"NO mention of flight path angle."

What of it? You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s climbing vertically and when called on it you got ****y.

"I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
previous statement."

What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? And if you believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.

"That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?"

The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with altitude. However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. If by "stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of attack and then verified by test.

Find a copy of "Theory of Wing Sections" and read through it and you'll end up with a much, much better understanding of stall. If you don't have an engineering or physics background though it's going to be a tough slog.

"In real time, we'd probably enjoy a few pints and get along just fine,
but in here you have to stop treating people like they're stupid."

Unlikely in the extreme--I'd have to leave early while I was still sober enough to resist the urge to throttle you.

On Jan 29, 10:17*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:


"In real time, we'd probably enjoy a few pints and get along just fine,
but in here you have to stop treating people like they're stupid."

Unlikely in the extreme--I'd have to leave early while I was still sober enough to resist the urge to throttle you.

Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
shows in almost all of your posts.
That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
Sad, really. Sad to the core. (Boy, you really don't like it when
somebody points out your mistakes, eh?)

Oh.. and an attempt at throttling me would be a task which would
result in an unexpected reaction .. to the extreme.

On Jan 29, 10:17*am, "J. Clarke" wrote:



"In real time, we'd probably enjoy a few pints and get along just fine,
but in here you have to stop treating people like they're stupid."


Oh, and don't e-mail me behind the curtain... only my friends are
welcome to do that.
You're pathetic.

"Robatoy" wrote

Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
shows in almost all of your posts.
That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
Sad, really. Sad to the core.

All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is correct
about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.

Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
picture and are related, but fact is that an angle of attack indicator is
what will tell you when the wing is going to or has already stall.

That is one reason all modern airliners and heavy transports have a couple
of them on the side of their fuselages.
--
Jim in NC

On Jan 30, 2:17*pm, "Morgans" wrote:

Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
picture and are related

....and this is different from what I said..how?

On Jan 30, 2:17*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
"Robatoy" wrote



Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
shows in almost all of your posts.
That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
Sad, really. Sad to the core.

*All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is correct
about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.

And I never disputed that.
What made me respond, is Clark's faux-authorative arrogant
assertiveness when he tosses out a statement which in itself is
incomplete.
He sure-as-hell would be all over somebody else were they to make an
incomplete statement like that.
....besides, I like jerking the asshole's chain. G

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:17:50 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote

Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
shows in almost all of your posts.
That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
Sad, really. Sad to the core.

All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is correct
about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.

Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
picture and are related, but fact is that an angle of attack indicator is
what will tell you when the wing is going to or has already stall.

That is one reason all modern airliners and heavy transports have a couple
of them on the side of their fuselages.

When I was flying the best stall indicator was my ass in the seat, it
went off before the audible stall indicator ever did. That is why you
practice at altitude.

Mark

In article , markem618
@hotmail.com says...

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 14:17:50 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


"Robatoy" wrote

Pretty much what I expected as your bitterness towards many in here
shows in almost all of your posts.
That bitterness will chew you up inside-out.
Sad, really. Sad to the core.

All of the other negative points and barbs between you aside, he is correct
about the angle of attack determining the point at which a wing stalls.

Airspeed, attitude, altitude, load factor and other items all muddy the
picture and are related, but fact is that an angle of attack indicator is
what will tell you when the wing is going to or has already stall.

That is one reason all modern airliners and heavy transports have a couple
of them on the side of their fuselages.

When I was flying the best stall indicator was my ass in the seat, it
went off before the audible stall indicator ever did. That is why you
practice at altitude.

Yep, in many aircraft under many circumstances you can feel it coming.
However when there's half a kiloton of ammunition in the back and you're
coming into a short field with zero-zero visibility you want all the
help you can get.

J. Clarke wrote:
"NO mention of flight path angle."

What of it? You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
climbing vertically and when called on it you got ****y.

"I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
previous statement."

What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? And if you
believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.

"That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?"

The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
altitude. However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight
will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. If by
"stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
attack and then verified by test.


Said another way:

The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. The
mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.

As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle of
attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while the
aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given angle of
attack, a stall will occur.

On Jan 31, 6:13*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
J. Clarke wrote:
"NO mention of flight path angle."

What of it? *You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
climbing vertically and when called on it you got ****y.

"I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
previous statement."

What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? *And if you
believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.

"That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?"

The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
altitude. *However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight
will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. *If by
"stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
attack and then verified by test.

Said another way:

The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. The
mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.

As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle of
attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while the
aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given angle of
attack, a stall will occur.

Soooo if air is thinner a stall would occur at a shallower angle or
lower airspeed? (trick question)

In article ,
says...

J. Clarke wrote:
"NO mention of flight path angle."

What of it? You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
climbing vertically and when called on it you got ****y.

"I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
previous statement."

What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? And if you
believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.

"That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?"

The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
altitude. However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight
will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. If by
"stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
attack and then verified by test.


Said another way:

The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. The
mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.

As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle of
attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while the
aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given angle of
attack, a stall will occur.

No. If you are maintaining constant airspeed there is some altitude at
which for any given angle of attack the aircraft will be unable to
sustain level flight, however this is not a stall. A stall occurs when
flow detaches from the upper surface of the wing and further increases
in angle of attack result in less rather than more lift. And this
occurs at a specific angle of attack.

On Jan 31, 11:40*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


No. *If you are maintaining constant airspeed



STOP right here....

You mean... that if you change airspeed, things change?
And here *I* thought you said it was strictly a function of Angle Of
Attack... oh wait.. you DID say that....
..
..
..
sucks to be wrong, eh John?

On Jan 31, 11:40*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...







J. Clarke wrote:
"NO mention of flight path angle."

What of it? *You are the one who went off on a tangent about F-16s
climbing vertically and when called on it you got ****y.

"I do understand that you are now trying to introduce other variables
in order to try to regain some lost ground from your erroneous
previous statement."

What "erroneous previous statement" would that be? *And if you
believe it to be erroneous then please provide a counterexample.

"That's your style and that's okay, but what's next? A denial that
stall specs change with altitude?"

The angle of attack at which stall occurs does not change with
altitude. *However the airspeed at which an aircraft in level flight
will achieve that angle of attack does change with altitude. *If by
"stall specs" you mean the stall speed you are correct that it
changes with altitude, but stall speed is calculated from angle of
attack and then verified by test.

Said another way:

The angle of attack changes the amount of air flowing over the wing. The
mass of air flowing over a wing determines lift.

As altitude increases, air density decreases (duh). For the same angle of
attack, a higher altitude means less mass of air over the wing while the
aircraft's weight remains constant. At some altitude, for any given angle of
attack, a stall will occur.

No. *If you are maintaining constant airspeed there is some altitude at
which for any given angle of attack the aircraft will be unable to
sustain level flight, however this is not a stall. *A stall occurs when
flow detaches from the upper surface of the wing and further increases
in angle of attack result in less rather than more lift. *And this
occurs at a specific angle of attack.

http://tinyurl.com/4jcbswu

....then you can tell the class what the white segment of the airspeed
indicator means...