AOPA Flight Training - WHAT ARE THEY THINKING??????

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Now, that's funny...

It really is hard to explain how wings work. The best explanation I've ever seen was actually in a sailing book ("The Art and Science of Sails"). But telling people stuff that is just plain wrong is just plain wrong...
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention that. I once taught a series of lessons on wing foils and how lift is produced to a 15,000+ hour CFI using nothing but sailing analogies. He 'got it' and he liked the sailing references.
 
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, is the book I use. The reader can ignore the 'squiggles' (an apt name) if they so choose. If the FAA objects they can take it to the Navy and tell them they're wrong.
 
Richard said:
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, is the book I use. The reader can ignore the 'squiggles' (an apt name) if they so choose. If the FAA objects they can take it to the Navy and tell them they're wrong.
Click to expand...

"Stick and Rudder" explains it well, too. "..why it's called an airPLANE."
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Yeah, my DME and my GPS both take that pesky math out of the equation. :D
Click to expand...

Except that your DME and GPS won't measure the same distance from the station...

EDIT: I don't know if anyone saved the post, but I wrote a giant post showing the percentage error between DME and GPS back in the yellow board days. I never saved it... and it was the height of my geekery.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
astanley said:
Except that your DME and GPS won't measure the same distance from the station...
Click to expand...

You're absolutely correct.

In science and math classes, we talk about being precise and carrying equations out to the umpteenth decimal point for accuracy.

Once you hit engineering, we talk about significant figures and rounding, at which point the basic principle is "Egh, close enough." ;)
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're absolutely correct.

In science and math classes, we talk about being precise and carrying equations out to the umpteenth decimal point for accuracy.

Once you hit engineering, we talk about significant figures and rounding, at which point the basic principle is "Egh, close enough." ;)
Click to expand...

I once calculated the error in terms of time for the distances and altitudes used on an approach, and it came out to tens of feet and hundredths of seconds, IIRC. Not enough to matter when you're 1500 AGL and 5 miles out - But if you were up in the flight levels, it'd be different!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I once calculated the error in terms of time for the distances and altitudes used on an approach, and it came out to tens of feet and hundredths of seconds, IIRC. Not enough to matter when you're 1500 AGL and 5 miles out - But if you were up in the flight levels, it'd be different!
Click to expand...

Right, but there are so many confounding factors that will come up during that approach to throw the times off anyway that raising your thumb up and looking at it funny is going to probably give you a good enough result.

I look at the time remaining on the GPS and the DME for reference, but really I'm figuring estimates in my head for various things when I'm flying. That gives me a backup. So far, it's seemed to work out alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top