like the F-4, F-15, F-14, F-16, F-18 and F-22 look way cooler than the French delta wing Mirages and current Eurofighter.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]Let's recap.
You claimed that the F-102 must land "low and slow". Were you right or were you wrong?
You claimed that the landing speed of any aircraft was "close to stall speed". Were you right or were you wrong?
You claimed that the control surfaces of any aircraft were at the wing tips. Were you right or were you wrong?
No you claim I'm "not well". Can you imagine why I might take your opinion for what I feel it's worth?
:)[/QUOTE]
Alan, since your goal here was not really to discuss the issue, but just prove that you know more than a real pilot. I will encourage you to re-read all the posts and see how stupid you really are. because instead of trying to understand what I was saying you were just trying to get your rocks off.
As to the above:
1,) Airplanes land LOW....on a landing surface...runway etc...
airplanes land SLOW........in this case it may be 170+ knots- Believe me if they could maintain a fair control margin they would land slower. A runway accident at twice the speed equals 4 times the impact. Note: drag chutes can fail. You may not know it, but a lot of learjets have drag chutes.
2.) Not exactly my ORIGINAL quote(i did misquote myself) but that is fine.....
From what you posted the pilots describe "flying" at 90kts with a 6000 feet per minute descent....That is not Flying, that is a severe stalled condition. The tips stall on that airplane way before that. The touch down speed of 170+ knots is obviously a speed just above when the tips stall or some other adverse control condition sets in due to an imminant stall. . There is also mention in what you cut and pasted that the airplane had no stall warning system, That would explain why they "flew" that thing in a stalled condition and complained of a 6000 FPM descent rate.....If you can't understand that you just do not understand tha subject .
3.) Control Surfaces ARE at the tips! That is where they are most effective in this case they ALSO extend full span inboard to maintain some control as the wing stalls progressively inboard. The control surface effect is exponentialy reduced due to "its MOMENT" (leverage) as you move it inboard that is why they are ALLWAYS as outboard towards the tips as possible.
4.)I am not a shrink, ....but I do think you are highly fct up dude. You are always too busy trying to prove that you know more than everybody and you miss out on learning from others. You know, If you were to find that the reason actually was that there was a forward visibility problem at slow speed/high angle of attack( like in the concord) I would say "cool I learned something" I am not saying thats what it is, but just an example of normal behavior.
There is nothing more dangerous than "a little bit of knowledge" in the hands a egomaniac.
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Like I said, you are one sick fck![/QUOTE]
But apparently, your only basis for saying so is that I've been right about everything I've said...
...and you've been wrong.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]But apparently, your only basis for saying so is that I've been right about everything I've said...
...and you've been wrong.[/QUOTE]
Could you really be that stupid not to understand what I am saying? You are simply an idiot!
-
[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]Interesting discussion Alan. The US seemed to move away from the delta wing design way back in the 60's whereas the French continued with that type of design all the way through to the current Typhoon Eurofighter.
What do you think is the superior aircraft. Typhoon Eurofighter or F-18A Superhornet?
I personally think the US designs like the F-4, F-15, F-14, F-16, F-18 and F-22 look way cooler than the French delta wing Mirages and current Eurofighter.[/QUOTE]
The French are a bunch of pooh pooh heads.
Next . . . . . .
-
I think Alan is walking on dangerous ground in this thread. Debunking the rantings of a mad man like Larry is tolerated and even welcome, but trying this adverserial crap on with people who do know what they're talking about will make him about as popular as a pork chop in a synagog.
Alan, I suggest you stick with the Larry bashing and cease and desist petty arguments with credible members before people around here start taking Larry seriously re: unemployed Canadian wack job who has been kicked off every internet forum etc etc.
disclaimer: I, personally, would never take Larry seriously. I'm just saying.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]Let's recap.
You claimed that the F-102 must land "low and slow". Were you right or were you wrong?
You claimed that the landing speed of any aircraft was "close to stall speed". Were you right or were you wrong?
You claimed that the control surfaces of any aircraft were at the wing tips. Were you right or were you wrong?
No you claim I'm "not well". Can you imagine why I might take your opinion for what I feel it's worth?
:)[/QUOTE]
I am going to recap that your dumb pot bellied c0ck sucking ass is a retard!
And where did your post go extolling the praises of that dumb ass CANDU canadian nuclear reactor? Oh, maybe because anything Canadians make sucks ass? --> [url]http://ep.probeinternational.org/2009/07/14/emerging-safety-problem-candu-reactors/[/url]
Alang is a retard f@g b!tch.
Go suck some more d!ck you f@g!!!
-
[QUOTE=Not a hacker]I think Alan is walking on dangerous ground in this thread. Debunking the rantings of a mad man like Larry is tolerated and even welcome, but trying this adverserial crap on with people who do know what they're talking about will make him about as popular as a pork chop in a synagog.
Alan, I suggest you stick with the Larry bashing and cease and desist petty arguments with credible members before people around here start taking Larry seriously re: unemployed Canadian wack job who has been kicked off every internet forum etc etc.[/QUOTE]
Pssshhh...
It didn't have to be adversarial.
I just posted facts. JD kept making more and more excuses.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]Pssshhh...
It didn't have to be adversarial.
I just posted facts. JD kept making more and more excuses.[/QUOTE]
You need to read Jedriver's response, just now...
Your gay ass just got owned, pot bellied, gay ass, Miata driving b!tch.
You failed... Go suck more c@ck off the trunk of your Miata...
spank
[IMG]http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/images/fail2.jpg[/IMG]
-
[quote=jetdriver][B]Alan, since your goal here was not really to discuss the issue, but just prove that you know more than a real pilot.[/B] I will encourage you to re-read all the posts and see how stupid you really are. because instead of trying to understand what I was saying you were just trying to get your rocks off.
As to the above:
1,) Airplanes land LOW....on a landing surface...runway etc...
airplanes land SLOW........in this case it may be 170+ knots- Believe me if they could maintain a fair control margin they would land slower. A runway accident at twice the speed equals 4 times the impact. Note: drag chutes can fail. You may not know it, but a lot of learjets have drag chutes.
2.) Not exactly my ORIGINAL quote(i did misquote myself) but that is fine.....
From what you posted the pilots describe "flying" at 90kts with a 6000 feet per minute descent....That is not Flying, that is a severe stalled condition. The tips stall on that airplane way before that. The touch down speed of 170+ knots is obviously a speed just above when the tips stall or some other adverse control condition sets in due to an imminant stall. . There is also mention in what you cut and pasted that the airplane had no stall warning system, That would explain why they "flew" that thing in a stalled condition and complained of a 6000 FPM descent rate.....If you can't understand that you just do not understand tha subject .
3.) Control Surfaces ARE at the tips! That is where they are most effective in this case they ALSO extend full span inboard to maintain some control as the wing stalls progressively inboard. The control surface effect is exponentialy reduced due to "its MOMENT" (leverage) as you move it inboard that is why they are ALLWAYS as outboard towards the tips as possible.
4.)I am not a shrink, ....but I do think you are highly fct up dude. You are always too busy trying to prove that you know more than everybody and you miss out on learning from others. You know, If you were to find that the reason actually was that there was a forward visibility problem at slow speed/high angle of attack( like in the concord) I would say "cool I learned something" I am not saying thats what it is, but just an example of normal behavior.
There is nothing more dangerous than "a little bit of knowledge" in the hands a egomaniac.[/quote]
Very lucid post, JD. You're smarter than you'd like people to know you are.
Alan, have you figured out yet why you have such a problem with Larry? It's because the two of you are pretty similar.
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Very lucid post, JD. You're smarter than you'd like people to know you are.
Alan, have you figured out yet why you have such a problem with Larry? It's because the two of you are pretty similar.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but he is wrong in ever particular.
1. The condition in question was "low AND slow". And JD has admitted that the F-102 doesn't land anywhere near it's stall speed.
2. There was no "complaining" of a 6000 fpm descent rate. That was simply a fact of the aircraft just prior to stall. What modern fighter jet doesn't descend rapidly in that condition? As JD himself pointed out, stall is not identified by whether or not the aircraft can maintain level flight, but by what the air is doing over the wings. The stall of a delta wing is very very different than the stall of a straight or swept wing. One of the major differences is that there is a much wider range of airspeed between the beginnings of a portion of the wing stalling and it being fully stalled across the entire wing. This is caused by the fact that at high AOA, a delta wing creates strong vortices that energize the airflow over the portion of the wing that is not yet stalled, increasing lift and enhancing stability. However, they also produce a lot of drag near stall and thus descend far more rapidly than aircraft with the kind of wings that JD is used to. So you have to land them faster. See No. 1 again.
3. The control surfaces are NOT at the tips of the F-102. This is simply the fact. You don't suppose that one of the reasons the elevons span almost the full trailing edge of the wing is to ensure that a portion of the control surface remains effective do you? The aircraft that JD is familiar with achieve something similar by ensuring that the centre of the wing stalls BEFORE the tips with washout: a small amount of twist in the wing that ensures both that the control surfaces remain effective up to an incipient stall and also—on swept wing aircraft creates a tendency for the centre of lift to move aft as the centre of the wing stalls first.
I do know this stuff, Lorenzo. The fact that JD has learned in the conventional commercial/private aircraft world means he's good at spouting generalities such as approach speed is 1.3 times stall and so forth, but delta wing aircraft are very different beasts.
-
[quote=alangbaker]I'm sorry, but he is wrong in ever particular.
1. The condition in question was "low AND slow". And JD has admitted that the F-102 doesn't land anywhere near it's stall speed.
2. There was no "complaining" of a 6000 fpm descent rate. That was simply a fact of the aircraft just prior to stall. What modern fighter jet doesn't descend rapidly in that condition? As JD himself pointed out, stall is not identified by whether or not the aircraft can maintain level flight, but by what the air is doing over the wings. The stall of a delta wing is very very different than the stall of a straight or swept wing. One of the major differences is that there is a much wider range of airspeed between the beginnings of a portion of the wing stalling and it being fully stalled across the entire wing. This is caused by the fact that at high AOA, a delta wing creates strong vortices that energize the airflow over the portion of the wing that is not yet stalled, increasing lift and enhancing stability. However, they also produce a lot of drag near stall and thus descend far more rapidly than aircraft with the kind of wings that JD is used to. So you have to land them faster. See No. 1 again.
3. The control surfaces are NOT at the tips of the F-102. This is simply the fact. You don't suppose that one of the reasons the elevons span almost the full trailing edge of the wing is to ensure that a portion of the control surface remains effective do you? The aircraft that JD is familiar with achieve something similar by ensuring that the centre of the wing stalls BEFORE the tips with washout: a small amount of twist in the wing that ensures both that the control surfaces remain effective up to an incipient stall and also—on swept wing aircraft creates a tendency for the centre of lift to move aft as the centre of the wing stalls first.
I do know this stuff, Lorenzo. The fact that JD has learned in the conventional commercial/private aircraft world means he's good at spouting generalities such as approach speed is 1.3 times stall and so forth, but delta wing aircraft are very different beasts.[/quote]
Let's just assume for a moment he was incorrect. So what?
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Alan, since your goal here was not really to discuss the issue, but just prove that you know more than a real pilot. I will encourage you to re-read all the posts and see how stupid you really are. because instead of trying to understand what I was saying you were just trying to get your rocks off.
As to the above:
1,) Airplanes land LOW....on a landing surface...runway etc...
airplanes land SLOW........in this case it may be 170+ knots- Believe me if they could maintain a fair control margin they would land slower. A runway accident at twice the speed equals 4 times the impact. Note: drag chutes can fail. You may not know it, but a lot of learjets have drag chutes.[/quote]
Sorry, but you subsequently defined "slow"
"The landing speed of any airplane is actually quite close to the stall speed."
So when you said that the F-102 lands "low AND slow", were you right or were you wrong?
[quote]2.) Not exactly my ORIGINAL quote(i did misquote myself) but that is fine.....
From what you posted the pilots describe "flying" at 90kts with a 6000 feet per minute descent....That is not Flying, that is a severe stalled condition. The tips stall on that airplane way before that. The touch down speed of 170+ knots is obviously a speed just above when the tips stall or some other adverse control condition sets in due to an imminant stall. . There is also mention in what you cut and pasted that the airplane had no stall warning system, That would explain why they "flew" that thing in a stalled condition and complained of a 6000 FPM descent rate.....If you can't understand that you just do not understand tha subject .[/quote]
That was your precise quote:
"The landing speed of any airplane is actually quite close to the stall speed."
As you yourself have said, stall is not measured by whether the aircraft is descending or not. You can fly a jet with the engines at idle and no stall flow on the wing at all... ...but you will be descending.
[quote]3.) Control Surfaces ARE at the tips! That is where they are most effective in this case they ALSO extend full span inboard to maintain some control as the wing stalls progressively inboard. The control surface effect is exponentialy reduced due to "its MOMENT" (leverage) as you move it inboard that is why they are ALLWAYS as outboard towards the tips as possible.[/quote]
Sorry, but the facts are against you. The control surfaces of an F-102 or not at the tips. They are all the way across the trailing edge. Gee. Almost like they knew that the surface at the tip would lose effectiveness as the stall progressed across the wing.
And there is no need for maximum moment while flying the aircraft far outside of the regime where you would want maximum maneuverability. There need only be adequate moments from the surfaces in order to make the sorts of maneuvers one would do while close to stalling speed and not what you would need while engage in ACM.
[quote]4.)I am not a shrink, ....but I do think you are highly fct up dude. You are always too busy trying to prove that you know more than everybody and you miss out on learning from others. You know, If you were to find that the reason actually was that there was a forward visibility problem at slow speed/high angle of attack( like in the concord) I would say "cool I learned something" I am not saying thats what it is, but just an example of normal behavior.[/quote]
Nothing you've said about this subject with regard to the F-102 has been correct, JD. That's just the fact. As I said, it wasn't adversarial. I just corrected your misconceptions.
You have the idea fixed in your head about aviation that comes from your training as a commercial pilot and I'm sure it serves you well in that milieu, but delta wing interceptors are designed for something entirely different with a wing that has aerodynamic characteristics nothing like what you're familiar with. As a for instance, deltas are known to be able to keep flying at AOAs that would have a conventionally winged aircraft fully stalled.
If you're serious about how reasonable you're being, go and research that little tidbit. Learn that you were wrong and come back and admit it like a grown up.
[quote]There is nothing more dangerous than "a little bit of knowledge" in the hands a egomaniac.[/QUOTE]
You've demonstrated that there is something more dangerous: someone who thinks he already knows it all because he's been "trained".
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]Let's just assume for a moment he was incorrect. So what?[/QUOTE]
So nothing.
I was having a discussion, I told him the facts, showed them to be true and HE made it into a thing.
Him: the F-102 must land "low and slow"
Me: facts
Him: yeah, but.
Me: more facts.
Him: you're crazy.
P.S.
Please note that at one point, he basically admitted he had it wrong:
"I will not apologize! it is against my religion! This is what I get for arguing about something I do not know about!"
And when I tried to offer a light reply, he decided to "prove" he knew more than me. See above.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]So nothing.
I was having a discussion, I told him the facts, showed them to be true and HE made it into a thing.
Him: the F-102 must land "low and slow"
Me: facts
Him: yeah, but.
Me: more facts.
Him: you're crazy.
P.S.
Please note that at one point, he basically admitted he had it wrong:
"I will not apologize! it is against my religion! This is what I get for arguing about something I do not know about!"
And when I tried to offer a light reply, he decided to "prove" he knew more than me. See above.[/QUOTE]
Sorry Alan,
But you weren't [I]just[/I] having a discussion. You were obsessing over a perceived inaccuracy in a post made by JD. You don't [I]just[/I] discuss anything, you systematicaly dissect every post, comment by comment, trying to pick it apart by adding links. We can all google you know. Nothing personal as I find you to be good online entertainment most of the time, but this time you are looking a little like a stalker nut job.
-
[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Sorry Alan,
But you weren't [I]just[/I] having a discussion. You were obsessing over a perceived inaccuracy in a post made by JD. You don't [I]just[/I] discuss anything, you systematicaly dissect every post, comment by comment, trying to pick it apart by adding links. We can all google you know. Nothing personal as I find you to be good online entertainment most of the time, but this time you are looking a little like a stalker nut job.[/QUOTE]
This.
It's coming across as someone who is obsessed with being right and that it must be acknowledged that they are right. Kinda desperate and sad.
-
Alan, you are unable to even understand what I am telling you. I summed in 3 or 4 simple items why you are not quite correct and I am not wrong, but you choose to keep being an ignorant d!ck. To you it is more important to pretend that you are right than to actually entertain the idea that you may learn something. You do not know the definition of a stall. Above in the same statement you refer to the wingtips stalling as if it is not a stall. IT is a stall. also how can you say that the controls are not towards the tips? As I said and explained they are. Are you even reading and trying to comprehend what I say? Dude you are one fct up stupid dumba$$ individual . Not because of your limited knowledge base but by your egomaniacal traits.
Do you really not understand that one post that clears it all up for you. I tried not sounding like a "know it all" as a courtesy at first, but you are a piece of work dude. at least at first you were actually making me think, now you are just acting stupid and ignorant.
-
Edited:
I removed this post because I was starting to sound like alan myself...If anyone is confused and actually gives a sheite just refer to my 3-4 summed up items a few posts up (post #102).
-Geeeeeeeeze
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Edited:
I removed this post because I was starting to sound like alan myself...If anyone is confused and actually gives a sheite just refer to my 3-4 summed up items a few posts up (post #102).
-Geeeeeeeeze[/QUOTE]
I think you two just need to hug this one out. JD, you can go low and slow if you want. If Alan insists on going low and fast you better get some lube and make sure the arrest cable is ready.
-
[quote=poe4soul]I think you two just need to hug this one out. JD, you can go low and slow if you want. If Alan insists on going low and fast you better get some lube and make sure the arrest cable is ready.[/quote]
If it turned out Alan was getting off sexually on this kind of thing, well, I just hope that's not what we've been witnessing all this time.
-
[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Sorry Alan,
But you weren't [I]just[/I] having a discussion. You were obsessing over a perceived inaccuracy in a post made by JD. You don't [I]just[/I] discuss anything, you systematicaly dissect every post, comment by comment, trying to pick it apart by adding links. We can all google you know. Nothing personal as I find you to be good online entertainment most of the time, but this time you are looking a little like a stalker nut job.[/QUOTE]
No.
I was having a discussion.
The fact that I can have a discussion and actually support what I say doesn't change that.
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Alan, you are unable to even understand what I am telling you. I summed in 3 or 4 simple items why you are not quite correct and I am not wrong, but you choose to keep being an ignorant d!ck. To you it is more important to pretend that you are right than to actually entertain the idea that you may learn something. You do not know the definition of a stall. Above in the same statement you refer to the wingtips stalling as if it is not a stall. IT is a stall. also how can you say that the controls are not towards the tips? As I said and explained they are. Are you even reading and trying to comprehend what I say? Dude you are one fct up stupid dumba$$ individual . Not because of your limited knowledge base but by your egomaniacal traits.[/quote]
I'm sorry. You were wrong, JD. It's really that simple.
Does the F-102 land "quite close to stall speed"? You claimed it did and it doesn't.
Everything else springs from you attempting to justify your clearly incorrect statement.
[quote]Do you really not understand that one post that clears it all up for you. I tried not sounding like a "know it all" as a courtesy at first, but you are a piece of work dude. at least at first you were actually making me think, now you are just acting stupid and ignorant.[/QUOTE]
LOL
Says that man who hasn't even bothered to do any checking into how delta wing aircraft differ from the aircraft he's used to...
-
[QUOTE=Yaz1975]This.
It's coming across as someone who is obsessed with being right and that it must be acknowledged that they are right. Kinda desperate and sad.[/QUOTE]
I'm not obsessed with being right...
...I just don't mind showing that I am.
Combine that with JD trying with increasing shrillness to insist that he wasn't wrong and this is the result.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]I'm not obsessed with being right...
...I just don't mind showing that I am.
Combine that with JD trying with increasing shrillness to insist that he wasn't wrong and this is the result.[/QUOTE]
Yah, all of this reminds me of the anecdote of why you don't wrestle with a pig.
-
JD, you're getting dangerously close to never being able to post here, or for that matter anywhere else on the Internet ever again without Alan biting you in the ass.
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]JD, you're getting dangerously close to never being able to post here, or for that matter anywhere else on the Internet ever again without Alan biting you in the ass.[/QUOTE]
Not even close. Sorry to disappoint.
:)
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]If it turned out Alan was getting off sexually on this kind of thing, well, I just hope that's not what we've been witnessing all this time.[/QUOTE]
Isn't this EXACTLY what Horseballs suggested about the whole Alan/Larry thing about a week ago?
-
[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]Isn't this EXACTLY what Horseballs suggested about the whole Alan/Larry thing about a week ago?[/QUOTE]
I guess I tried to block it only to have my subconscious grab ahold of it and spit it back out.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]I'm sorry. You were wrong, JD. It's really that simple.
Does the F-102 land "quite close to stall speed"? You claimed it did and it doesn't.
Everything else springs from you attempting to justify your clearly incorrect statement.
LOL
Says that man who hasn't even bothered to do any checking into how delta wing aircraft differ from the aircraft he's used to...[/QUOTE]
Dude you are insane!
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Dude you are insane![/QUOTE]
Why does being wrong bother you so much?
-
Alan
I suggest you stick to stalking Larry. Your strange obsession with Larry, line by line dissection of his posts etc just makes you kind of weird peculiar.
But chasing Jetdriver down in the same fashion is making you look like you're crossing the line to weird creepy. Or to put it another way (that should set off alarm bells) it's starting to make it look like Larry is right about you! :eek:
-
[QUOTE=Kiwi Player]Alan
I suggest you stick to stalking Larry. Your strange obsession with Larry, line by line dissection of his posts etc just makes you kind of weird peculiar.
But chasing Jetdriver down in the same fashion is making you look like you're crossing the line to weird creepy. Or to put it another way (that should set off alarm bells) it's starting to make it look like Larry is right about you![/QUOTE]
I'm not "chasing him down", Kiwi: I'm replying to inaccuracies with facts.
He's the only one who's let it get personal because (and I can only surmise this) he can't stand simply admitting he was wrong.
-
I am not wrong you idiot! (alan)
Tell me man, do you stuff Canadian prostitutes in your back yard? Just asking.....because you are one mentaly fked up dude. I am not saying you are a serial killer or anything like that but geeeeze man you are a freeking nutsack in my humble opinion.
-
[quote=Kiwi Player]Alan
I suggest you stick to stalking Larry. Your strange obsession with Larry, line by line dissection of his posts etc just makes you kind of weird peculiar.
But chasing Jetdriver down in the same fashion is making you look like you're crossing the line to weird creepy. Or to put it another way (that should set off alarm bells) it's starting to make it look like Larry is right about you! :eek:[/quote]
It remains to be seen how well Alan can fight a two front war. Obviously people here were comfortable with Alan going after Larry, but it seems as though an anti-Khadafi type peace coalition may be forming against him, which rest assured would have Larry dusting off his chearleader uniform.
-
[quote=jetdriver]I am not wrong you idiot! (alan)
Tell me man, do you stuff Canadian prostitutes in your back yard? Just asking.....because you are one mentaly fked up dude. I am not saying you are a serial killer or anything like that but geeeeze man you are a freeking nutsack in my humble opinion.[/quote]
JD,
Don't get caught up in this. Isn't it obvious to you that the facts don't matter here? What matters to someone who likes to argue is the argument itself, not the facts.
-
[QUOTE=famousdavis]JD,
Don't get caught up in this. Isn't it obvious to you that the facts don't matter here? What matters to someone who likes to argue is the argument itself, not the facts.[/QUOTE]
That is great advice FD. You are quite right.
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]I am not wrong you idiot! (alan)[/quote]
Yes: you are.
You stated that:
"The landing speed of any airplane is actually quite close to the stall speed. Approach speed is usually 1.3 times that speed."
Well an F-102 is an airplane. It's stall speed is about 100KCAS and it lands at about 170KCAS.
You... ...were... ...wrong.
Deal with it like an adult.
[quote]Tell me man, do you stuff Canadian prostitutes in your back yard? Just asking.....because you are one mentaly fked up dude. I am not saying you are a serial killer or anything like that but geeeeze man you are a freeking nutsack in my humble opinion.[/QUOTE]
LOL
I'll take that for what it's worth.
-
[quote=famousdavis]JD,
Don't get caught up in this. Isn't it obvious to you that the facts don't matter here? [B]What matters to someone who likes to argue is the argument itself, not the facts.[/B][/quote]
I disagree.
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]It remains to be seen how well Alan can fight a two front war. Obviously people here were comfortable with Alan going after Larry, but it seems as though an anti-Khadafi type peace coalition may be forming against him, which rest assured would have Larry dusting off his chearleader uniform.[/QUOTE]
As long as reality is on my side, I don't much care about any "coalition".
:)
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]I disagree.[/QUOTE]
OK... ...now [B][I]that[/I][/B] is funny.
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]I disagree.[/QUOTE]
A bit Pythonesque here.
-
[quote=oldplayer]A bit Pythonesque here.[/quote]
No it isn't.
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]No it isn't.[/QUOTE]
That will be 5 pounds thankyou.
-
[quote=oldplayer]That will be 5 pounds thankyou.[/quote]
But an argument isn't just saying "No it isn't."
-
[QUOTE=lorenzoinoc]But an argument isn't just saying "No it isn't."[/QUOTE]
Yes it is.
-
[quote=oldplayer]Yes it is.[/quote]
No it isn't.
-
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]Yes: you are.
You stated that:
"The landing speed of any airplane is actually quite close to the stall speed. Approach speed is usually 1.3 times that speed."
Well an F-102 is an airplane. It's stall speed is about 100KCAS and it lands at about 170KCAS.
You... ...were... ...wrong.
Deal with it like an adult.
LOL
I'll take that for what it's worth.[/QUOTE]
Ok, you dumb a$$ cocksucking idiot! I think you really do think you are right. What part of this do you not understand :
90-100 knots may be the fully stalled wing -Moron......but the tips (where the flight controls are most effective) stall way, way before that.
The begining of the stall is not 90-100 knots it is much higher than that especially because of the delta wing. If there is already airflow separation (stall) that happens at much higher airspeeds (like at the tips) that is THE "stall speed". The "stall speed" used to calculate for the landing would be THAT higher speed not that full wing stall speed. Like I said, I do not know or care what the specific speeds are. I am giving you the reasons why you are incorrect in your conclusions because you lack the general knowledge of how this stuff works you fcn putts!
What the hell is so hard to understand about that?
Have you ever experienced a stall before? Have you ever experienced control effectiveness decay? Have you ever experienced an aerodynamic stall buffet? Have you ever experienced and stopped dutch roll at high altitude and or slow speeds? Have you ever test flown a jet during production before certification while doing stall tests, Have you tought pilots stall recognition and recoveries in jets? Have you issued those pilots pilot certificates (lic.) -Let me guess....no?
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Ok, you dumb a$$ cocksucking idiot! I think you really do think you are right. What part of this do you not understand :[/quote]
Wow. I'm so impressed...
[quote]90-100 knots may be the fully stalled wing -Moron......but the tips (where the flight controls are most effective) stall way, way before that.
The begining of the stall is not 90-100 knots it is much higher than that especially because of the delta wing. If there is already airflow separation (stall) that happens at much higher airspeeds (like at the tips) that is THE "stall speed". The "stall speed" used to calculate for the landing would be THAT higher speed not that full wing stall speed. Like I said, I do not know or care what the specific speeds are. I am giving you the reasons why you are incorrect in your conclusions because you lack the general knowledge of how this stuff works you fcn putts!
What the hell is so hard to understand about that?[/quote]
The definition of stall in the aerodynamic context is angle of attack where total lift peaks.
Fact: the stall speed of an F-102—as reported by its operating manual—is 100KCAS ([URL="http://books.google.ca/books?id=v9NJ33r29LUC"]Page 6-6[/URL])
You do not get to decide that that manual's information is wrong and yours should be used instead.
[quote]Have you ever experienced a stall before? Have you ever experienced control effectiveness decay? Have you ever experienced an aerodynamic stall buffet? Have you ever experienced and stopped dutch roll at high altitude and or slow speeds? Have you ever test flown a jet during production before certification while doing stall tests, Have you tought pilots stall recognition and recoveries in jets? Have you issued those pilots pilot certificates (lic.) -Let me guess....no?[/QUOTE]
Correct. But none of those things will change the fact that your statements about the F-102 and other such aircraft have been shown to be factually wrong.
BTW, the maximum angle of attack of delta wing aircraft before stall can be much higher than the 12-18 degrees you stated. Just another example of you trying to use learning that pertains to the type of aircraft you've been involved with onto situations where it does not apply.
[URL="http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/2918col.pdf"]http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/2918col.pdf[/URL]
Now do a little actual research, learn that you've been wrong, and come back and behave like an adult.
-
Seriously Jet, just drop it. It's painfully apparent that Alan is physically unable to let it go. He's compulsive and will just keep butting his head no matter what. Don't get dragged down into this silly behavior. I know you're a pilot, and I know that I'd rather have you at the controls then anyone else on here. Be better than this idiocy. You know you're right, and that's enough.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]behave like an adult.[/QUOTE]
Says the guy who's acting like a 3rd grader in an internet slap fight.
-
[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Says the guy who's acting like a 3rd grader in an internet slap fight.[/QUOTE]
I'm responding civilly with facts. Is there some reason I shouldn't?
-
[QUOTE=oldplayer]Sorry times up.[/QUOTE]
You manky git.
Sorry, this is abuse. Argument's down the hall.
-
[QUOTE=Yaz1975]Seriously Jet, just drop it. It's painfully apparent that Alan is physically unable to let it go. He's compulsive and will just keep butting his head no matter what. Don't get dragged down into this silly behavior. I know you're a pilot, and I know that I'd rather have you at the controls then anyone else on here. Be better than this idiocy. You know you're right, and that's enough.[/QUOTE]
This isn't about piloting skills: this is about facts and reality.
No amount of piloting skill on his part will change the fact that the F-102 doesn't land "close to stall speed" as JD claimed every airplane does.
The fact that I'm not a pilot will not change the fact that the elevons on an F-102 span the entire trailing edge (ironically excepting only a small amount at the tip) when JD claimed that control surfaces were only at the wing tips.
Facts are facts. I've presented them and JD has frothed and flailed. He is now claiming that he is better qualified to determine what and F-102's stall speed is...
...[B]THAN THE ACTUAL OPERATING MANUAL OF THE AIRCRAFT AND BY EXTENSION THE ENTIRE TECHNICAL SEGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE[/B]
The fact is, that JD knows he's wrong, but he lacks the class to simply say so.
-
[QUOTE=daveperkins]You manky git.
Sorry, this is abuse. Argument's down the hall.[/QUOTE]
In 12A as a matter of fact.
Just watch out for the flying squad and being served with a notice for not ending a skit with a punchline.
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]I'm responding civilly with facts. Is there some reason I shouldn't?[/QUOTE]
Because you're looking like a pedantic obsessive compulsive internet stalker who has to prove he's right and is unable to let things go?
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]This isn't about piloting skills: this is about facts and reality.
No amount of piloting skill on his part will change the fact that the F-102 doesn't land "close to stall speed" as JD claimed every airplane does.
The fact that I'm not a pilot will not change the fact that the elevons on an F-102 span the entire trailing edge (ironically excepting only a small amount at the tip) when JD claimed that control surfaces were only at the wing tips.
Facts are facts. I've presented them and JD has frothed and flailed. He is now claiming that he is better qualified to determine what and F-102's stall speed is...
...[B]THAN THE ACTUAL OPERATING MANUAL OF THE AIRCRAFT AND BY EXTENSION THE ENTIRE TECHNICAL SEGMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE[/B]
The fact is, that JD knows he's wrong, but he lacks the class to simply say so.[/QUOTE]
Congrats. Now what are you trying to prove and/or win?
You win.
You're right.
Now what. Does the argument being over make you lose your erection?
-
This is Alan's Charlie Sheen moment. Certain intelligent forum members (just Larry and I) have seen the signs for awhile now.
I think most of his malady could be cleared up by his mom changing the filter in the basement furnace.
-
Alan
You are right if you think you are since that is all that matters to you. You win...I say uncle. I can not believe how low I have gone down to meet you at your level. You are a nut case mental case dildo swallower. I would guess you have few real world friends other than an ax murderer, death row inmate or two.
I have to say that since the 2nd grade I have not felt like punching someone in the nose for a dumber reason as much as I have during this thread.
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Alan
You are right if you think you are since that is all that matters to you. You win...I say uncle. I can not believe how low I have gone down to meet you at your level. You are a nut case mental case dildo swallower. I would guess you have few real world friends other than an ax murderer, death row inmate or two.
I have to say that since the 2nd grade I have not felt like punching someone in the nose for a dumber reason as much as I have during this thread.[/QUOTE]
Be careful, JD. Your employer will receive slanderous phone calls originating from a Canadian basement if the trend holds.
-
[QUOTE=Horseballs]Be careful, JD. Your employer will receive slanderous phone calls originating from a Canadian basement if the trend holds.[/QUOTE]
LOL.......
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Alan
You are right if you think you are since that is all that matters to you. You win...I say uncle. I can not believe how low I have gone down to meet you at your level. You are a nut case mental case dildo swallower. I would guess you have few real world friends other than an ax murderer, death row inmate or two.
I have to say that since the 2nd grade I have not felt like punching someone in the nose for a dumber reason as much as I have during this thread.[/QUOTE]
Wow.
I'll take the opinion of someone who calls someone else "nut case mental case dildo swallower" for what it's worth.
Yes or no, JD? Are you more qualified than the US Air Force and Convair to declare what the true stall speed of an F-102 Delta Dagger is?
-
Win lose or draw, this is some boring shiat. Almost as boring as guess what is wrong with this eBay post. Both of you are pathetic. Who gives a phuck?
Now let's argue the merit of gff vs cast pos(aka ping) golf clubs or tigers new hole he's plowing.
-
[QUOTE=Yaz1975]This.
It's coming across as someone who is obsessed with being right and that it must be acknowledged that they are right. Kinda desperate and sad.[/QUOTE]
Alan certainly is coming across as someone who doesn't even indulge in the discussion, he just tries to find a way to show somoene up for being wrong. He's like those people you try and have convesrsations with, but you can tell by the look on their face that they are carefully concentrating on your every word only so they can pick up on any slip.
-
[QUOTE=Not a hacker]Alan certainly is coming across as someone who doesn't even indulge in the discussion, he just tries to find a way to show somoene up for being wrong. He's like those people you try and have convesrsations with, but you can tell by the look on their face that they are carefully concentrating on your every word only so they can pick up on any slip.[/QUOTE]
I agree hacker. It is unfortunate that when people argue like this even when they are partly correct they fixate on the small fraction of the information that they are being somewhat correct at while discrediting all the reasons that they just do not want to understand that they are not correct at. It is highly unproductive. It is even humorous to me that a PDF file that he provided for the purpose of proving that my 18 degree figure was wrong (should have been 20 degrees) in this generic case. It also shows drag charts/ and lift/drag charts that would also help explain further a lot of our issues, yet he lacks the experience to know what he is looking at. Now he can go pay a guy like me $500 bucks a day if he wants to learn something because he can kiss my ass.
Please carry on with the Forged Blade thread....My apologies to all. (except Alan)
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker][B]I'm not "chasing him down", Kiwi: I'm replying to inaccuracies with facts.[/B]
He's the only one who's let it get personal because (and I can only surmise this) he can't stand simply admitting he was wrong.[/QUOTE]
You are making a vital mistake that I use to make often on this site -- believing that others will actually [B]know[/B] the facts that you are stating as true and accurate. Now, if you, like me, enjoy spouting it on here anyway, then by all means spout away. I already know that I understand more about religion, science and the vast improvement in your golf game that blades will give to you, than anyone else on this forum. I enjoy spouting the facts though and watching the ignorance of others flow like the Niagara.
-
[quote=Not a hacker]Alan certainly is coming across as someone who doesn't even indulge in the discussion, he just tries to find a way to show somoene up for being wrong. He's like those people you try and have convesrsations with, but you can tell by the look on their face that they are carefully concentrating on your every word only so they can pick up on any slip.[/quote]
NAH, you and I think a lot alike and believe me that's a huge compliment to you. Both Alan and Larry have the uncanny ability to hold onto their personas which makes me believe that they are real. Most people who would argue with JD, to the extent Alan did, would eventually try to make some kind of amends or laugh it off. Alan, on the other hand, just keeps going with "I'm right and you're wrong" and never lets up. Pretty impressive, for whatever it's worth.
I'll never forget about 7 years ago I was in a bar in Chicago and I sat next to this guy who was annoying the guy to his right. The guy on the right got up and left. The guy turned to me and we started talking. After about 20 minutes I couldn't stand the guy any longer. He would take everything you said and twist it into something else. I realized that his goal wasn't to spark a conversation but to antagonize and argue. I guess the bartender was listening because all of a sudden she kicked him out. She told me that he does this every single time he comes in and that he's crazy.
-
[QUOTE=famousdavis]NAH, you and I think a lot alike and believe me that's a huge compliment to you. Both Alan and Larry have the uncanny ability to hold onto their personas which makes me believe that they are real. Most people who would argue with JD, to the extent Alan did, would eventually try to make some kind of amends or laugh it off. Alan, on the other hand, just keeps going with "I'm right and you're wrong" and never lets up. Pretty impressive, for whatever it's worth. [/QUOTE]
I'll happily admit I'm wrong, FD...
...but I have to actually BE wrong.
And in this particular case, I'm not. It's really that simple.
-
[QUOTE=SoonerBS]You are making a vital mistake that I use to make often on this site -- believing that others will actually [B]know[/B] the facts that you are stating as true and accurate. Now, if you, like me, enjoy spouting it on here anyway, then by all means spout away. I already know that I understand more about religion, science and the vast improvement in your golf game that blades will give to you, than anyone else on this forum. I enjoy spouting the facts though and [B]watching the ignorance of others flow like the Niagara.[/B][/QUOTE]
If by 'watching the ignorance' you mean having your arse owned time and time again, you are correct.
-
[quote=alangbaker]I'll happily admit I'm wrong, FD...
...but I have to actually BE wrong.
And in this particular case, I'm not. It's really that simple.[/quote]
Fair enough but JD did try to go on and explain what he meant and you just kept going back to the same post asking him if he was wrong or not. Maybe pilots use different language than the aircraft's manual and maybe they use different terminology than the aviation text books.
If I were to explain to you what my particular car does in certain situations I'm sure it wouldn't be textbook. That doesn't mean I don't understand my car better than you do, even though you've read about it.
-
[QUOTE=famousdavis]Fair enough but JD did try to go on and explain what he meant and you just kept going back to the same post asking him if he was wrong or not. Maybe pilots use different language than the aircraft's manual and maybe they use different terminology than the aviation text books. [/quote]
No. What he did was to try and pretend he wasn't wrong.
Him: all aircraft land near stalling speed.
Me: here's one that doesn't complete with proof.
Him: the US Air Force doesn't know what stalling speed means but I do...
...and so on.
[quote]If I were to explain to you what my particular car does in certain situations I'm sure it wouldn't be textbook. That doesn't mean I don't understand my car better than you do, even though you've read about it.[/QUOTE]
But he was the one try to talk in generalities that didn't apply to this "particular car" (where by that I mean "this particular class of aircraft").
Do all the aircraft with which JD is familiar land near to stalling speed? Almost certainly yes. Does that mean that all aircraft of every design do so? No, but he won't accept that.
When I explained these things politely complete with references he came back with general nastiness.
-
[QUOTE=poe4soul]Win lose or draw, this is some boring shiat. Almost as boring as guess what is wrong with this eBay post. Both of you are pathetic. Who gives a phuck?
Now let's argue the merit of gff vs cast pos(aka ping) golf clubs or tigers new hole he's plowing.[/QUOTE]
The only way to decide this is through a poll.
On one hand, we've got a 50 year old virgin basement dwelling Canadian and his google machine. On the other hand, we've got a commercial pilot with years of experience behind the controls.
Actually, I don't even think we need a poll...
-
Alan, just Shut the F up already!
You are such an a$$hole you have to just make **** up and use a missquote instead of my actual original quote. To prove what? Just shut the fck up you fcn loon.
And for your information I am more than qualified to suggest the U.S.Air Force to update that old outdated manual if I found it in fact unsafe which it may not be. So go fck yourself.
-
[QUOTE=Horseballs]The only way to decide this is through a poll.
On one hand, we've got a 50 year old virgin basement dwelling Canadian and his google machine. On the other hand, we've got a commercial pilot with years of experience behind the controls.
Actually, I don't even think we need a poll...[/QUOTE]
who gives a rat's arse either way. This isn't some aviator board.
The both of you should take this to PM's so we don't have to read your whinny arse post's. JD, no matter how many times you curse, it's still whinny arse. Either hug it out or go to PM's... If you hug it out, please record it on video and have dave post it.
-
[quote=poe4soul]who gives a rat's arse either way. This isn't some aviator board.
The both of you should take this to PM's so we don't have to read your whinny arse post's. JD, no matter how many times you curse, it's still whinny arse. Either hug it out or go to PM's... If you hug it out, please record it on video and have dave post it.[/quote]
Their egos are cashing checks their flying can't cash. Something like that.
-
[QUOTE=poe4soul]who gives a rat's arse either way. This isn't some aviator board.
The both of you should take this to PM's so we don't have to read your whinny arse post's. JD, no matter how many times you curse, it's still whinny arse. Either hug it out or go to PM's... If you hug it out, please record it on video and have dave post it.[/QUOTE]
I am done with this since Yesterday I told him he won, I am just trying to get this dude to shut the F up and stop posting his ********. Perhaps if all of you tell him as well he will finaly stop. The guy is like the Energizer Bunny on crack laced viagra with an ax.
-
The total extent of my flight knowledge I learned from the various incarnations of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Oh yeah, and I took a couple rides on 757's. Once had a first class ticket on a 747. That was sweet. Those seats are cushy, and they even serve real food up there. :D
FON
-
[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]The total extent of my flight knowledge I learned from the various incarnations of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Oh yeah, and I took a couple rides on 757's. Once had a first class ticket on a 747. That was sweet. Those seats are cushy, and they even serve real food up there. :D
FON[/QUOTE]
Freak,
You forgot the time you were on the "Airplane" movie. You were the kid that they invited into the cockpit and the captain asked you if you ever saw a grown man naked and also if you ever had been in a turkish prison. I think that was your finest work. I was quite impressed :)
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Freak,
You forgot the time you were on the "Airplane" movie. You were the kid that they invited into the cockpit and the captain asked you if you ever saw a grown man naked and also if you ever had been in a turkish prison. I think that was your finest work. I was quite impressed :)[/QUOTE]
In that movie, you lost your job to an inflatable fukk-dummy.
I WIN. :p
FON
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]Alan, just Shut the F up already!
You are such an a$$hole you have to just make **** up and use a missquote instead of my actual original quote. To prove what? Just shut the fck up you fcn loon.
And for your information I am more than qualified to suggest the U.S.Air Force to update that old outdated manual if I found it in fact unsafe which it may not be. So go fck yourself.[/QUOTE]
See?
I didn't "make **** up", JD, nor did I misquote you.
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]I am done with this since Yesterday I told him he won, I am just trying to get this dude to shut the F up and stop posting his ********. Perhaps if all of you tell him as well he will finaly stop. The guy is like the Energizer Bunny on crack laced viagra with an ax.[/QUOTE]
If you were "done with this"...
...why are you still posting?
It couldn't be that you're just not adult enough to simply admit you were wrong... ...could it?
-
[QUOTE=alangbaker]If you were "done with this"...
...why are you still posting?
It couldn't be that you're just not adult enough to simply admit you were wrong... ...could it?[/QUOTE]
The problem is you are a cock gobbling basement dwelling queer that has never flown a jet or a plane...
Your own videos, and Miata ownership, prove your c0ck gobblingness...
The visor, the fat non athletic hips, the swing, ... --> [url]http://www.youtube.com/user/alangbaker[/url]
Larry has you pegged, and Larry owns you.
You are a fat non athletic gay ass nerd.
You got owned b!tch by JD and especially by Larry.
Larry owns your gay ass, and he is laughing at your f@g ass!!! LOL!!!
[IMG]http://www.jaunted.com/files/admin/gay_buenos_aires.jpg[/IMG]
-
[QUOTE=spanqdoggie]The problem is...[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you're very impressed with yourself...
-
[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]The total extent of my flight knowledge I learned from the various incarnations of Microsoft Flight Simulator. Oh yeah, and I took a couple rides on 757's. Once had a first class ticket on a 747. That was sweet. Those seats are cushy, [B]and they even serve real food up there. :D[/B]
FON[/QUOTE]
You mean they use cheese wiz on the macaroni?
-
[quote=Not a hacker]You mean they use cheese wiz on the macaroni?[/quote]
I remember playing the flight simulator game on my Macintosh in 1985. Talk about old school. Load Runner was and still is a great game. My Macintosh had no hard drive and was 512K. It took around 5 minutes to boot up and I resold it in 1990 to some moron for $1,000. He called me 3 days later and asked to return it because he didn't realize it was completely obsolete. It was in perfectly good working condition and prior I had told him what year I had bought it and even asked him if he was sure it was the model he wanted. I told him I'd already spent the money on golf clubs and he acted all pissy. All I said in response was Caveat Emptor my friend, Caveat Emptor.
-
[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]In that movie, you lost your job to an inflatable fukk-dummy.
I WIN. :p
FON[/QUOTE]
You most certainly did, And I will never forgive you for taking my job! :D
-
[quote=jetdriver]You most certainly did, And I will never forgive you for taking my job! :D[/quote]
ZZZIIIINNNGGG!!!!!!
-
[quote=lorenzoinoc]ZZZIIIINNNGGG!!!!!![/quote]
Please don't use Ping golf club names in vain.
-
[quote=famousdavis]Ping golf clubs suck as their names indicate. So why I get a woodie over them is a tragic mystery. Something I might think about as I choke on my next putrid McDonald's Happy Meal while searching for the toy.[/quote]
Good luck with that.
-
[quote=lorenzoinoc]I'm dumber than Rocky Balboa and his friend Pauly combined.[/quote]
Can't believe you'd misquote me like that.
-
[quote=famousdavis]Can't believe my boyfriend rode me like that.[/quote]
I can believe it, I just don't want to see it.
-
[QUOTE=Not a hacker]You mean they use cheese wiz on the macaroni?[/QUOTE]
Well... no. It was some sort of artificial Cheez Whiz substitute.
I'm pretty certain it may have been real macaroni though.
Not too shabby, for airline food. :D
FON
-
[QUOTE=jetdriver]You most certainly did, And I will never forgive you for taking my job! :D[/QUOTE]
It's not my problem if you can't stay inflated when the pressure's on. It's tough to maintain altitude when you're steadily leaking cabin pressure.
I assure you, any innuendo was completely unintentional. :D
FON
-
[QUOTE=FreakOfNature]It's not my problem if you can't stay inflated when the pressure's on. It's tough to maintain altitude when you're steadily leaking cabin pressure.
I assure you, any innuendo was completely unintentional. :D
FON[/QUOTE]
Late retort to zing. 5 yard penalty. Repeat 2nd down.
|
