Just a reminder what happens when anyone provides him with actual proof. He just ignores it.
it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 21
st, 2018 at 8:54pm:
this current line of analysis will, I do believe , bring clarity to this thread
and answer many questions for those that are curious .
Not in the way you think.
Quote:until that is answered , I shall be bringing forth more evidence and again ,
this thread is an amalgamation of pertinent material and needs not antagonists and or abuse as we continue
Again, you've not been providing evidence, only hypothesis born out of ignorance.
Take the second point, the claim which you've tried to support with your SR-71 info states that if a Plane flies level it would gain altitude.
You again have a lack of understanding, this time of basic aviation. There is flying straight, and flying level, the difference is here:
https://i.imgur.com/j3s6dV2.jpgNow I could leave it at that, but this isn't a meme war, so here are some cold hard facts.
There is some truth to what he says, planes do in fact fly pitched down in order to maintain level flight, it's just your/his math is totally wrong.
In an airplane, Elevator Trim simply controls the RATE of pitch of an aircraft - not the actual pitch of the plane.
A 747 flying at 35,000' would have a flight circumference of about 2π*(3959+(35000/5280)) ≈ 24916 miles
Flying at 570 miles per hour, this plane would fly a fraction of the 360° around given by 360*570/24916
Since that's 1 hour we can divide by 60 to get the degrees per hour: 360*570/24916/60 ≈ 0.137°/minute
That is down in the noise since pitch rate is affected by temperature, density, power, and control settings on the plane you simply trim the plane for as close to ZERO vertical speed as you can and you've automatically compensated for all of them at once. Of course, on a 747 computers do that. In a small plane the pitch rate is microscopic.
Pitch Rate/minute = 360*groundspeedMPH/[2π*(3959+(altitudeFEET/5280))]/60So yes, airplanes DO pitch down constantly at an EXTREMELY slow rate which presents absolutely no issue what-so-ever. Once again, you've failed to understand a phenomena and proceed to run around making absurd claims about it.
Now to your SR-71 bullshit, there are so many things absolutely wrong in this meme I almost don't know where to start.
Where did they get 2193.13 MPH from? I get 668.9 mph for the speed of sound at 85,000' and SR-71 nominally goes Mach 3.2 (it can go slightly faster for short periods), that gives me 668.9*3.2 = ~2140.48 mph at 85,000'. I guess that is "close enough", so I'll use their 2194 mph for this example. But we're also at 85,000' so I'll add that into our radius of curvature (makes very little difference).
And where did they get '1/4 MILE OF CURVATURE EVERY HOUR' from? Wow, that is just stupidly wrong. At 2194 mph, you go 2194 miles in 1 hour and that gives 696.83 Miles OF CURVATURE DROP not 1/4 mile! *I've assumed no wind so 2194 mph ~ ground distance and I've used CURVED GROUND DISTANCE for the curvature calculation: r/cos(d/r)-r
And even if it was a 1/4 mile 5280/4/60 = 22 FEET, not 23. Maybe they rounded the .0? They clearly cannot manage division.
But their worst error is assuming that 1/4 mile of curvature MEANS 22 feet per minute of vertical speed in the first place. As I've already shown VERTICAL SPEED WOULD BE ZERO AT EVERY POINT.
The curvature 'drop' is BUILT INTO the flight dynamics - the plane isn't flying a linear path and having to drop down, it is flying along the curve -- you have to compute the integral.
The pitch RATE would be:
(360/(2*pi*(3959+(85000/5280))))*(2194)/60 = ~0.527° per minute (~0.00878°/sec)Still only a very slight rotation that wouldn't be specifically noticeable and would very easily be compensated for in pitch rate - in this case, by the computer that is actually flying the airplane. But again, the computer doesn't even have to understand the Earth curvature to do this, it just needs to keep VS near zero which is determined by pitch rate and power settings.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO KEEP ADJUSTING FOR THE CURVATURE - THE RATE OF CURVATURE IS NEAR CONSTANT.
So it isn't the 696.83 miles of curvature drop you need to worry about, let's look at that over 1/1000th of a second:
The plane moves forward ~3.218 feet
The plane pitches forward 0.00000878°
The plane DOES NOT CLIMB 0.00000024669 of a foot (the 'drop' over that distance)
After 1 second the plane HAS NOT CLIMBED 0.24667 feet but it is entirely INACCURATE to say that it has DROPPED 0.24667 feet. If you take 0.00000024669 * 1000 you'll note that you get 0.00024669 instead of 0.24667 feet -- you are a OFF BY ONE THOUSAND TIMES HERE by assuming this is a linear function. Every microscopic bit of pitch rotation in between ALREADY ALTERED OUR COURSE.
YOU CANNOT TREAT THESE AS LINEAR AMOUNTS THAT YOU CAN SIMPLY MULTIPLY AND DIVIDE.
It is the sum total of these CONTINUOUS microscopic adjustments that result in the curved flight path.
That is what you don't understand. With the atrocious math you've cited in this Meme is that any surprise?
Did you even bother to fact check any of this before blindly believing this idiot's video? Why do I have to do all your work for you, which you'll ignore anyway?
Forum
Pages: 
