If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Why did Air France flight 447 plunge into the ocean? I know. It was the Brazilian pilots. Way too many   (cnn.com) divider line 268
    More: Followup, Air France, Air France Flight 447, Airbus A330, special agent in charge, air accidents, flight recorders, flights, Senegal  
•       •       •

13825 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Jul 2012 at 11:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



268 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 07:17:26 PM

b2theory: The pitot heaters are on the entire flight. Are you trying to say that they cleared?



No, their claim is magically anti-ice systems did the job they were never designed to do.

It must be true, a news agency said it.

It's obvious here that the dead pilots are taking the blame for:

1. Airbus' design faults of the pitot tubes

2. Air France not immediately replacing the pitot tubes once the fault was found
 
2012-07-05 07:17:48 PM

intelligent comment below: There is no such thing as forward airspeed. You are thinking of tracking speed using a GPS type system or ground speed. If you are falling down at 10,000 feet a second, there is no way your indicated airspeed is only 60 knots.


Yeah, I'm going to go with 'actual brain damage'.

intelligent comment below: You really shouldn't make these stupid comments when your only refutation of what I said was some made up bullshiat excuse not based on fact.


This is hilariously ironic considering the only person who said that there was a 60 knot indicated airspeed was you.
 
2012-07-05 07:18:54 PM

SpaceButler: Sure there is: the horizontal component of indicated airspeed. If the article is accurate in stating that the pitots started working again, then it would be trivial to work out from the FDR data, based on indicated airspeed and altitude data.



If I point my nose straight down without moving forward, are you telling me my airspeed will come across as 0 because there is no "horizontal" movement? The article claims the pitot's were working, and the chances of them working correctly were slim to none.
 
2012-07-05 07:19:52 PM

sprawl15: Yeah, I'm going to go with 'actual brain damage'.



Never flown an airplane, but he's going to tell me how they work

sprawl15: This is hilariously ironic considering the only person who said that there was a 60 knot indicated airspeed was you.



This is hilariously ironic considering it's in the damn popular mechanics article you insulted and ridiculed me for not reading
 
2012-07-05 07:29:03 PM

intelligent comment below: italie: You should really read up on topics you are intending to be all-knowing about.


You really shouldn't make these stupid comments when your only refutation of what I said was some made up bullshiat excuse not based on fact.


ACARS can drop off line suddenly in perfectly clear skies. Happens all the time. Its easily plauseable for the storm to have knocked it out.
 
2012-07-05 07:29:20 PM

intelligent comment below: SpaceButler: Sure there is: the horizontal component of indicated airspeed. If the article is accurate in stating that the pitots started working again, then it would be trivial to work out from the FDR data, based on indicated airspeed and altitude data.


If I point my nose straight down without moving forward, are you telling me my airspeed will come across as 0 because there is no "horizontal" movement? The article claims the pitot's were working, and the chances of them working correctly were slim to none.


No. Read what I actually wrote. To spell it out: I am saying that if you point your nose straight down without moving forward, then someone with access to your FDR data later -- someone writing an article about your crash, say -- could work out the forward airspeed by using the altitude data to get downward velocity, and indicated airspeed as total velocity. In your case, the two would be nearly identical, producing a forward airspeed of effectively zero.
 
2012-07-05 07:30:31 PM

intelligent comment below: italie: So a FDR stating all pitots operation is is not fact, but a missing ACARS is the clue that unwraps the entire galldarn mystery. Gee-willikers Mr Columbo, you really are the best.


//Keep on trolling.


Projection much? You're trolling here. Just because a claim is made that systems are working does not in fact mean systems are working. I point to the indicated airspeed as proof the systems were not working correctly. There is no possible way indicated airspeed would only be 60 knots when an airplane is going hundreds of miles an hour into the water.

Then your excuse now is ACARS might not be broadcasting anymore, with zero proof to support this. Sounds like you're the one trolling me with unfounded and uninformed opinions.

You read a sentence on a news article, now you're debating me like an expert. Go away, troll. To ignore you go.




Former A&P, so I'm getting a kick...
 
2012-07-05 07:31:42 PM

iron_city_ap: ACARS can drop off line suddenly in perfectly clear skies. Happens all the time. Its easily plauseable for the storm to have knocked it out.



Except it kept broadcasting until the end.


SpaceButler: No. Read what I actually wrote. To spell it out: I am saying that if you point your nose straight down without moving forward, then someone with access to your FDR data later -- someone writing an article about your crash, say -- could work out the forward airspeed by using the altitude data to get downward velocity, and indicated airspeed as total velocity. In your case, the two would be nearly identical, producing a forward airspeed of effectively zero.



Indicated airspeed would NOT BE 0

Just like it's impossible for this aircraft to have only had an indicated airspeed of 60 when it crashed going hundreds of miles... unless the pitot tubes were in fact NOT working properly even if the FDR claimed they were.
 
2012-07-05 07:37:28 PM

intelligent comment below: Indicated airspeed would NOT BE 0


No one said it would be. The article did not say it was. I did not say it was. Neither those of us in this thread nor the article were talking about the number being displayed in the plane's cockpit at the time of the crash.

intelligent comment below: Just like it's impossible for this aircraft to have only had an indicated airspeed of 60 when it crashed going hundreds of miles


The relevant part of the article said "forward airspeed", not "indicated airspeed".
 
2012-07-05 07:49:27 PM

Charlie Freak: CNN sucks

Also, Airbus / Scarebus continues its ritual un-prosecuted pre-meditated killing of passengers world wide. From forcing tsunami destroyed countries to buy Scarebus to get aid, to failing the A380 150% wing-loading test, Scarebus builds on its reputation for falling out of the sky. FL35, cruise and it "breaks up". Nice. Good planes.


Honestly, you make yourself sound like an ignorant fool when you refer to Airbus as Scarebus. There are plenty of Boeing tragedies due to mechanic and design errors out there as well you know,
 
2012-07-05 07:54:55 PM

intelligent comment below: sprawl15: No shiat, that's why they specified forward airspeed - they were talking about horizontal velocity, not indicated airspeed.

Are you trolling or are you honestly retarded?


There is no such thing as forward airspeed. You are thinking of tracking speed using a GPS type system or ground speed. If you are falling down at 10,000 feet a second, there is no way your indicated airspeed is only 60 knots.


Pitot tubes face front. If you were falling vertically while perfectly horizontal you would show zero airspeed. No air would be forced into the front facing tube.
 
2012-07-05 08:00:35 PM

lohphat:
I've been @ FL510 but we typically fly @ FL470 on the last cruise segment before TOD.

/bad choice of an acronym for Top of Decent for German speaking pilots
//Tod == death


Oh, the Wx I could fly over at FL510 or 470....You lucky bastage.
 
2012-07-05 08:00:37 PM

italie: intelligent comment below: italie: You are aware that ACARS is not nearly as comprehensive as the FDR right?


When ACARS sends PITOT 1-3 failure but does not send a new message that it's working again, that means it's still broken and unreliable.


No, it doesn't. It just means that no other ACARS message was received. It could very well mean ACARS was down for some reason. It could be they were in a radio blackout due to the storm, or even in a radio blind location over the water. The FDR would be, and is, a paramount source of flight data.

You should really read up on topics you are intending to be all-knowing about.


ACARS also isn't designed for accident investigation, so it isn't "real time". I believe it only transmits once a minute or similar, so can be very much out of date. It was designed for routine problems so that the mechanics could have a part ready when the plane landed so they could fix it without delaying the turnaround. The system could have detected the pitot tubes working again and thought "Cool I'll report that in my next scheduled transmission." Bang!
 
2012-07-05 08:06:00 PM

intelligent comment below: SpaceButler: Sure there is: the horizontal component of indicated airspeed. If the article is accurate in stating that the pitots started working again, then it would be trivial to work out from the FDR data, based on indicated airspeed and altitude data.


If I point my nose straight down without moving forward, are you telling me my airspeed will come across as 0 because there is no "horizontal" movement? The article claims the pitot's were working, and the chances of them working correctly were slim to none.


If your nose was pointing to the horizon and you were falling perfectly flat the ASI would read zero.
If you get your car up to 100mph and then slide it your speedometer could read 20mph while you are still sliding at 80mph. It only records the forward speed. It cannot measure sideways speed.
 
2012-07-05 08:06:20 PM

intelligent comment below: sprawl15: This is hilariously ironic considering the only person who said that there was a 60 knot indicated airspeed was you.

This is hilariously ironic considering it's in the damn popular mechanics article you insulted and ridiculed me for not reading


I quoted the only part of the article that even mentioned a 60 knot speed. The word 'indicated' is nowhere in there. The intent of the 60 knots being indicated air speed is nowhere in there. They're clearly talking only about horizontal velocity.

Read it again:
By now the plane has returned to its initial altitude but is falling fast. With its nose pitched 15 degrees up, and a forward speed of 100 knots, it is descending at a rate of 10,000 feet per minute, at an angle of 41.5 degrees. It will maintain this attitude with little variation all the way to the sea. Though the pitot tubes are now fully functional, the forward airspeed is so low-below 60 knots-that the angle-of-attack inputs are no longer accepted as valid, and the stall-warning horn temporarily stops. This may give the pilots the impression that their situation is improving, when in fact it signals just the reverse.
You do know how to read, right? You know that words on the screen are different than the syphilitic fever dream in your head?
 
2012-07-05 08:09:00 PM

intelligent comment below: How can you keep a nose up stall for 30,000 feet with no loss of control? That's literally impossible


Quite possible, given the Airbus FBW system. Hell, I did it for 3,000 feet in a light airplane a couple hours ago - if something (pilot or fly by wire) keeps the wings level, it's not even that hard. Stalls can be quite stable.
 
2012-07-05 08:10:40 PM
Hey guys? I think maybe you're being
anongallery.org
 
2012-07-05 08:12:22 PM

Fano: Hey guys? I think maybe you're being
[anongallery.org image 360x507]


There's a distinct possibility. Either that, or he works for Air France.
 
2012-07-05 08:20:42 PM

intelligent comment below: Just like it's impossible for this aircraft to have only had an indicated airspeed of 60 when it crashed going hundreds of miles... unless the pitot tubes were in fact NOT working properly even if the FDR claimed they were.


That's also not impossible - if the aircraft had an angle of attack of 50° then it's going to have an indicated airspeed (horizontal component - pitots can't read anything else) that corresponds to about 64% of it's real speed through the air (cos 50° x speed). That'd line up with an actual speed of about 100 knots, which is logical given the depth of their stall. In such a condition they'd be 'falling' (vertical component) at about 77 knots, or 7800 feet per minute.

It all works out. People need to stop saying "that's not possible".
 
2012-07-05 08:21:55 PM
Gotta say, I love airplane threads. I'm fascinated by flying, and between this and hanging out with my buddies that are commercial pilots, I kinda wish I had actually taken time to fly before I started off at grad school.

I don't necessarily want to do the flying (they complain about the pay/hours), but I'd love to be trained up just enough to sit in the jump seat when they take off/land
 
2012-07-05 08:30:08 PM

costermonger:
It all works out. People need to stop saying "that's not possible".


30 minutes with an instructor in an airplane would change their minds. Just like how people think you can't fly backwards while relatively level.

I didn't read the PM article, which probably would have been good, but its pretty obvious they rode the stall all the way in just from the more intelligent comments here. Not an easy thing to do while in a storm since I'd think an up or downdraft in something that size would make it ungodly obvious they are stalling, but people can do dumb shiat in bad situations.
 
2012-07-05 08:55:42 PM
I feel stupid. I glanced at the front page and got the headline. Just now.
 
2012-07-05 08:56:49 PM

intelligent comment below: sprawl15: 60 knot forward airspeed


Sounds like you have no idea what airspeed actually is

hint, if you are falling at 10,000 feet a second, even straight down your airspeed indicators will be through the roof


No they wouldn't. You only get a Qc value if you have a differential pressure caused between your total pressure sensor, which is normal to the moving fluid, and your static reference, which is orthogonal. Since these sensors always assume the aircraft is moving forward, you'll never get the reading your talking about.
 
2012-07-05 09:06:10 PM

Flint Ironstag: Pitot tubes face front. If you were falling vertically while perfectly horizontal you would show zero airspeed. No air would be forced into the front facing tube.


I didn't realize they require the air to actually be forced down the tube, and not just go past the opening and create a pressure differential. Wow, ICB was even more wrong than I thought!
 
2012-07-05 09:10:24 PM

iron_city_ap: 30 minutes with an instructor in an airplane would change their minds. Just like how people think you can't fly backwards while relatively level.I didn't read the PM article, which probably would have been good, but its pretty obvious they rode the stall all the way in just from the more intelligent comments here. Not an easy thing to do while in a storm since I'd think an up or downdraft in something that size would make it ungodly obvious they are stalling, but people can do dumb shiat in bad situations.


Yep, particularly if they know shiat's going wrong and can't figure out why.
 
2012-07-05 09:14:27 PM

intelligent comment below: b2theory: The pitot heaters are on the entire flight. Are you trying to say that they cleared?


No, their claim is magically anti-ice systems did the job they were never designed to do.

It must be true, a news agency said it.

It's obvious here that the dead pilots are taking the blame for:

1. Airbus' design faults of the pitot tubes

2. Air France not immediately replacing the pitot tubes once the fault was found


The pitot heaters were on from the moment they took off. The anti-ice systems are meant to prevent the accumulation of ice on lift surfaces (the wings).
 
2012-07-05 09:18:04 PM

intelligent comment below: Just to expand on that, airspeed is measured by the amount of air passing through the pitot tubes. If you are falling down, the air going through those tubes would be huge, at high rates of speed.


Ehm - the orientation of the pitots in relation to the aircraft's movement through the air is kinda critical. You might have noticed they tend to be aligned with the pointy end of the aircraft. That's not a design choice made for its aesthetic qualities.
 
2012-07-05 09:54:27 PM

SpaceButler: No one said it would be.



yes they did, people claimed airspeed is horizontal speed through the air, and that's false.
 
2012-07-05 09:57:21 PM

SpaceButler: Flint Ironstag: Pitot tubes face front. If you were falling vertically while perfectly horizontal you would show zero airspeed. No air would be forced into the front facing tube.

I didn't realize they require the air to actually be forced down the tube, and not just go past the opening and create a pressure differential. Wow, ICB was even more wrong than I thought!



So your new argument is:

1. the airplane was perfectly vertical falling at 10,000 feet a second
2. air is only below the airplane going up

Sounds like 2 people who failed science class

In this argument, if I put my nose up and climb, my indicated airspeed falls, not because of the different air speeds of air going over top and bottom of the wing, but because the pitot tubes have LESS AIR going through them

Does anyone pay attention in basic science classes these days?
 
2012-07-05 09:59:00 PM

costermonger: intelligent comment below: How can you keep a nose up stall for 30,000 feet with no loss of control? That's literally impossible

Quite possible, given the Airbus FBW system. Hell, I did it for 3,000 feet in a light airplane a couple hours ago - if something (pilot or fly by wire) keeps the wings level, it's not even that hard. Stalls can be quite stable.



Except they were in alternate law

Stalls are absolutely not stable, in thin air at 30,000 feet, in a storm with massive turbulence

My God... the stupid in this thread...
 
2012-07-05 10:01:11 PM

Flint Ironstag: If your nose was pointing to the horizon and you were falling perfectly flat the ASI would read zero.
If you get your car up to 100mph and then slide it your speedometer could read 20mph while you are still sliding at 80mph. It only records the forward speed. It cannot measure sideways speed.



So when I raise my nose, my indicated airspeed drops because the nose is "too high" for "air to go in the tubes"?

Is this your final argument? You might want to check your facts...

hint - most heavy jets don't have tubes that suck are IN, rather that measure air pressure and speed AROUND them. No matter if you raise or lower your nose, you don't get different measurements because of the angle of attack.

This concludes basic facts 101 for the night
 
2012-07-05 10:03:08 PM

sprawl15: the forward airspeed is so low-below 60 knots



And there's your 60 knot myth

Also the article makes the claim that ANTI ICE clears up PITOT tubes which is also 100% wrong

Your linked article is a joke written by someone who spends their days in the business section of an airplane flying to a new story.

Come back when you know a subject not read an article and pretend to be knowledgeable
 
2012-07-05 10:17:10 PM

intelligent comment below: SpaceButler: Flint Ironstag: Pitot tubes face front. If you were falling vertically while perfectly horizontal you would show zero airspeed. No air would be forced into the front facing tube.

I didn't realize they require the air to actually be forced down the tube, and not just go past the opening and create a pressure differential. Wow, ICB was even more wrong than I thought!


So your new argument is:

1. the airplane was perfectly vertical falling at 10,000 feet a second
2. air is only below the airplane going up

Sounds like 2 people who failed science class

In this argument, if I put my nose up and climb, my indicated airspeed falls, not because of the different air speeds of air going over top and bottom of the wing, but because the pitot tubes have LESS AIR going through them

Does anyone pay attention in basic science classes these days?


I paid attention in Principles Of Flight class at the CFS at RAF Scampton....


/So unless Squadron Leader Eddie Rouse , and the textbooks, were very,very, wrong....
 
2012-07-05 10:22:09 PM

intelligent comment below: So your new argument is:

1. the airplane was perfectly vertical falling at 10,000 feet a second
2. air is only below the airplane going up


Everything I said before is accurate if pitot tubes work for airspeed the way you were saying that they do. If Flint's characterization is accurate, then you're wrong for different reasons.

Either way, you inaccurately read some comments and the article itself, and are now calling everyone else stupid because of the difference between reality and what you incorrectly think others claimed. Spectacular job, sir.
 
2012-07-05 10:31:46 PM

intelligent comment below: SpaceButler: Flint Ironstag: Pitot tubes face front. If you were falling vertically while perfectly horizontal you would show zero airspeed. No air would be forced into the front facing tube.

I didn't realize they require the air to actually be forced down the tube, and not just go past the opening and create a pressure differential. Wow, ICB was even more wrong than I thought!


So your new argument is:

1. the airplane was perfectly vertical falling at 10,000 feet a second
2. air is only below the airplane going up

Sounds like 2 people who failed science class

In this argument, if I put my nose up and climb, my indicated airspeed falls, not because of the different air speeds of air going over top and bottom of the wing, but because the pitot tubes have LESS AIR going through them

Does anyone pay attention in basic science classes these days?


What you've just stated is kind of true, but it is hard for most aircraft to achieve AOAs where it would matter.

A pitot tube that is orthogonal to the fluid vector becomes a static port which measures the ambient pressure at altitude.

You may be confusing the concept of airspeed vs the subtleties of how these measurements have to be made.
 
2012-07-05 10:33:19 PM

intelligent comment below: sprawl15: the forward airspeed is so low-below 60 knots


And there's your 60 knot myth

Also the article makes the claim that ANTI ICE clears up PITOT tubes which is also 100% wrong

Your linked article is a joke written by someone who spends their days in the business section of an airplane flying to a new story.

Come back when you know a subject not read an article and pretend to be knowledgeable


My God, your amount of stupid is absolutely astounding. Simply mind boggling. Really, your fark name is deceiving because you haven't said one thing consistant to any real knowledge of how airplanes work. You sir, are a troll in a class all by yourself. I commend you.
*golfclap*

/ i give up
 
2012-07-05 10:36:37 PM

intelligent comment below: Stalls are absolutely not stable, in thin air at 30,000 feet, in a storm with massive turbulence


Why does it not surprise me that the same person who can't figure out the difference between indicated airspeed and forward velocity thinks the ocean is at 30,000 feet?
 
2012-07-05 11:50:23 PM

SpaceButler: Everything I said before is accurate if pitot tubes work for airspeed the way you were saying that they do. If Flint's characterization is accurate, then you're wrong for different reasons.

Either way, you inaccurately read some comments and the article itself, and are now calling everyone else stupid because of the difference between reality and what you incorrectly think others claimed. Spectacular job, sir.



How funny, you call my reading "inaccurate" when I point out the inaccurate comments in the popular mechanics article and explain how it is impossible to see a lower recorded airspeed merely because of the angle of your nose.
 
2012-07-05 11:51:51 PM

airplane_mech2: My God, your amount of stupid is absolutely astounding. Simply mind boggling. Really, your fark name is deceiving because you haven't said one thing consistant to any real knowledge of how airplanes work. You sir, are a troll in a class all by yourself. I commend you.
*golfclap*

/ i give up



You should give up, you call yourself a mechanic and you know absolutely nothing about airplanes.

If you "give up" because anti-ice systems have nothing to do with pitot tubes like popular mechanics claimed, and "give up" because airspeed indicators are not dependent on your angle of attack, then that's a good thing. Because you're a farking complete moran who wasted my tax dollars milking the military for free money
 
2012-07-05 11:54:48 PM

sprawl15: Why does it not surprise me that the same person who can't figure out the difference between indicated airspeed and forward velocity thinks the ocean is at 30,000 feet?



Are you drunk? What does any of this mean? ocean at 30,000 feet? forward velocity? Where do you get such ridiculous phrases? An airplane has no use for forward velocity. An airplane's sensors detect INDICATED AIRSPEED and that is the only motion besides altitude used for control. You lack the basic skills to debate, so please go away and finish the 6 back of bud light
 
2012-07-05 11:56:34 PM

Flint Ironstag: I paid attention in Principles Of Flight class at the CFS at RAF Scampton....


/So unless Squadron Leader Eddie Rouse , and the textbooks, were very,very, wrong....



So go back and ask them if your airspeed goes down because the nose goes up and the sensors have less air going into them. The "tubes" are not actual "tubes" they are sensors that measure the air passing around them, so regardless of the nose up or down, they still give the same measurements
 
2012-07-06 12:00:30 AM
All those people died because one inexperienced pilot, a 32 year old without many flight hours, made a mistake at 2am, in the dark, in a thunder storm. He pulled up the entire time, causing the plane to stall, and never told anyone that he was pulling up until it was too late to correct.
There was no real defect in the plane. The plane actually held up nicely to the stresses it was put under.
Also, the pilot picked entirely the wrong time to take a nap.
 
2012-07-06 12:03:40 AM
I'll be honest, I never thought I'd encounter a situation in which someone argues to great length about pitot tubes and indicated airspeed. Let alone while displaying a complete lack of understanding of pitot heat, relative airflow or position error.

intelligent comment below: In this argument, if I put my nose up and climb, my indicated airspeed falls, not because of the different air speeds of air going over top and bottom of the wing, but because the pitot tubes have LESS AIR going through them


I won't lie, the bold part has really created a sense of anticipation regarding just what you think pitot tubes measure and how they work. I'd love an explanation.
 
2012-07-06 12:06:37 AM

costermonger: I'll be honest, I never thought I'd encounter a situation in which someone argues to great length about pitot tubes and indicated airspeed. Let alone while displaying a complete lack of understanding of pitot heat, relative airflow or position error.



You mean like saying indicated airspeed since the air at high altitudes is obviously thinner?

Yes it's obvious I have no knowledge of all the basics of flight as I've demonstrated here, sarcasm.

costermonger: I won't lie, the bold part has really created a sense of anticipation regarding just what you think pitot tubes measure and how they work. I'd love an explanation.



What does that have to do with the bold part? The reason you lose airspeed when your nose goes up is because of the different speeds of air going over the 2 sides of a wing. The claim people made was that when your nose goes up, air has a harder time going "into" the pitot tubes

Such as this:

"No air would be forced into the front facing tube."
 
2012-07-06 12:10:37 AM

intelligent comment below: The "tubes" are not actual "tubes" they are sensors that measure the air passing around them, so regardless of the nose up or down, they still give the same measurements


intelligent comment below: An airplane has no use for forward velocity.


That's some quality stuff, but if you're trying to outdo the original "Airbus/Scarebus" guy you're missing the mark a bit. Gotta avoid the technical details and just paint with broad, idiotic strokes.
 
2012-07-06 12:13:35 AM

costermonger: That's some quality stuff, but if you're trying to outdo the original "Airbus/Scarebus" guy you're missing the mark a bit. Gotta avoid the technical details and just paint with broad, idiotic strokes.



Huh? What in my argument is Scarebus? What does anything I've said in the past have to do with that? You want me to get technical and start adding some blueprints to my comments or something? wtf? You're a dumbass trying to waste my time and not addressing anything I said. Just saying "that's some quality stuff" isn't adding anything to the conversation, just trolling. I've already explained this report is to smear the dead pilots names because Airbus didn't want to admit it was a design flaw of the pitot tubes and Air France's fault for not replacing the known defected tubes more quickly.

So now go away and stop wasting my time you worthless troll
 
2012-07-06 12:22:20 AM

intelligent comment below: You mean like saying indicated airspeed since the air at high altitudes is obviously thinner?

Yes it's obvious I have no knowledge of all the basics of flight as I've demonstrated here, sarcasm.


So what's position error? What does pitot heat do? You've claimed again and again that these things don't exist, so share your knowledge with us.

What does that have to do with the bold part? The reason you lose airspeed when your nose goes up is because of the different speeds of air going over the 2 sides of a wing.

But the air is always going different speeds over the upper and lower surfaces, so what causes the change in airspeed?

The claim people made was that when your nose goes up, air has a harder time going "into" the tubes

Hold your hand up in front of your face. Make an "O" with your thumb and a finger. Tip the "o" away from you. See the relative surface area get smaller? That's important somehow...
 
2012-07-06 12:23:56 AM
It's pretty interesting how a Pitot tube works.
Link

It basically measures the airspeed of the aircraft in the direction the nose of the aircraft is pointed. The measurement is based on the ratio of two different air pressure measurements. This means that it even at high altitude where the air is thinner the air speed reading is still accurate.

It's interesting seeing intelligent comment below's posts. He so artfully conflates the issue that he betrays his own knowledge of the subject. Obviously he understands the subject well or else he would not be so effective at presenting his inaccurate arguments.
 
2012-07-06 01:12:03 AM
Tired joke made by tired subby. They were French pilots.
 
2012-07-06 01:23:03 AM

Robert Farker: It's pretty interesting how a Pitot tube works.
Link

It basically measures the airspeed of the aircraft in the direction the nose of the aircraft is pointed. The measurement is based on the ratio of two different air pressure measurements. This means that it even at high altitude where the air is thinner the air speed reading is still accurate.

It's interesting seeing intelligent comment below's posts. He so artfully conflates the issue that he betrays his own knowledge of the subject. Obviously he understands the subject well or else he would not be so effective at presenting his inaccurate arguments.



You do realize that there is always air going around the airplane no matter what angle the nose is, right?

Take important note of this sentence in your article

The pitot tube is used to measure the local velocity at a given point in the flow stream and not the average velocity in the pipe or conduit.[3]

Now take your foot out of your mouth and get lost
 
Displayed 50 of 268 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report