Irrational Blade Intimidation

[24putts]

Yesterday I played with a 51-year old guy working on his 2d retirement. Nice guy, in criminal forensics. After I blew by a few groups as a single, I joined his group. So we're walking up the fairway and he notices my VIP Limiteds, and he goes, "wow, Macgregor blades, those are beautiful." Turns out he's got a pretty good swing, very good ball speed, but he's hitting the equator a lot with his '09 Burners. So I tell him I have a set of barely played '83 Tourney MT's, real head-turners, mid-size, and he can have 'em for $80. And he goes, "Oh no, I could never handle those. I better stick with these GI's."

[Pky6471]

Yesterday I played with a 51-year old guy working on his 2d retirement. Nice guy, in criminal forensics. After I blew by a few groups as a single, I joined his group. So we're walking up the fairway and he notices my VIP Limiteds, and he goes, "wow, Macgregor blades, those are beautiful." Turns out he's got a pretty good swing, very good ball speed, but he's hitting the equator a lot with his '09 Burners. So I tell him I have a set of barely played '83 Tourney MT's, real head-turners, mid-size, and he can have 'em for $80. And he goes, "Oh no, I could never handle those. I better stick with these GI's."

Smart players look for results, not for 'good feel'... who the hell cares if 'good feel' without good results... I was at a local range today and ran into a guy I knew last yr at the next booth... he hit quite well with his Mizuno MP68.. I told him that I still use the 2002 Callaway BB and he borrowed my 6-i which he hit a ton with accuracy... in the end I never thought that I would hear this from a Mizuno player ..." I will search for the same 2002 BB on eBay"...

[jetdriver]

Smart players look for results, not for 'good feel'... who the hell cares if 'good feel' without good results... I was at a local range today and ran into a guy I knew last yr at the next booth... he hit quite well with his Mizuno MP68.. I told him that I still use the 2002 Callaway BB and he borrowed my 6-i which he hit a ton with accuracy... in the end I never thought that I would hear this from a Mizuno player ..." I will search for the same 2002 BB on eBay"...

The problem is that once one uses GI CB's for a little while your swing gets sloppy because all the hits feel the same even the wild shots. Pick up a blade after that and you can't hit the sweetspot anymore. I think CBs are fine as long as you continue using Blades as well. Also I find offsets (often a feature of GI Irons) messes up my woods/ driver swing because I start compensating for the irons and come over the top with the woods/driver.

[Pky6471]

I hear you... I am looking for accuracy... blades or not

[jetdriver]

I hear you... I am looking for accuracy... blades or not

Have you ever stuck with blades long enough to think that they were accurate? I find that shaping the shot makes them a bit more accurate. I understand what you are saying...I am just asking. I actually like the X14's that I just got so I really am not knocking the CB's.

[Pky6471]

Have you ever stuck with blades long enough to think that they were accurate? I find that shaping the shot makes them a bit more accurate. I understand what you are saying...I am just asking. I actually like the X14's that I just got so I really am not knocking the CB's.

I never play blades so I can't comment on those so-called great-feel clubs... and at my age I don't want to try. I heard that blades are easier to shape a ball then GI clubs... I hope that I don't need to shape a ball often like BW... My standard default is a baby-fade , but when needed I could draw a ball to get out of trouble... for those who enjoy playing blades more power to them... who knows, someday I may run into a set that I like... Never say never...

[jetdriver]

I never play blades so I can't comment on those so-called great-feel clubs... and at my age I don't want to try. I heard that blades are easier to shape a ball then GI clubs... I hope that I don't need to shape a ball often like BW... My standard default is a baby-fade , but when needed I could draw a ball to get out of trouble... for those who enjoy playing blades more power to them... who knows, someday I may run into a set that I like... Never say never...

I hear you. I have tried some bad blades, and some good ones, they are not all created equal. If your age is an issue, you may hurt your hands a little at first while you figure them out so I do see your point they may not be the thing for some....they only feel good with good contact on the proper spot. That is why most people get turned off when they first try them. The Callaway X14 pro series cavity backs that I just got feel really nice to me like I said my concern is that since a bad shot feels nice as well I will probably find the blades hard to hit afterwards.

[Not a hacker]

I hear you... I am looking for accuracy... blades or not

This statement is a falacy. Blades are more accurate than GI or SGI paddles, the main downside of blades is loss of distance. I would almost guarantee that most players would hit blades straighter than shovels, but would lose too much distance on mishits, of which there will be more with blades.

[SoonerBS]

This statement is a falacy. Blades are more accurate than GI or SGI paddles, the main downside of blades is loss of distance. I would almost guarantee that most players would hit blades straighter than shovels, but would lose too much distance on mishits, of which there will be more with blades.

This statement is correct. Most GI shovel players today are merrily sheep that have drunk the "game improvement" and "you can't hit blades" kool-aid. Most GI players would not notice a great difference in their scores hitting MP-33s or 67s right off. If anything, their scores would likely get better the more they used them. But, they would have to get use to playing one more club than normal.

I have noticed that lately I am hitting one more club than usual. I asked my playing buddies who's handicaps range from 8 to 3 why that might be. They all said it was because I have a more controlled swing now and am not trying to see how hard I can hit a ball. The result is having to club up, but having more control on ball flight. I don't mind the trade off.

[Not a hacker]

This statement is correct. Most GI shovel players today are merrily sheep that have drunk the "game improvement" and "you can't hit blades" kool-aid. Most GI players would not notice a great difference in their scores hitting MP-33s or 67s right off. If anything, their scores would likely get better the more they used them. But, they would have to get use to playing one more club than normal.

I have noticed that lately I am hitting one more club than usual. I asked my playing buddies who's handicaps range from 8 to 3 why that might be. They all said it was because I have a more controlled swing now and am not trying to see how hard I can hit a ball. The result is having to club up, but having more control on ball flight. I don't mind the trade off.

Consistency by going one club is not a trade off in my book. Having to take one extra club, but actually knowing where and how far it's going is better than one club less and spraying it all over the park. I think you my find that you will soon be hitting it as far as you did before anyway. I notice that on the days when I start off with a nice controlled swing I need one extra club early, but after a couple of holes I'm hitting it as long or longer than when I go after it. I put it down to keeping a nice rhtythm and timing the shot perfectly, and adding a little juice to the shot as the round progresses. You still don't swing hard, just in control and with better contact. And as Ernie and Freddy show, it's about when you swing fast, not how hard you go at it. Those two guys look like they could fall asleep they are so slow and relaxed during their swing, but just as they get to impact they generate plenty of speed. They just make it look effortless.

[Pky6471]

Consistency by going one club is not a trade off in my book. Having to take one extra club, but actually knowing where and how far it's going is better than one club less and spraying it all over the park. I think you my find that you will soon be hitting it as far as you did before anyway. I notice that on the days when I start off with a nice controlled swing I need one extra club early, but after a couple of holes I'm hitting it as long or longer than when I go after it. I put it down to keeping a nice rhtythm and timing the shot perfectly, and adding a little juice to the shot as the round progresses. You still don't swing hard, just in control and with better contact. And as Ernie and Freddy show, it's about when you swing fast, not how hard you go at it. Those two guys look like they could fall asleep they are so slow and relaxed during their swing, but just as they get to impact they generate plenty of speed. They just make it look effortless.

I hear you... I was at a local range yesteday hitting baby fades with my Cally 2002 BB. The guy next to me hit baby draws with his Mizuno 68... I gave him a compliment that he hits beautiful draws and told him that I heard a hacker swears blades such as Mizuno that he can work both ways with ease... I asked him to show me how to go from baby draws to baby fades... blablabla... the next ten shots he could not create any by fades, he face started to turn red... and I just went back to my beautiful baby fades with my 2002 Cally

[famousdavis]

Come on guys, let's quit smoking the doobage and get back to reality. Blades are quite a bit more difficult to hit than game improvement or even player's cavity back irons. When you mishit a blade the distance loss is significant. Blades are only more accurate if you are hitting them right on the sweet spot. Cavity backs enable you to slightly miss the sweet spot and still reach the green. If blades offered an advantage then the pros on the PGA tour would be playing them. But they don't. Most of them play cavity backs and many of them choose a game improvement iron for the longer irons. Why do they do this? Because they want to score better. As Larry would say....Duh!!

[Home-slicer]

Come on guys, let's quit smoking the doobage and get back to reality. Blades are quite a bit more difficult to hit than game improvement or even player's cavity back irons. When you mishit a blade the distance loss is significant. Blades are only more accurate if you are hitting them right on the sweet spot. Cavity backs enable you to slightly miss the sweet spot and still reach the green. If blades offered an advantage then the pros on the PGA tour would be playing them. But they don't. Most of them play cavity backs and many of them choose a game improvement iron for the longer irons. Why do they do this? Because they want to score better. As Larry would say....Duh!!

But FD, if you use cavity backs, your swing will erode to a sloppy mess. Look at all those tour player's sloppy swings. I hear Tiger's swing came apart when he took a practice swing with a cavity back. When I hit my GI shovels I never try to hit the ball in the center of the clubface. I aim for the hosel or the toe because I know I can get away with it. In fact, I usually close my eyes when I swing a cavity back. GI clubs have been linked to autism and grand mal seizures.

[jetdriver]

I wonder what people did before there were shovels and fishbowls? I guess nobody could play golf....you know a high handicaper can't hit a blade...I guess they went and played baseball. The only CB that I find accurate long term is the Tommy Armour 854s but they had to offset the long irons like shmucks. The reason they are good I think is that while they are hard as rocks they have feel as far as sting if not hit on the sweet spot.
In my field almost all people learned to fly those Cessna 152's that are like GI shovels. When I was 16 I learned in one of those too and thought I could fly. then I was introduced to a Piper Tomahawk (like a blade) that thing liked to fly upside down and backwards when you we'nt looking. I thought people were crazy to fly something that required that much attention to keep straight. Hell it was the best thing I did it actually gave me the skills I needed at the time and has carried over into just about anything that flies. I have since flown some of the most unstable jets and helicopters and see the value of tradeoff in stability vs. control. A stable thing always has less control whether it is static or dynamic. I actually have found that the most unstable things once mastered are the most permanent....Riding a bike and hovering a helicopter are among the most difficult unintuitive things to learn yet once you learn it you never forget.

[famousdavis]

I wonder what people did before there were shovels and fishbowls? I guess nobody could play golf....you know a high handicaper can't hit a blade...I guess they went and played baseball. The only CB that I find accurate long term is the Tommy Armour 854s but they had to offset the long irons like shmucks. The reason they are good I think is that while they are hard as rocks they have feel as far as sting if not hit on the sweet spot.
In my field almost all people learned to fly those Cessna 152's that are like GI shovels. When I was 16 I learned in one of those too and thought I could fly. then I was introduced to a Piper Tomahawk (like a blade) that thing liked to fly upside down and backwards when you we'nt looking. I thought people were crazy to fly something that required that much attention to keep straight. Hell it was the best thing I did it actually gave me the skills I needed at the time and has carried over into just about anything that flies. I have since flown some of the most unstable jets and helicopters and see the value of tradeoff in stability vs. control. A stable thing always has less control whether it is static or dynamic. I actually have found that the most unstable things once mastered are the most permanent....Riding a bike and hovering a helicopter are among the most difficult unintuitive things to learn yet once you learn it you never forget.

The first part of your post doesn't make sense. Since the 60's there have been clubs designed to help higher handicappers. Sure, people in the old days all had to play blades and if cavity backs were available they would have hit better shots when they didn't hit the center of the clubface.

I don't know why you are introducing an airplane analogy because it doesn't work as a comparison. Golf is golf. If I have a 3 iron blade in my hand I'm less likely to hit the green than if I have a cavity back. Pure and simple.

[Pky6471]

I wonder what people did before there were shovels and fishbowls? I guess nobody could play golf....you know a high handicaper can't hit a blade...I guess they went and played baseball. The only CB that I find accurate long term is the Tommy Armour 854s but they had to offset the long irons like shmucks. The reason they are good I think is that while they are hard as rocks they have feel as far as sting if not hit on the sweet spot.
In my field almost all people learned to fly those Cessna 152's that are like GI shovels. When I was 16 I learned in one of those too and thought I could fly. then I was introduced to a Piper Tomahawk (like a blade) that thing liked to fly upside down and backwards when you we'nt looking. I thought people were crazy to fly something that required that much attention to keep straight. Hell it was the best thing I did it actually gave me the skills I needed at the time and has carried over into just about anything that flies. I have since flown some of the most unstable jets and helicopters and see the value of tradeoff in stability vs. control. A stable thing always has less control whether it is static or dynamic. I actually have found that the most unstable things once mastered are the most permanent....Riding a bike and hovering a helicopter are among the most difficult unintuitive things to learn yet once you learn it you never forget.

Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein"
Work smarter... Not harder
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
"Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity."
"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
"The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead."
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!"
"No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
"Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever."
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."
"One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year."
"...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought."
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

[jetdriver]

The first part of your post doesn't make sense. Since the 60's there have been clubs designed to help higher handicappers. Sure, people in the old days all had to play blades and if cavity backs were available they would have hit better shots when they didn't hit the center of the clubface.

I don't know why you are introducing an airplane analogy because it doesn't work as a comparison. Golf is golf. If I have a 3 iron blade in my hand I'm less likely to hit the green than if I have a cavity back. Pure and simple.

I have yet to find a cavity back that I can consistantly hit better than my blades, even the long irons (and I am not as good as most of you guys here as far as scoring).
I think the airplane analogy is very relevant, it's about Stability and Control of a stable platform and a unstable platform and how the human brain makes skills permanent. please read it again, while you may not agree, it does make sense.

[famousdavis]

I have yet to find a cavity back that I can consistantly hit better than my blades, even the long irons (and I am not as good as most of you guys here as far as scoring).
I think the airplane analogy is very relevant, it's about Stability and Control of a stable platform and a unstable platform and how the human brain makes skills permanent. please read it again, while you may not agree, it does make sense.

I have a photographic memory so no need to read again. Hey, some people like blades and some people like cavity backs. For someone with a handicap greater than 5 I think it's better to play with some kind of perimeter weighted club. I'm not talking about oversized irons. I'm talking about a club with some forgiveness and maybe a touch of offset. I'm currently playing the Ping s59 irons and they are very much like a blade. I'm a bad example because my ballstriking is so good that I could be on the tour if it wasn't for my short game.

[12sandwich]

Wake up and roast some coffee. Blades, or something similar in the short irons feels better to me, and probably most better ball strikers. Cavity backs in the long irons are easier to hit, period. I know imediately when I hit a bad shot when hitting a blade. Not so much with a perimeter weighted cavity back gi club.

[jetdriver]

I have a photographic memory so no need to read again. Hey, some people like blades and some people like cavity backs. For someone with a handicap greater than 5 I think it's better to play with some kind of perimeter weighted club. I'm not talking about oversized irons. I'm talking about a club with some forgiveness and maybe a touch of offset. I'm currently playing the Ping s59 irons and they are very much like a blade. I'm a bad example because my ballstriking is so good that I could be on the tour if it wasn't for my short game.

You might even room mate with qthong on tour if you just got out there and practiced!

[mongrel]

Collected Quotes from Albert Einstein"
Work smarter... Not harder
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"Gravitation is not responsible for people falling in love."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
"The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax."
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."
"I never think of the future. It comes soon enough."
"The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility."
"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it."
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
"The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking."
"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school."
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater."
"Equations are more important to me, because politics is for the present, but an equation is something for eternity."
"If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut."
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
"In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
"The fear of death is the most unjustified of all fears, for there's no risk of accident for someone who's dead."
"Too many of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel, even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves."
"Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!"
"No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?"
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
"Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever."
"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."
"Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat."
"One had to cram all this stuff into one's mind for the examinations, whether one liked it or not. This coercion had such a deterring effect on me that, after I had passed the final examination, I found the consideration of any scientific problems distasteful to me for an entire year."
"...one of the strongest motives that lead men to art and science is escape from everyday life with its painful crudity and hopeless dreariness, from the fetters of one's own ever-shifting desires. A finely tempered nature longs to escape from the personal life into the world of objective perception and thought."
"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)

And Einstein makes pretty good bagels, too.

[jetdriver]

And Einstein makes pretty good bagels, too.

His brother as well, I think.

[lorenzoinoc]

What a great collection of quotes, thanks Pkwy. I'm no Einstein, but it doesn't appear any of them explain the hair.

[famousdavis]

I'd like to throw in a few of my own quotes:

"Life is of essence"
"Always choose performance over looks, especially if it's tumbled"
"The Anser lies before you"
"The skinny ones make you hard but the fat ones make you laugh"
"Tis always been thus, and thus will always be"
"A good man goes where no man hasn't gone before"
"A good lie isn't nearly as satisfying as a good lie angle"

[jetdriver]

What a great collection of quotes, thanks Pkwy. I'm no Einstein, but it doesn't appear any of them explain the hair.

His alarm clock had chaffed wires next to the snooze button.

[Larryrsf]

Smart players look for results, not for 'good feel'... who the hell cares if 'good feel' without good results... I was at a local range today and ran into a guy I knew last yr at the next booth... he hit quite well with his Mizuno MP68.. I told him that I still use the 2002 Callaway BB and he borrowed my 6-i which he hit a ton with accuracy... in the end I never thought that I would hear this from a Mizuno player ..." I will search for the same 2002 BB on eBay"...

Yep, I remember a few years ago it seemed that EVERY older member of my golf club (600 members) played that set of Callaway OS BB irons, graphite shaft. I always challenge anyone who doesn't believe they are accurate to hit those against his irons, especially if he is using forged blades and heavy steel shafts. NOBODY has ever complained that his direction was erratic. They all say they get 10+ more yards for the same swing effort. Duh, what else is there? Nobody should be forced to swing "hard" for 18 holes. The last few holes will be a disaster for most of us.

Callaway officials in a recent golf show demo booth near here (and near Callaway corporate offices) said they must keep remanufacturing that 2002 OS BB iron set because of demand. They name them something else each year-- but they are the same irons. You don't get off a winning horse!

Larry

[famousdavis]

Yep, I remember a few years ago it seemed that EVERY older member of my golf club (600 members) played that set of Callaway OS BB irons, graphite shaft. I always challenge anyone who doesn't believe they are accurate to hit those against his irons, especially if he is using forged blades and heavy steel shafts. NOBODY has ever complained that his direction was erratic. They all say they get 10+ more yards for the same swing effort. Duh, what else is there? Nobody should be forced to swing "hard" for 18 holes. The last few holes will be a disaster for most of us.

Callaway officials in a recent golf show demo booth near here (and near Callaway corporate offices) said they must keep remanufacturing that 2002 OS BB iron set because of demand. They name them something else each year-- but they are the same irons. You don't get off a winning horse!

Larry

You are correct, to this day they still manufacture that same set of 2002 OS BB irons and they are still the greatest selling iron year after year. All they do is switch out the insert every year and call it 2004, 2006 and now, of course, it's 2012 so they are called the 2012 OS BB irons. 80% of the seniors at my country club play the 2012 model while the other 20% play the 2010 model. Our club has a framed set of the original 2002 BB irons for all to see. We took down the framed set of original Bobby Jones hickory sticks because we thought these were more important.

[Pky6471]

What a great collection of quotes, thanks Pkwy. I'm no Einstein, but it doesn't appear any of them explain the hair.

Lorenzo... Great scientist is like a rock star... hair that is
I guess Einstein pulled his hair out while developing some of the most complex theory like E=mc square

[SoonerBS]

I have a photographic memory so no need to read again. Hey, some people like blades and some people like cavity backs. For someone with a handicap greater than 5 I think it's better to play with some kind of perimeter weighted club. I'm not talking about oversized irons. I'm talking about a club with some forgiveness and maybe a touch of offset. I'm currently playing the Ping s59 irons and they are very much like a blade. I'm a bad example because my ballstriking is so good that I could be on the tour if it wasn't for my short game.

(In my best "Animal House" imitation) *cough* *cough* Bullshite! *cough* *cough*

[famousdavis]

(In my best "Animal House" imitation) *cough* *cough* Bullshite! *cough* *cough*

The Ping s59 has a smaller clubhead and less offset than your chunky MP-52 sweat shop classics.

[SoonerBS]

The Ping s59 has a smaller clubhead and less offset than your chunky MP-52 sweat shop classics.

You've never heard me claim that the MP-52s are "blades" because they are not. They are a "player's" cavity back like the s59s are, FD.

[famousdavis]

You've never heard me claim that the MP-52s are "blades" because they are not. They are a "player's" cavity back like the s59s are, FD.

The S59 has little to no cavity whereas the MP-52 has this huge channel at the sole that looks similar to the Callaway X-12. S59 is for players but the MP-52 is kind of for guys that want to look like players. There's a distinct difference.

[SoonerBS]

The S59 has little to no cavity whereas the MP-52 has this huge channel at the sole that looks similar to the Callaway X-12. S59 is for players but the MP-52 is kind of for guys that want to look like players. There's a distinct difference.

FD, just keep telling yourself these kind of things if it makes you hard, but I have hit the S59s and they felt like shite as all PINGs do. No sell here.

[famousdavis]

FD, just keep telling yourself these kind of things if it makes you hard, but I have hit the S59s and they felt like shite as all PINGs do. No sell here.

You may have hit them but obviously you didn't hit them pure. I hit the MP-52 and it felt much harder than the other Mizuno players irons.

[SoonerBS]

You may have hit them but obviously you didn't hit them pure. I hit the MP-52 and it felt much harder than the other Mizuno players irons.

It is, I agree. It's not as hard as anything PING makes though.

[daveperkins]

I wonder what people did before there were shovels and fishbowls? I guess nobody could play golf....you know a high handicaper can't hit a blade...I guess they went and played baseball. The only CB that I find accurate long term is the Tommy Armour 854s but they had to offset the long irons like shmucks. The reason they are good I think is that while they are hard as rocks they have feel as far as sting if not hit on the sweet spot.
In my field almost all people learned to fly those Cessna 152's that are like GI shovels. When I was 16 I learned in one of those too and thought I could fly. then I was introduced to a Piper Tomahawk (like a blade) that thing liked to fly upside down and backwards when you we'nt looking. I thought people were crazy to fly something that required that much attention to keep straight. Hell it was the best thing I did it actually gave me the skills I needed at the time and has carried over into just about anything that flies. I have since flown some of the most unstable jets and helicopters and see the value of tradeoff in stability vs. control. A stable thing always has less control whether it is static or dynamic. I actually have found that the most unstable things once mastered are the most permanent....Riding a bike and hovering a helicopter are among the most difficult unintuitive things to learn yet once you learn it you never forget.

my 91 yr old father in law flew DC3s and DC4s, among lots of others, back in WWII. He said the DC3 flies itself after you trim it, but the DC4 had to be taken off autopilot every ten minutes to get back on course.. in manual, it "hunted", went side to side in roll and yaw, really annoying on trans-pacific 15 hr flights. They had radio silence in the pacific theater most times, had to get where they were going with old fashioned star sighting and dead reckoning. Most flights were timed to arrive at night for that reason.

I learned in a 172. Big Dave is too big to fit in a 152 without the old phone-booth sideways scrunch. :-)

[SoonerBS]

my 91 yr old father in law flew DC3s and DC4s, among lots of others, back in WWII. He said the DC3 flies itself after you trim it, but the DC4 had to be taken off autopilot every ten minutes to get back on course.. in manual, it "hunted", went side to side in roll and yaw, really annoying on trans-pacific 15 hr flights. They had radio silence in the pacific theater most times, had to get where they were going with old fashioned star sighting and dead reckoning. Most flights were timed to arrive at night for that reason.

I learned in a 172. Big Dave is too big to fit in a 152 without the old phone-booth sideways scrunch. :-)

Damn, Dave, you must have married his youngest daughter because your dad is nowhere near that old . . . . .

[Not a hacker]

And Einstein makes pretty good bagels, too.

Nice guy. Made a fortune in physics.

[Not a hacker]

It is, I agree. It's not as hard as anything PING makes though.

I've heard the US military has contracted Ping to make the plate armour for the next generation of tanks. They will be using a slightly softer steel than their irons. They want something that will stop a missile, but not something so hard that the jarring will dislodge the tracks from the wheels if someone threw a golf ball at it.

[famousdavis]

I've heard the US military has contracted Ping to make the plate armour for the next generation of tanks. They will be using a slightly softer steel than their irons. They want something that will stop a missile, but not something so hard that the jarring will dislodge the tracks from the wheels if someone threw a golf ball at it.

Are you talking about the square groove model or the Plus model?

[Not a hacker]

Are you talking about the square groove model or the Plus model?

I thought the Plus model was the one with the square grooves?

[jetdriver]

my 91 yr old father in law flew DC3s and DC4s, among lots of others, back in WWII. He said the DC3 flies itself after you trim it, but the DC4 had to be taken off autopilot every ten minutes to get back on course.. in manual, it "hunted", went side to side in roll and yaw, really annoying on trans-pacific 15 hr flights. They had radio silence in the pacific theater most times, had to get where they were going with old fashioned star sighting and dead reckoning. Most flights were timed to arrive at night for that reason.

I learned in a 172. Big Dave is too big to fit in a 152 without the old phone-booth sideways scrunch. :-)

Thats awsome Dave! so you are a pilot! cool. How far did you go with your flying? I did a lot of teaching in 172's and Piper Warriors. in the early 90's

When we were instructors at the airport, my friend and I were both trained for copilot positions in the DC3 with some really old and frail captains. after our training in the aircraft my friend was first to do a revenue flight and they had a hydraulic leak in the cockpit. When he got back he was drenched in fluid...that was all it took for me to say...I do not think this is for me guys. It was fun to fly though. I have since stuck to Learjets, Gulfstreams and Simulators.
PM me if you ever have any airplane/aviation questions.

[jetdriver]

I thought the Plus model was the one with the square grooves?

Nope, The Plus model has slightly different lofts and they thined the sole towards the back and took that metal and deposited it at the toe. it keeps it straighter as you shovel dirt, snow, etc....

[famousdavis]

I thought the Plus model was the one with the square grooves?

No you didn't. Everyone knows the plus model came out after the big USGA vs. Ping showdown and the grooves in that model are conforming. The ones in the square groove model were grandfathered.

[Larryrsf]

my 91 yr old father in law flew DC3s and DC4s, among lots of others, back in WWII. He said the DC3 flies itself after you trim it, but the DC4 had to be taken off autopilot every ten minutes to get back on course.. in manual, it "hunted", went side to side in roll and yaw, really annoying on trans-pacific 15 hr flights. They had radio silence in the pacific theater most times, had to get where they were going with old fashioned star sighting and dead reckoning. Most flights were timed to arrive at night for that reason.

I learned in a 172. Big Dave is too big to fit in a 152 without the old phone-booth sideways scrunch. :-)

I learned in 150s-- and learned to do the things it can do, such as flying with almost zero ground speed-- big barn door flaps down 40 degrees with power slowly applied, it will almost stop. And with those huge flaps down and severe angle of attack, it will do a stall so abrupt into a spin that it scares jet pilots! I flew T-34s in military flying clubs. Nice airplane, laminar flow wings and serious aerobatic ability. Qualification flights included snap roll into spin and recovery. That was very scary stuff for civilian pilots! There was a good reason for that shoulder harness... My head hit the canopy! I put at least 500 hours in my own 182, flying between businesses in Eastern Kansas. Haven't flown in 30 years, the overlapping control zones in a place like San Diego make private flying too much work (and dangerous for those without a current Instrument ticket).

I really admired GW Bush after I read that he accumulated 500+ F-102 hours. That airplane had the reputation of a killer because there was zero forgiveness. Low and slow=dead.

Larry

[jetdriver]

I learned in 150s-- and learned to do the things it can do, such as flying with almost zero ground speed-- big barn door flaps down 40 degrees with power slowly applied, it will almost stop. And with those huge flaps down and severe angle of attack, it will do a stall so abrupt into a spin that it scares jet pilots! I flew T-34s in military flying clubs. Nice airplane, laminar flow wings and serious aerobatic ability. Qualification flights included snap roll into spin and recovery. That was very scary stuff for civilian pilots! There was a good reason for that shoulder harness... My head hit the canopy! I put at least 500 hours in my own 182, flying between businesses in Eastern Kansas. Haven't flown in 30 years, the overlapping control zones in a place like San Diego make private flying too much work (and dangerous for those without a current Instrument ticket).

I really admired GW Bush after I read that he accumulated 500+ F-102 hours. That airplane had the reputation of a killer because there was zero forgiveness. Low and slow=dead.

Larry

Well, cool Larry. I see that you have an aviation background as well. I have done some interesting flights in a 182RG.

[Kiwi Player]

Well, cool Larry. I see that you have an aviation background as well. I have done some interesting flights in a 182RG.

Maybe you should get this verified by Alan G Baker before you jump to conclusions?

We all thought he was a 6 cap to start with too!

[famousdavis]

Maybe you should get this verified by Alan G Baker before you jump to conclusions?

We all thought he was a 6 cap to start with too!

A guy I knew in college never stopped talking about being a naval aviator after seeing Top Gun. He talked about it for 3 years and then when we graduated he was accepted to the officer's candidate school for the Navy (his grandfather was an Admiral). He lasted exactly two weeks because he couldn't pee in a cup while one of the drill guys was yelling at him. He got upset and just walked off. About 4 months later he told me that he really wanted to try again. I don't know if I was correct or not but I told him that there was no way they would ever let him try again. Isn't that the whole point? You either have what it takes or you don't. No second chances and no second guessing. Plus, the simple fact of the matter is that he would do exactly what he did the first time...walk off.

[alangbaker]

I learned in 150s-- and learned to do the things it can do, such as flying with almost zero ground speed-- big barn door flaps down 40 degrees with power slowly applied, it will almost stop.

Only if you mean by "almost stop" "travel at 50mph"...

And with those huge flaps down and severe angle of attack, it will do a stall so abrupt into a spin that it scares jet pilots! I flew T-34s in military flying clubs. Nice airplane, laminar flow wings and serious aerobatic ability. Qualification flights included snap roll into spin and recovery. That was very scary stuff for civilian pilots! There was a good reason for that shoulder harness... My head hit the canopy! I put at least 500 hours in my own 182, flying between businesses in Eastern Kansas. Haven't flown in 30 years, the overlapping control zones in a place like San Diego make private flying too much work (and dangerous for those without a current Instrument ticket).

Strange... ...you claimed to have flown your Piper Malibu much more recently than that...


Oh, and the Beechcraft T-34 didn't have a laminar flow wing.

I really admired GW Bush after I read that he accumulated 500+ F-102 hours. That airplane had the reputation of a killer because there was zero forgiveness. Low and slow=dead.

Why would you ever fly a pure interceptor low and slow, Larry?

[SoonerBS]

A guy I knew in college never stopped talking about being a naval aviator after seeing Top Gun. He talked about it for 3 years and then when we graduated he was accepted to the officer's candidate school for the Navy (his grandfather was an Admiral). He lasted exactly two weeks because he couldn't pee in a cup while one of the drill guys was yelling at him. He got upset and just walked off. About 4 months later he told me that he really wanted to try again. I don't know if I was correct or not but I told him that there was no way they would ever let him try again. Isn't that the whole point? You either have what it takes or you don't. No second chances and no second guessing. Plus, the simple fact of the matter is that he would do exactly what he did the first time...walk off.

I always wondered what it was that separated the officers from the enlisted men. Now I know.

[jetdriver]

Why would you ever fly a pure interceptor low and slow, Larry?

To land would be a good time.

[FreakOfNature]

To land would be a good time.

I believe you meant just prior to landing. Hard to call it flying when your wheels are on the ground and the wings are no longer providing sufficient lift to remain airborne.

I'm speculating that Larry performed all of his low and slow maneuvers while on the taxiways. Probably got the rudder pedals confused with the throttle & brakes.

In the words of Busta Rhymes - "Yaw yaw yaw,.. yaw, yaw. Woo-Ha!"

You're probably too old/white to get that song reference... but I know you understand yaw.

Anyways...

I thought this thread was about the irrational fear of blades that most of the propaganda swilling ditch-diggers prescribe to.

On a related note, a recent survey of people who find blades difficult to hit also revealed that they also found the following to be quite difficult:

- infiltrating child-proof packaging (83%)
- walking upright for extended periods of time (74%)
- identifying primary colors (68%)
- spelling their own name (88%)
- avoiding accidental urinary and fecal discharge (81%)
- not being afraid of everything (99%)

So as you can see, those blade haters aren't exactly renowned for their credibility.

A very long time ago, I had a 4 year old kid on his bike tell me how his training wheels were soooo awesome. So naturally, I put a set on my bike. They were so awesome I never stopped crashing until I took them off.

Lesson : Never accept any help unless you NEED it. Don't rely on technology to control the things you already have control of.

A man with two able legs doesn't need to walk around on crutches.



FON

[alangbaker]

To land would be a good time.

Not so much.

The landing speed of the F-102 was 173mph and the stall speed was 100 knots.

102s landed slow and fast and then used a parachute.

[spanqdoggie]

What a great collection of quotes, thanks Pkwy. I'm no Einstein, but it doesn't appear any of them explain the hair.

The quotes are nice, but some bastards here believe they came from Einstein...

Are you serious? That Einstein quote thing is as fake as it gets... Anybody who believes all those quotes are from Einstein is a retard...

Einstein was a math nerd, not some poet; get your heads out of your asses!!!

It is so easy to fool kids today with these emails that are propagated throughout the interwebs...

retards.

p.s. you gotta be kidding me fools...

[12sandwich]

I learned in 150s-- and learned to do the things it can do, such as flying with almost zero ground speed-- big barn door flaps down 40 degrees with power slowly applied, it will almost stop. And with those huge flaps down and severe angle of attack, it will do a stall so abrupt into a spin that it scares jet pilots! I flew T-34s in military flying clubs. Nice airplane, laminar flow wings and serious aerobatic ability. Qualification flights included snap roll into spin and recovery. That was very scary stuff for civilian pilots! There was a good reason for that shoulder harness... My head hit the canopy! I put at least 500 hours in my own 182, flying between businesses in Eastern Kansas. Haven't flown in 30 years, the overlapping control zones in a place like San Diego make private flying too much work (and dangerous for those without a current Instrument ticket).

I really admired GW Bush after I read that he accumulated 500+ F-102 hours. That airplane had the reputation of a killer because there was zero forgiveness. Low and slow=dead.

Larry

Why was the Beechcraft Bonanza called a Doctor killer? My dad was the owner of a experimental one that had been converted to a twin engine, by beech and converted back to a single. I remember a v tail, and wing tip tanks. I heard of some near misses he had with that plane. I had some lessons in a Piper cub cadet, It kind of weened me from wanting to fly, though it seemed an easy aircraft to fly. I felt out of my element, in something akin to a model airplane.

[daveperkins]

Why was the Beechcraft Bonanza called a Doctor killer? My dad was the owner of a experimental one that had been converted to a twin engine, by beech and converted back to a single. I remember a v tail, and wing tip tanks. I heard of some near misses he had with that plane. I had some lessons in a Piper cub cadet, It kind of weened me from wanting to fly, though it seemed an easy aircraft to fly. I felt out of my element, in something akin to a model airplane.

IN west Texas it was called the "Fork Tail Doctor Killer".

because wealthy individuals tended to buy them. They were much more expensive than similar size planes from other makers. The Beech Bonanza was a hot rod, more power and speed than usual.

And the "killer" part?

Because the Bonanzas were hot rods, amateur pilots with lots of money but little stick time (busy doctors?) tended to overfly the airframe. In other words, too much speed, too rough a maneuver, and the frame would BREAK.

My dad used to fly in the 1960s and told me of airfields with more than one "fork tail" sitting in the scrap pile, having broken off a Bonanza in flight, with predictable results.

It was a well built plane, but it had its limits and they were well known. Amateurs would tend to accumulate too much airspeed and then be in need of a stress maneuver, for example pulling out of a steep descent to avoid hitting the ground.

Professionals and experienced guys flew by the book on this plane. They didn't break it.

That's the story my dad tells me about this "Fork Tail Doctor Killer".

not sure how true it is, but the nickname obviously stuck to the plane.

(edit) doing a little web searching, I found out that the name FTDK is appropriate but not because the tail broke off in any great numbers. It is because the plane was a high performer for its day and people got into bad situations because of inexperience. Apparently some history of bad landings because of the design, which was eventually converted to conventional three surface tail... but lots of the fork tails are still flying.

the name was acquired early in the life of the plane, 1945 was first year, because most planes were wood/canvas high wing radial engines back then and this was a radical new design like fighter planes, fast and sleek. Stall speed a bit higher, landing speed ditto, and too much speed was a common factor in accidents. "nose high mush" was a typical landing accident, apparently. Inexperience was the most common factor, though, hence "doctor killer".

My dad apparently embellished. :-) But he did see tails in scrap piles, so there was SOME reason for that.

[poe4soul]

I'd like to throw in a few of my own quotes:

"Life is of essence"
"Always choose performance over looks, especially if it's tumbled"
"The Anser lies before you"
"The skinny ones make you hard but the fat ones make you laugh"
"Tis always been thus, and thus will always be"
"A good man goes where no man hasn't gone before"
"A good lie isn't nearly as satisfying as a good lie angle"

Not sure if was the quotes or your post FD. it reminds me of one my mom used to say "falling flat on your face is still forward motion."

[jetdriver]

IN west Texas it was called the "Fork Tail Doctor Killer".

because wealthy individuals tended to buy them. They were much more expensive than similar size planes from other makers. The Beech Bonanza was a hot rod, more power and speed than usual.

And the "killer" part?

Because the Bonanzas were hot rods, amateur pilots with lots of money but little stick time (busy doctors?) tended to overfly the airframe. In other words, too much speed, too rough a maneuver, and the frame would BREAK.

My dad used to fly in the 1960s and told me of airfields with more than one "fork tail" sitting in the scrap pile, having broken off a Bonanza in flight, with predictable results.

It was a well built plane, but it had its limits and they were well known. Amateurs would tend to accumulate too much airspeed and then be in need of a stress maneuver, for example pulling out of a steep descent to avoid hitting the ground.

Professionals and experienced guys flew by the book on this plane. They didn't break it.

That's the story my dad tells me about this "Fork Tail Doctor Killer".

not sure how true it is, but the nickname obviously stuck to the plane.

(edit) doing a little web searching, I found out that the name FTDK is appropriate but not because the tail broke off in any great numbers. It is because the plane was a high performer for its day and people got into bad situations because of inexperience. Apparently some history of bad landings because of the design, which was eventually converted to conventional three surface tail... but lots of the fork tails are still flying.

the name was acquired early in the life of the plane, 1945 was first year, because most planes were wood/canvas high wing radial engines back then and this was a radical new design like fighter planes, fast and sleek. Stall speed a bit higher, landing speed ditto, and too much speed was a common factor in accidents. "nose high mush" was a typical landing accident, apparently. Inexperience was the most common factor, though, hence "doctor killer".

My dad apparently embellished. :-) But he did see tails in scrap piles, so there was SOME reason for that.

The V-tail Bonazas are still very much around. A friend of mine bought one last year. They have long since been re-enforced with an elongated "c" type metal doubling bracket at the leading edge of the tail. I worked for Beech back around 1989- and have fond memories of many "maint test flights" buzzing canals in the everglades in the modern tail bonanzas and twin engine barons. At that time the Starship was under certification testing and have great memories of that including "hangar flying" in the secret plane at night., My friend ended up operating a few of those and I got to fly them a few times.
The issue of specific airplanes being called doctor killers is true, The bonanza and baron are good examples, others are the piper twin commanche that was the widowmaker.
The learjet 20 series (23) was a classic of a handful of an airplane where at the time propeller pilots with minimal training- if any, would hop into one of the most unstable and slick airplanes, then blast off into low visibility conditions and kill every one.
Payne Stewart was killed in a Lear-35 with the old pressurization system that required a unintuitive way of emergency pressurizing the cabin using the windshield heat, as well as an unintuitiveO2 valve that is checked during preflight for position visually and for function at the mask in the cockpit. Both these issues are non- issues with good training and experience. I am NOT saying or implying that these people were not trained properly. I am just stating the facts about the airplane and about its systems.

[daveperkins]

The V-tail Bonazas are still very much around. A friend of mine bought one last year. They have long since been re-enforced with an elongated "c" type metal doubling bracket at the leading edge of the tail. I worked for Beech back around 1989- and have fond memories of many "maint test flights" buzzing canals in the everglades in the modern tail bonanzas and twin engine barons. At that time the Starship was under certification testing and have great memories of that including "hangar flying" in the secret plane at night., My friend ended up operating a few of those and I got to fly them a few times.
The issue of specific airplanes being called doctor killers is true, The bonanza and baron are good examples, others are the piper twin commanche that was the widowmaker.
The learjet 20 series (23) was a classic of a handful of an airplane where at the time propeller pilots with minimal training- if any, would hop into one of the most unstable and slick airplanes, then blast off into low visibility conditions and kill every one.
Payne Stewart was killed in a Lear-35 with the old pressurization system that required a unintuitive way of emergency pressurizing the cabin using the windshield heat, as well as an unintuitiveO2 valve that is checked during preflight for position visually and for function at the mask in the cockpit. Both these issues are non- issues with good training and experience. I am NOT saying or implying that these people were not trained properly. I am just stating the facts about the airplane and about its systems.

I love the Starship... what a great looking airplane.. :-)

I wondered if design had anything to do with Stewart's crash... its unusual to say the least that a depressurization kills like that.. what with redundant backup systems today.. it was either an explosive decompress or else the crew did not know what to do about it.. at that altitude it comes down to seconds worth of consciousness anyway if it's a fast decomp..

those Bonanzas are really SMALL, that's what people don't get.. like a sports car.. big flat-six like a Porsche, small plane, lots of speed.

Thanks JD great info!

[12sandwich]

I love the Starship... what a great looking airplane.. :-)

I wondered if design had anything to do with Stewart's crash... its unusual to say the least that a depressurization kills like that.. what with redundant backup systems today.. it was either an explosive decompress or else the crew did not know what to do about it.. at that altitude it comes down to seconds worth of consciousness anyway if it's a fast decomp..

those Bonanzas are really SMALL, that's what people don't get.. like a sports car.. big flat-six like a Porsche, small plane, lots of speed.

Thanks JD great info!

Dads love of flying continued after he lost some friends, in a Baron, he flew in quite a few times. He was going to get a King air for his next plane. A good friend of mine is buying a 182 I kind of dread it, cause hes gonna lets go up, and I worry about the down part.

[Not a hacker]

Maybe you should get this verified by Alan G Baker before you jump to conclusions?

We all thought he was a 6 cap to start with too!

Everything Larry says needs to be corroborated. I think that, considering his piror history of mkaing outlandish claims only to be competely exposed as being full of shitt, leaves the onus on Larry to prove he's telling the truth, regardless of whether or not Alan rebutts him.

[alangbaker]

Everything Larry says needs to be corroborated. I think that, considering his piror history of mkaing outlandish claims only to be competely exposed as being full of shitt, leaves the onus on Larry to prove he's telling the truth, regardless of whether or not Alan rebutts him.

That's what I think.

For the record, Larry didn't claim to fly a Piper Malibu. I remembered it incorrectly.

He claimed to fly a CESSNA Malibu!

"It is a Cessna Malibu. Pressurized single engine, flies on top."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s...da1bffdad929ef

Now: what real pilot would ever get the model of his own aircraft wrong?

What real pilot would ever claim that Cessna made a plane called the Malibu?

Can you think of any real pilot who would make that idiotic an error... ...about a plane he claims to own?

[jetdriver]

Everything Larry says needs to be corroborated. I think that, considering his piror history of mkaing outlandish claims only to be competely exposed as being full of shitt, leaves the onus on Larry to prove he's telling the truth, regardless of whether or not Alan rebutts him.

Well If we ask him to tell us about the specific flight characteristics if his C182 especially the landing, and someone also said that he had a Piper Malibu as well he can tell us about that thing too. I just happen to have flown both of them. To be honest, he sounds like any old guy that has been around and maybe flown some airplanes. If he flew "his c182" 500 hours he should remember a few specifics about flying it. As far as the Malibu.... that would be easy to detemine with just a few specific questions. That is kind of a unique airplane. Of course he could google and prepare, but I can tell if I ask him stuff that only comes from first hand experience.

[jetdriver]

That's what I think.

For the record, Larry didn't claim to fly a Piper Malibu. I remembered it incorrectly.

He claimed to fly a CESSNA Malibu!

"It is a Cessna Malibu. Pressurized single engine, flies on top."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s...da1bffdad929ef

Now: what real pilot would ever get the model of his own aircraft wrong?

What real pilot would ever claim that Cessna made a plane called the Malibu?

Can you think of any real pilot who would make that idiotic an error... ...about a plane he claims to own?

Well if that is true.....then, I have no further questions!

[jetdriver]

I love the Starship... what a great looking airplane.. :-)

I wondered if design had anything to do with Stewart's crash... its unusual to say the least that a depressurization kills like that.. what with redundant backup systems today.. it was either an explosive decompress or else the crew did not know what to do about it.. at that altitude it comes down to seconds worth of consciousness anyway if it's a fast decomp..

those Bonanzas are really SMALL, that's what people don't get.. like a sports car.. big flat-six like a Porsche, small plane, lots of speed.

Thanks JD great info!

Yes, The starship was the state of the art at the time. Only fifty-some of them were made. For lightning protection they had a "wire mesh" baked into the composite material that eventually corroded and made them unusable and the factory bought the last few left back just a few years ago and they went bye bye.
As far as the decompression, the issue really is passing out and not being able to decend. In my last ship (G450) it actually would decend to a lower safe altitude under autopilot if there was a pressure loss and I did not act. It would then fly straight and level until myself and sparky woke from our slumber.

[Not a hacker]

Well If we ask him to tell us about the specific flight characteristics if his C182 especially the landing, and someone also said that he had a Piper Malibu as well he can tell us about that thing too. I just happen to have flown both of them. To be honest, he sounds like any old guy that has been around and maybe flown some airplanes. If he flew "his c182" 500 hours he should remember a few specifics about flying it. As far as the Malibu.... that would be easy to detemine with just a few specific questions. That is kind of a unique airplane. Of course he could google and prepare, but I can tell if I ask him stuff that only comes from first hand experience.

The silence from Larry will be deafening. Once again, Alan G Baker has exposed him as a fraud, on yet another topic (getting the make and model mixed up is not an honest mistake). Seriously, if he has been caught out lying on every other topic he's ever claimed to know anything about (numerous times on the golf swing), why on earth would think he sounds like he knows what he's talking about this time?

[lorenzoinoc]

Well If we ask him to tell us about the specific flight characteristics if his C182 especially the landing, and someone also said that he had a Piper Malibu as well he can tell us about that thing too. I just happen to have flown both of them. To be honest, he sounds like any old guy that has been around and maybe flown some airplanes. If he flew "his c182" 500 hours he should remember a few specifics about flying it. As far as the Malibu.... that would be easy to detemine with just a few specific questions. That is kind of a unique airplane. Of course he could google and prepare, but I can tell if I ask him stuff that only comes from first hand experience.

Yes and no, JD. I've flown a 747 but probably couldn't answer too many questions. I had no choice. When the flight attendants came running over, grabbed me and said: "Lorenzo, All the pilots have passed out drunk, you'll have to land the plane!" I didn't take notes in fact the whole episode is barely a blur. I just remember doing a few rolls to get my bearings and the applause and drinks afterwards.

[jetdriver]

Yes and no, JD. I've flown a 747 but probably couldn't answer too many questions. I had no choice. When the flight attendants came running over, grabbed me and said: "Lorenzo, All the pilots have passed out drunk, you'll have to land the plane!" I didn't take notes in fact the whole episode is barely a blur. I just remember doing a few rolls to get my bearings and the applause and drinks afterwards.

Actualy, I know you are telling the truth because my grandmother was on that plane, she helped translate for a couple of black dudes because she was quite fluent at Jive at the time. She has lost her advantage since she never learned to speak Rap. Very unfortunate.

[jetdriver]

Not so much.

The landing speed of the F-102 was 173mph and the stall speed was 100 knots.

102s landed slow and fast and then used a parachute.

Alan, I do not know a thing about a F102, but where ever you got that info, it sounds wrong.
The landing speed of any airplane is actually quite close to the stall speed. Approach speed is usually 1.3 times that speed.

[lorenzoinoc]

Actualy, I know you are telling the truth because my grandmother was on that plane, she helped translate for a couple of black dudes because she was quite fluent at Jive at the time. She has lost her advantage since she never learned to speak Rap. Very unfortunate.

I've been with a few where their own cockpits were roomy enough for several seats. I really hope your grammy wasn't one of them.

[famousdavis]

Actualy, I know you are telling the truth because my grandmother was on that plane, she helped translate for a couple of black dudes because she was quite fluent at Jive at the time. She has lost her advantage since she never learned to speak Rap. Very unfortunate.

You guys aren't exactly in the spirit of inclusion here. There are many of us who have never flown a plane and we can't take part in this dicussion. Well, maybe Larry is. Anyway, I really feel like we should talk about something that we all have in common. Hey, I know, how about golf?

[SoonerBS]

Yes and no, JD. I've flown a 747 but probably couldn't answer too many questions. I had no choice. When the flight attendants came running over, grabbed me and said: "Lorenzo, All the pilots have passed out drunk, you'll have to land the plane!" I didn't take notes in fact the whole episode is barely a blur. I just remember doing a few rolls to get my bearings and the applause and drinks afterwards.

It went something like this, didn't it, Lo?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...plane+clip.mp4

[lorenzoinoc]

It went something like this, didn't it, Lo?

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/...plane+clip.mp4

It was very, very similar. Except I didn't need an inflatable auto-pilot to paw the flight attendant.

[alangbaker]

Alan, I do not know a thing about a F102, but where ever you got that info, it sounds wrong.

The landing speed of any airplane is actually quite close to the stall speed. Approach speed is usually 1.3 times that speed.

The landing speed of most airplane's is quite close to the stall speed, I agree, but not all planes.

I flew the F102 about 1500 hours and did just about everything that
can be done in that aircraft. (only did one one-turn spin, though; it
was accidental, and recovery was standard and quick). The F102 had
about 740 sq ft of wing and clean weighed about 28000 for takeoff.
(38#/sqft!) The aircraft could be flown down to 90 knots controllably
in what looked like level flight but starting just below about 115 you
were descending and the only way to break the descent and accelerate
was by decreasing the angle of attack. Tough if you're close to the
ground. At 115 KIAS you were close to 30 degrees AOA and at the limit
of one-G flight in full afterburner. At 90 KIAS you were going down at
over 6000 FPM. Here is where a lot of transitioning pilots got in
trouble; they'd fly a 360 overhead (VFR) pattern, get too slow on
final (lulled into complacency by the ease of control) realize at last
they were going to land short and now go to full military power to
either reach the runway or go-around, and pull back on the stick 'to
reduce the descent rate', thus increasing the AOA and the induced drag
to horrific levels. Afterburner might have allowed them to fly out of
trouble but being new and 'unadvised' they would be loath to call for
it until too late. Result - prang. The B58 had sinmilar problems even
with experienced pilots. (Paris Air Show - 2X). FWIW there were NO
stall warnings whatsoever in the F102. The airplane felt good and
solid all the way down the airpseed scale. The caveat in the Flight
Manual was that if aileron was used to control wing drop at 90 KIAS
the airplane could/would spin. It felt just as solid at 115 as it did
at 500.

http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=6137

IOW, while actual stall was at about 100 mph (just as I said),

" The landing speed of the 34 510-pound-gross-weight airplane is maintained at an acceptable value (173 mph) by the large wing area of nearly 700 square feet, which gives a relatively low wing loading of 49.5 pounds per square foot."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-106.htm

Now admittedly, the landing speed quoted is for the improvement of the F-102 Dagger: the F-106 Dart, but they had essentially the same low speed aerodynamics, it's just that the Dagger's fuselage was given the "Coke bottle" waist to decrease transonic drag.

Unlike, Larry, I actually know my stuff.



One last, from the Flight Operating Manual:

If the airspeed is reduced below 115 knots, the ailerons should not be used for lateral control of the airplane as the adverse yaw induced may cause a spin entry. Rudder control alone should be used to maintain lateral directional control to stall speed of 100KCAS. At this speed, the airplane may fall off in a nose-down spiral or, if back pressure is held, enter a spin.

Recovery from a stall, or the approach to a stall, is easily effected by relaxing back pressure on the stick; however, considerable altitude (up to 6000 feet) will be lost. The minimum speed for this aircraft is 130 knots. Below this speed, lateral control effectiveness falls off rapidly and high sink rates are encountered (up to 10,000 feet per minute).

http://books.google.ca/books?id=v9NJ...=stall&f=false

[jetdriver]

The landing speed of most airplane's is quite close to the stall speed, I agree, but not all planes.

I flew the F102 about 1500 hours and did just about everything that
can be done in that aircraft. (only did one one-turn spin, though; it
was accidental, and recovery was standard and quick). The F102 had
about 740 sq ft of wing and clean weighed about 28000 for takeoff.
(38#/sqft!) The aircraft could be flown down to 90 knots controllably
in what looked like level flight but starting just below about 115 you
were descending and the only way to break the descent and accelerate
was by decreasing the angle of attack. Tough if you're close to the
ground. At 115 KIAS you were close to 30 degrees AOA and at the limit
of one-G flight in full afterburner. At 90 KIAS you were going down at
over 6000 FPM. Here is where a lot of transitioning pilots got in
trouble; they'd fly a 360 overhead (VFR) pattern, get too slow on
final (lulled into complacency by the ease of control) realize at last
they were going to land short and now go to full military power to
either reach the runway or go-around, and pull back on the stick 'to
reduce the descent rate', thus increasing the AOA and the induced drag
to horrific levels. Afterburner might have allowed them to fly out of
trouble but being new and 'unadvised' they would be loath to call for
it until too late. Result - prang. The B58 had sinmilar problems even
with experienced pilots. (Paris Air Show - 2X). FWIW there were NO
stall warnings whatsoever in the F102. The airplane felt good and
solid all the way down the airpseed scale. The caveat in the Flight
Manual was that if aileron was used to control wing drop at 90 KIAS
the airplane could/would spin. It felt just as solid at 115 as it did
at 500.

http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=6137

IOW, while actual stall was at about 100 mph (just as I said),

" The landing speed of the 34 510-pound-gross-weight airplane is maintained at an acceptable value (173 mph) by the large wing area of nearly 700 square feet, which gives a relatively low wing loading of 49.5 pounds per square foot."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raft/f-106.htm

Now admittedly, the landing speed quoted is for the improvement of the F-102 Dagger: the F-106 Dart, but they had essentially the same low speed aerodynamics, it's just that the Dagger's fuselage was given the "Coke bottle" waist to decrease transonic drag.

Unlike, Larry, I actually know my stuff.



One last, from the Flight Operating Manual:

If the airspeed is reduced below 115 knots, the ailerons should not be used for lateral control of the airplane as the adverse yaw induced may cause a spin entry. Rudder control alone should be used to maintain lateral directional control to stall speed of 100KCAS. At this speed, the airplane may fall off in a nose-down spiral or, if back pressure is held, enter a spin.

Recovery from a stall, or the approach to a stall, is easily effected by relaxing back pressure on the stick; however, considerable altitude (up to 6000 feet) will be lost. The minimum speed for this aircraft is 130 knots. Below this speed, lateral control effectiveness falls off rapidly and high sink rates are encountered (up to 10,000 feet per minute).

http://books.google.ca/books?id=v9NJ...=stall&f=false

Holy cow alan who wrote that Larry....Thats why I am on a Golf forum talking about golf. I have yet to see a wing fly at 30 degrees angle of attack. Also the guy is describing a partialy stalled delta wing and thinks it is still flying with a 6000 feet per minute decent....yeah right.
I believe the 170+ approach speed (not landing speed like you said) but the stall speed being that low :90- 100 knots is BS*. .My guess is about 130 in fact you posted that above..Do you really think you "know your sheite" Like you said above by quoting crap on a blog somewhere? You have to first understand what they are saying. There is no reason to land faster than needed, you only use up runway.
*Note: that airplane for all I know could at lighter weights fly at slower speeds, but the approach speed would also be lower. the 1.3x factor between approach speed and stall would still apply.

[alangbaker]

Holy cow alan who wrote that Larry....Thats why I am on a Golf forum talking about golf. I have yet to see a wing fly at 30 degrees angle of attack. Also the guy is describing a partialy stalled delta wing and thinks it is still flying with a 6000 feet per minute decent....yeah right.
I believe the 170+ approach speed (not landing speed like you said) but the stall speed being that low :90- 100 knots is BS*. .My guess is about 130 in fact you posted that above..Do you really think you "know your sheite" by quoting crap on a blog somewhere? You have to first understand what they are saying. There is no reason to land faster than needed, you only use up runway.
*Note: that airplane for all I know could at lighter weights fly at slow speeds but the approach speed would also be lower. the 1.3x factor between approach speed and stall would still apply.

JD: My last quote is from the official manual for the aircraft. Do a search and you'll find this: "Minimum touchdown speed is 167 KCAS"

As for angle of attack, have you never seen an F18 do a high alpha pass?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o7HePY0hp4

[daveperkins]

Dads love of flying continued after he lost some friends, in a Baron, he flew in quite a few times. He was going to get a King air for his next plane. A good friend of mine is buying a 182 I kind of dread it, cause hes gonna lets go up, and I worry about the down part.

182 is at least pretty easy to pre-flight. Compared to a King Air or a Baron I mean. :-)

[jetdriver]

JD: My last quote is from the official manual for the aircraft.

As for angle of attack, have you never seen an F18 do a high alpha pass?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o7HePY0hp4

Yes, and I am glad that you brought that up. High deck angle is not the same as high angle of attack.The High angle of attack pass is really a high deck angle slow flight maneuver that has a high vertical component of thrust ( with enough power a brick will "fly") a wing's max angle of attack and still produce max lift (at stall) is about 12-18 degrees depending on design.
By the way a wing can stall at any airspeed if you exceed the critical angle of attack.

Alan I really do not know any specifics about the F102 but it sounds like an aerodynamic piece of crap with horrible handling qualities that everyone would just fly onto the runway.

[lorenzoinoc]

Yes, and I am glad that you brought that up. High deck angle is not the same as high angle of attack.The High angle of attack pass is really a high deck angle slow flight maneuver that has a high vertical component of thrust ( with enough power a brick will "fly") a wing's max angle of attack and still produce max lift (at stall) is about 12-18 degrees depending on design.
By the way a wing can stall at any airspeed if you exceed the critical angle of attack.

I've actually proven this but have long since changed my diet.

[alangbaker]

Yes, and I am glad that you brought that up. High deck angle is not the same as high angle of attack.The High angle of attack pass is really a high deck angle slow flight maneuver that has a high vertical component of thrust ( with enough power a brick will "fly") a wing's max angle of attack and still produce max lift (at stall) is about 12-18 degrees depending on design.
By the way a wing can stall at any airspeed if you exceed the critical angle of attack.

Alan I really do not know any specifics about the F102 but it sounds like an aerodynamic piece of crap with horable handling qualities that everyone would just fly onto the runway.

You were given specifics from the operating manual of the aircraft.

They contradict your claim that every airplane lands at 1.3 times stall.

And "just flying onto the runway" is precisely what I said they do. They don't land "low and slow": they land low and fast and use a parachute to get it stopped in reasonable distance.

[jetdriver]

You were given specifics from the operating manual of the aircraft.

They contradict your claim that every airplane lands at 1.3 times stall.

And "just flying onto the runway" is precisely what I said they do. They don't land "low and slow": they land low and fast and use a parachute to get it stopped in reasonable distance.

actually , I said "The landing speed of any airplane is actually quite close to the stall speed. Approach speed is usually 1.3 times that speed"

as far as the 102......Well I guess back then it was OK to build pieces of Sheite like that.

[alangbaker]

actually , I said that every "airplane" approaches at 1.3x the stall speed and touches down very close to the stall.

Sorry. Yes, that's what you said. You're wrong of course, but it is what you said.

as far as the 102......Well I guess back then it was OK to build pieces of Sheite like that.

Your gracious apology is accepted.

[jetdriver]

Sorry. Yes, that's what you said. You're wrong of course, but it is what you said.



Your gracious apology is accepted.

I actually cut and pasted my exact quote after you quoted me... it is slightly different.

I will not apologize! it is against my religion! This is what I get for arguing about something I do not know about!

[alangbaker]

I actually cut and pasted my exact quote after you quoted me... it is slightly different.

I will not apologize! it is against my religion! This is what I get for arguing about something I do not know about!

Meh...

It's one of the dangers of having a formal training in an area such as commercial flight. There is a natural tendency to treat the norms learned within that arena as universal.

[jetdriver]

Meh...

It's one of the dangers of having a formal training in an area such as commercial flight. There is a natural tendency to treat the norms learned within that arena as universal.

Yea I guess, what I find interesting is that if it is true, they actually built an airplane that can't fly worth a sheite. If that airplane really was that awful it had to have a much higher minimum speed than 100 knots. A stick shaker (stall warning) or something at 130-140 knots. something still stinks there.

[alangbaker]

Yea I guess, what I find interesting is that if it is true, they actually built an airplane that can't fly worth a sheite. If that airplane really was that awful it had to have a much higher minimum speed than 100 knots. A stick shaker (stall warning) or something at 130-140 knots. something still stinks there.

Not shite, JD: just optimized for certain characteristics.

The minimum speed of an aircraft is the minimum speed. It has long been a noted characteristic of delta wing aircraft that they are very stable right up to stall. The high AOA produces stable vortices that make this so.

Read my earlier post for the post by an ex-102 pilot:

"The airplane felt good and
solid all the way down the airpseed scale. The caveat in the Flight
Manual was that if aileron was used to control wing drop at 90 KIAS
the airplane could/would spin. It felt just as solid at 115 as it did
at 500. "

And then remember that they discontinued development of the F-102 in favour of the F-106 because they didn't understand the "area rule" and the F-102 didn't have the right design to allow it to meet its designed speed.

The F-106's stall characteristics are described here:

"Pilots flying the Six have described the plane's commendable feather light pitch responsiveness and its approach to a stall as being straightforward with progressive light, medium, and heavy buffeting leading to well indicated lateral instability that induced nose yaw. Any increase in angle of attack beyond the critical limit at this point and adverse yaw induced by any aileron input initiated a violent roll & pitch-up condition known as post-stall. The next step beyond this was a severe oscillation about all three axes and the likelihood of an imminent flat spin. All of these responses were predictably clear and more than enough progressive warning of exceeding the flight specifications was given."

http://www.authorsden.com/categories...id=73&id=36192

With " progressive light, medium, and heavy buffeting" before stall, there was no need for a stick shaker (and frankly, given the USAF attitudes of the time: no desire to provide their macho pilots with that kind of assistance; they were supposed to just know how to fly the aircraft).

[jetdriver]

I'll take a stick shaker over a pair of balls any day!

[jetdriver]

Ok alan here is the deal:
The delta wing stalls first at the tips (where the control surfaces are) What them old jocks are talking about as I said is flying a wing that is partially stalled. There is a large margin between the tip stall and the center section finally stalling, but control is minimal because of the fact that the stalled sections are where the controls are. In other words you are "loosing" wing at the worst areas progresively inward. Why they do not call a "stall" a "stall" I have no idea. Probably because there is a lot of lift still being produced by the center (unstalled) section That would explain why they can't slow down to land....Because the wing will stall at the tips. I do not have a clue what speed that happens but I would bet that it is about 1.3x the approach speed because that is the margin you use to flare for landing (raise the nose). I would not be in the least bit surprised if the approach speed was 200 kts+
That would be my final expert take on an airplane I know nothing about, but I do know my sheite in general.

[alangbaker]

Ok alan here is the deal:
The delta wing stalls first at the tips (where the control surfaces are) What them old jocks are talking about as I said is flying a wing that is partially stalled. There is a large margin between the tip stall and the center section finally stalling, but control is minimal because of the fact that the stalled sections are where the controls are. In other words you are "loosing" wing at the worst areas progresively inward. Why they do not call a "stall" a "stall" I have no idea. Probably because there is a lot of lift still being produced by the center (unstalled) section That would explain why they can't slow down to land....Because the wing will stall at the tips. I do not have a clue what speed that happens but I would bet that it is about 1.3x the approach speed because that is the margin you use to flare for landing (raise the nose). I would not be in the least bit surprised if the approach speed was 200 kts+
That would be my final expert take on an airplane I know nothing about, but I do know my sheite in general.

JD: The F-102 Delta Dagger and F-106 Delta Dart both had elevons that spanned almost the entire trailing edge of the wing; leaving out only a small area...

...at the tip.

May I suggest you peruse this image:



and this one:



They both make it painfully clear that... ...once again... ...you don't know what you're talking about. You have once again applied your knowledge of how typical commercial and private aircraft—with straight or swept wings—to a totally different kind of aircraft and flying.

When you find yourself in a hole...

...stop digging.



P.S. My interest in military aircraft comes from a family history in military aviation. My paternal grandfather was in the RAF, had his own private use Spitfire (as AOC 12 Group) during WWII and rose to the rank of Air Chief Marshall and was second in command of the RAF when he retired... ...to become Controller of Aircraft at the Ministry of Supply. IOW, he was in charge of acquiring aircraft for the RAF just at the time when the experiments with the first delta wing aircraft were being done. Sadly, I never got to talk to him about any of this. He was quite old by the time I realized just what an interesting career he'd had and he was always disinclined to talk about his experiences anyway.

[jetdriver]

Negative Ghost Rider..... The controls have much greater effect at the tips, also there is lateral airflow as well note the stall fences installed for that very reason.
As that airplane slows down you end up flying an airplane with progressively shorter wings with less lift and less control effectiveness. The position of that main wing fence so far outboard is an indication of a serious issue effort to keep the airflow going over the controls at the tips and delaying the stall from progressing inboard (without that fence the stall would move laterally and affect the controls further inboard much more. I have those fences on the learjets at the aileron/ flap line to keep the airflow over the ailerons.
I must admit you are quite impressive. You may now pat your self on the back. I am glad to hear that your info comes from a serious interest and not just from googling.

[alangbaker]

Negative Ghost Rider..... The controls have much greater effect at the tips, also there is lateral airflow as well note the stall fences installed for that very reason.

As I said, stop digging.

First you claimed that all aircraft landed near stall speed. You were wrong.

There are aircraft such as the F-102 and F-106 that land at much higher speeds.

Then you claimed that the reason for that was that the ailerons of the F-102, et al stop working when the tips stalled because that's where they were located. You were wrong.

The F-102/102A/102B/106 have full-span elevons that have sufficient control authority near stall that the operating manual for the type explicitly states that one should stop using them below a certain speed in order to avoid entering a spin due to the adverse yaw that is generated.

The vortices generated by delta wings at high angles of attack accelerate the flow on the inner portion of the wing, increasing the effectiveness of the portion of the control surfaces not in the vortices themselves, counter what would otherwise cause a loss of control effectiveness.

[jetdriver]

As I said, stop digging.

First you claimed that all aircraft landed near stall speed. You were wrong.

There are aircraft such as the F-102 and F-106 that land at much higher speeds.

Then you claimed that the reason for that was that the ailerons of the F-102, et al stop working when the tips stalled because that's where they were located. You were wrong.

The F-102/102A/102B/106 have full-span elevons that have sufficient control authority near stall that the operating manual for the type explicitly states that one should stop using them below a certain speed in order to avoid entering a spin due to the adverse yaw that is generated.

The vortices generated by delta wings at high angles of attack accelerate the flow on the inner portion of the wing, increasing the effectiveness of the portion of the control surfaces not in the vortices themselves, counter what would otherwise cause a loss of control effectiveness.

The effectiveness of full span controls has to do with its moment (leverage) a control deflection at 15 Ft is much more effective that at 5 ft. no amount of pseudo airflow will make up for that, the vorticies most likely come around after the wing has passed but I do not know in this particular case I do not see why it would be any different than any other airplane.
Adverse yaw has to do with drag not lift.
Are you getting a boner about now? .......Just asking

[alangbaker]

The effectiveness of full span controls has to do with its moment (leverage) a control deflection at 15 Ft is much more effective that at 5 ft. no amount of pseudo airflow will make up for that, the vorticies most likely come around after the wing has passed but I do not know in this particular case I do not see why it would be any different than any other airplane.

And you didn't see why the landing and approach speeds would be different from any other airplane either... ...but that didn't make you right.

Here's a thought: why don't you go and actually learn a little more about the subject of delta wing aircraft...

...before you have to say "I don't know" yet another time.

[spanqdoggie]

And you didn't see why the landing and approach speeds would be different from any other airplane either... ...but that didn't make you right.

Here's a thought: why don't you go and actually learn a little more about the subject of delta wing aircraft...

...before you have to say "I don't know" yet another time.

You are a gay c@cksucking d!ckhead.

Jet driver flies jets for a living...

Does jetdriver try to give you tips on sucking c@ck and taking d!ck up the ass?

You understand now?

Show some respect.

spank

[alangbaker]

You are a gay c@cksucking d!ckhead.

Jet driver flies jets for a living...

Does jetdriver try to give you tips on sucking c@ck and taking d!ck up the ass?

You understand now?

Show some respect.

spank

"Blah, blah, blah"

In every particular, I've been right and he's been wrong.

End of story.

[spanqdoggie]

"Blah, blah, blah"

In every particular, I've been right and he's been wrong.

End of story.

No, you are missing the point...

Assuming you have been correct, and have won the debate, you are showing disrespect.

Your foe is flying a jet right now, and you are polishing the trunk of your Miata with your balls, whilst you take d!ck up the ass from behind, on the Miata in question...

Jetdriver is too busy flying jets for real to surf the internet and troll on an extremely small golf board that hardly no one views.

You miss the irony of your posts, my gay friend.

spank

p.s. I am gay too; let's not give us all a bad name.

[alangbaker]

You miss the irony of your posts

Congratulations: you can spell irony.

[jetdriver]

Alan, you are not well man.

[alangbaker]

Alan, you are not well man.

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?

[jetdriver]

Like I said, you are one sick fck!