Addressing Gl Arguments Regarding Noc Tech Paper
Jan 6 2009, 12:21 PM
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1
Looks like there is only one reply so far, out of much noise being generated at the GL site... so we'll address the first "legit" reply to our NoC paper...
Didn't 911files show that the radii PfT was using in their last video were fudged? Looks like they're still using those same radii in this paper.
ETA: Why, yes, he did...
Actually, no, he didnt.
1. It appears Farmer cherry picked one "radius" for his claim, not "radii". Yet refuses to show exactly which "radius" he feel is "fudged".
2. Based on Farmers final arithmetic for our alleged "fudged" radius, Farmer calculated his alleged G Load based on bank angle which Farmer claims is accurate -
Farmer calculates G load for given bank...
Banking angle = 62 degrees
g-force = 1.9
Its far from accurate...
First, Farmer doesnt specify speed to obtain such a bank angle.
Second, Farmer's arithmetic is wrong regarding G load for a given bank angle.
Every pilot from a student onward knows the rule of thumb that a 60 deg bank is 2.0G. How does Farmer calculate less G load for a higher bank? I'll tell you why, its because Farmer doesnt understand basic vector analysis as outlined in the paper, doesnt understand how to calculate a sag of an arc, nor is he able to determine a proper radii.
Looks like Farmer needs the chart as his "maths" is pathetic.
Or perhaps he will actually learn something from the tech paper regarding vector analysis.
n = 1/cos(62)
n = 2.13 G's
Farmer is more than 10% off with his "maths".
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 19th May 2013 - 08:09 PM|