It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking Flat Earth and the Hollow Earth

page: 31
9
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Autopilot altitude mode... Said directly after we get told we're obviously not pilots or aircraft designers OR ENGINEERS.

BTW... Bernoulli called, he said you two need to have a chat about basic flight dynamics.

Department of redundancy department... Please hold I'll transfer you to the no such terminology department.

Before you pretend to be a pilot or aeronautical engineer again, I highly recommend reading these twp wikis in their entirety as a bare minimum.

Bernoulli's principle

LIFT

You actually don't have to know anything at all about gyroscopes, attitude indicators, or autopilots in the slightest to understand why you don't have to nose down in flight to compensate for earth's curvature at all. As you said, very basic principles of aerodynamics are all you really need to understand the situation...

Unfortunately for you though, that definitely puts the lie to you being a pilot because pilots do understand this very well.

Here's another wiki you should peruse and think about too....

radio altimeter

Pay close attention to the part where it goes over the difference between a radio altimeter and a barometric altimeter. You may have to do a search on the definition of datum lines and their application in this context as well as the other specific terminology, but I assure you that actually taking the time to get a grasp on exactly what is said will be very rewarding and decisively close the book on the claims you have been making in this thread.


edit on 15-5-2018 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

Yeah so you realise that in the event of total hydraulics failure in an aircraft like a 777... it can be flown, nose down, up, level, even make banking turns by modification of ONLY the throttle controls...

and... no as I have stated previously, i do not at all believe your credentials... just based upon how you present information



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I can't even imagine attempting to control a 777 with nothing but differential thrust!

Or trying to land a swept wing jet aircraft without flaps, that would be one helluva landing roll. Honestly I'm also wondering how the hell you could get anything resembling real pitch authority out of differential thrust. (I have one amusing thought about thrust diverters but I'm really not even close to sure it would be possible at all, and if it were possible it probably wouldn't work for very long)



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

Wait…Hyperboles seriously claims to be a pilot now? And an aeronautical engineer too? I saw slight mention of “pilot” in one of his posts just yesterday, but like all of his semi-literate, fractured-syntax statements, I took it to be a joke.

”how many times being a pilot do I have to repeat myself.”

Hoo boy.



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Rollie83

He's brought it up several times yes...

I don't see how it's even remotely possible to become a pilot without learning things they obviously don't know.

Plus you guys have your own language, which is very uniform in key areas (likely due to the whole unclear communications being deadly in your field thing) and they obviously don't speak it.



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: roguetechie
a reply to: Rollie83

I don't see how it's even remotely possible to become a pilot without learning things they obviously don't know.


Well, it’s not possible in any jurisdiction that I’m aware of. In fact, if I’d ever had a student with such wacky ideas in his head, I’d have washed him out very early on. It’s inherently hazardous to operate a machine when the operator doesn’t understand how it works, and in a natural environment whose physical laws escape comprehension. Now, I could train a chimp to fly if it only required button-pushing, but like every pilot I’ve ever known, I don’t want button pushers in my sky. I presume the same sentiment goes for passengers too.

Maybe Hyperboles became a pilot in some backward place outside of my conception. His writing is pretty grammar-lite, and I’ve long suspected that his first language isn’t English. Maybe he’s an Antarctic Ice-Wall native, and learned to write and fly there.
edit on 15-5-2018 by Rollie83 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2018 by Rollie83 because: typo



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

Yeah, its ridiculously hard and typically ends badly. So i say a 777 but actually the examples of this are more the DC-10 and such as

en.wikipedia.org...

and a 747

en.wikipedia.org...

It has been performed via a fly-by-wire style system, but its not reliable enough to implement as a backup system, when the Hydraulic system can be designed to not catastrophically fail. The issue, is mostly that Jet engines have response curves that are extremely slow compared to an actual control surface.

Many accidents / crashes show from the flight recorder that for example, at low altitude and velocity, ramming the throttle full forward often doesn't make any difference to the flight path or the usable power for about 2-5 seconds, which usually is way to late.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

Heck give it up cuz you cant even do geometry right



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 02:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

Yeah so you realise that in the event of total hydraulics failure in an aircraft like a 777... it can be flown, nose down, up, level, even make banking turns by modification of ONLY the throttle controls...

and... no as I have stated previously, i do not at all believe your credentials... just based upon how you present information
Heck you have made a lot of assumptions there , hombre, but based on what? You can believe what you please



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

based on actual information and events that have occurred... based on... shock horror... science!



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Especially if it's a jumo-003 which will promptly detonate if you try to firewall it like that! LoL

I understand and can effectively use differential thrust in RC type applications, and I've even flown a turbine powered RC aircraft a few times so I get the very basics in a way that other non pilots probably don't.

I even got coached through very limited throttle application the time I got to take control of the OV-10 very briefly. So I do have an inkling of the lag you're describing, but only in the sense that I'm very aware I would most likely kill myself and everyone else on board if asked to pilot a multi engine turbofan or turboprop aircraft. (Propeller blade pitch wuzzat?!)

I love aircraft and everything aviation and If at all possible i fully intend to eventually put together an autogyro on an experimental ticket so I can eventually retrofit it to do jump take offs. (Gotta have a heart valve repair and dig about $150,000 out from between the couch cushions first)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

based on actual information and events that have occurred... based on... shock horror... science!
Lol you need to go back to school



posted on May, 17 2018 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Hyperboles

yes - ui has " heard of google "

BUT

it is the convention , on a discussion forum - that the person making the claim provides ciatations to support thier claims

now - you is insinuating that he died " in mysterious circumstances "


so

CITATION REQUIRED

your evasiveness would prompt a cynic to suspect that you have zero evidence



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Cant remember the website

I also watched a video of evgeny podkletnov interview, sometime back, where evgeny mentioned so. Search and you will find
edit on 18-5-2018 by Hyperboles because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

So I did the leg work for Hyperboles, since we all know he won't, and the only "possibly suspicious" thing about his death was it happening one week after helping launch a proposal to get a maglev launch assist program funded by NASA.

Here's the issue there though:
1. He was 76
2. The program is either still running or was allowed to run it's full course even with his death. (I didn't check on the exact status of the program after finding even two conspiracy sites who admitted that the program did not die with him.)

Basically after multiple searches and reading through 18 articles, I couldn't find anything more substantive than several one sentence throwaways about his death being suspicious.

Laithwaite was an interesting character for sure though between his invention of the linear induction motor, being the "father" of maglev technology, his fascination with gyroscopes, his championing of Pons and Fleischman, and some interesting theories he had about moths... Dude was pretty willing to go down the rabbit hole for an established scientist.
edit on 18-5-2018 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hyperboles

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: Hyperboles

based on actual information and events that have occurred... based on... shock horror... science!
Lol you need to go back to school


Wow yeah, you are the same member who was banned (several times already), yep, from your same document, you do indeed claim to have have flight instruction but apparently don't know how avionics work... and from this lovely document that has been discussed many times, you are also an engineer who doesn't understand thermal expansion.

www.academia.edu...

Brilliant document, you prove you don't understand unit analysis within the first 3 lines.

Fun and games fun and games... same person who told me on this very forum that he had invented energy seeing glasses, that could see a nuclear power plant through a mountain... of course no evidence was ever supplied, I suggested the only manner that might be possible was neutrinos, though with the detection of neutrinos being really quite hard, I asked for a citation... the answer was "If anyone finds out the technology, ill be killed, because its so ground breaking" Here we are, 2-3 user names later, hows that invention working out?

So question... do you know its against terms and conditions to be banned 3 times from a forum and just sign back up again matey?
edit on 18-5-2018 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-5-2018 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

Serious question here... Can you even pick up a general aviation, instructor, and commercial single engine rating with only 500 hours?

I'll set aside multi engine and specific tickets for each multi engine platform you wish to fly with paying passengers onboard because I have no idea how that works...

But 500 hours is basically nothing isn't it?

I thought for a full up general aviation license you needed 100 hours, going down to 25 and something like 10 for light sport aircraft and ultralight / autogyro single seat VFR only licenses.

Right?

Or am I off base here?



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

I actually don't know how many hours you have to clock up. I am but a mere scientist who has traceable credentials. Oh yeah and Savvy, just a note on that weird paper... IMarEST isn't a credential, its the same as me saying I am a MInstP because I bought membership to the institute of physics, its basically meaningless and can be anybodies for the registration fee. If you have a bachelors of Marine Engineering, then you are not a certified/licensed engineer, there is a big difference.

Just looking at the FAA rules etc and the Training programs. Most of the levels appear to require a certain amount of hours, prior and then take a certain amount of hours to complete.

All the information I find says -
First - Private Pilot -> something like 36 hours
Second - Instrument Pilot -> Around 30 hours
Third - Commercial Pilot -> 250 hours, iv seen 120hours written in some places

Pretty expensive too boot.

Either way, its probably somewhere between 250-400 hours. Said user has a long history on ATS I thought we had successfully identified his now... 3rd? or 4th account basically because of the style in which he debates, the kind of claims he makes etc. This one double cements the identity without doubt. When a new user pops up and basically says the same kinds of things, its pretty obvious. Especially when claiming to be an expert in generally everything engineering and scientific and then showing that he holds absolutely no basic knowledge of unit analysis or indeed engineering compared to people I have worked with and around. Iv worked with student engineers more capable of rational problem solving than Mr Savvy. Also,



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: roguetechie

Private pilot is minimum 40 hours, including 20 hours with an instructor to include:


6. Accumulate flight experience (FAR 61.109). Receive a minimum of 40 hours of flight instruction
and solo flight time including:
a. 20 hours of flight training from an authorized flight instructor, including at least
i. 3 hours of cross-country (i.e. to other airports)
ii. 3 hours of night, including
1. One cross-country flight of over 100nm total distance
2. 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop at an airport
iii. 3 hours of instrument flight training in an airplane
iv. 3 hours in airplanes in preparation for the private pilot practical test within 60
days prior to that test
b. 10 hours of solo time in an airplane, including:
i. 5 hours of cross-country flights
ii. One solo cross-country flight of at least 150nm total distance, with full-stop
landings at a minimum of three points and with one segment of the flight
consisting of a straight-line distance of at least 50nm between takeoff and
landing locations
iii. Three solo takeoffs and landings to a full stop at an airport with an operating
control tower

kirtlandflightcenter.org...

Commercial (NOT ATP, simply that you can get paid for flying) is a total of 250 hours (minimum).

6. Accumulate appropriate flight experience (FAR 61.129)
a. 100 hours in powered aircraft, of which 50 hours must be in airplanes
b. 100 hours as Pilot-In-Command (PIC) flight time, which includes at least:
i. 50 hours in airplanes
ii. 50 hours in cross-country flight of which at least 10 ours must be in
airplanes
c. 20 hours of training in the areas of operation required for single-engine or multiengine
rating that includes at least:
i. 10 hours of instrument training of which at least 5 hours must be in singleengine
or multi-engine airplane, as appropriate
ii. 10 hours of training in an airplane that has a retractable landing gear, flaps,
and controllable-pitch propeller, or that is turbine-powered
iii. One cross-country flight of at least 2 hours in a single-engine or multiengine
airplane (as appropriate) in day-VRF condition, consisting of a total
straight-line distance of more than 100nm from the original point of
departure
iv. One cross-country flight of at least 2 hours in a single-engine or multiengine
airplane (as appropriate) in night-VRF condition, consisting of a total
straight-line distance of more than 100nm from the original point of
departure
v. 3 hours in a single-engine or multi-engine airplane (as appropriate) in
preparation for the practical test within the 60 days preceding the test
d. 10 hours of solo flight (sole occupant of the airplane) in a single-engine airplane, or
10 hours of flight time performing the duties of Pilot-In-Command (PIC) in a multiengine
airplane with an authorized instructor, training in the areas of operations
Page 3 of 3
required for the single-engine or multi-engine rating (as appropriate), which
includes at least:
i. One cross-country flight of not less than 300nm total distance, wit landings
at a minimum of three points, one of which is a straight-line distance of at
least 250nm from the original departure point
ii. 5 hours in night-VFR conditions with 10 takeoffs and landings (with each
landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport with an
operating control tower
e. The 250 hours of flight time as a pilot may include50 hours in an approved flight
simulator or training device that is representative of the single-engine or multiengine
airplane (as appropriate)
7. Hold an instrument rating.

ppgs101.com...

One of the schools lists the CFI course as being 25 hours of flight training. That's after getting at least your Commercial, and probably an additional hundred plus hours after that.

Theoretically you could get at least two of those in 500 hours, the odds against it are pretty high.



posted on May, 18 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for the break down... I really like aircraft and I really like flying, but I have never seriously considered getting a pilot's license.

Maybe some day I'll have the right circumstances to allow me to pursue a license to fly autogyros with another person or two onboard, but I haven't seriously looked at exactly what it will take yet because I know right now I'm nowhere near having the disposable income etc to do what I'd want to do.

I have known people who went through the process on the civilian side though and they made it very clear that it was a huge chunk of cash and time before you could expect to even start being able to defray your costs by getting paid while doing some of your requirements.




top topics



 
9
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join