Addressing Gl Arguments Regarding Noc Tech Paper Options

[rob balsamo]

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...

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4324901&postcount=8

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.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10761451

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".

[dMz]

HINT for J. Farmer: The US Navy and "old time" USAAF navigators used to do graphical vector analysis- it is much quicker at times, plus all the signs, sines, and cosines can introduce many places to make mistakes. (That's kind of why I [and industry] have been using CAD software for the last 2 decades or so, and it can be a pretty handy method to cross-check all the trigonometry).

I also wouldn't have used a Cartesian coordinate system for radial geometries, but I digress.

Oh well, I'm sure it will look "pretty" in LaTeX though...

J. Farmer may also want to take a look at his sagitta "maths" again- my graphical analysis of his "radius" image was not very reassuring...

http://flickcabin.com/public/viewset/5321

EDIT: My spreadsheet and I also used the NIST standard accepted value for g:

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?gn

9.80665 m/s^2(exact) 32.17404856 ft/sec^2

I didn't convert nautical miles at all, but I calculated both velocity in knots airspeed and feet per second. I got very close results using 2 different formulas.