Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1474865)

Both the harrier and a helicopter fly under the same principles as a boeing 747 when flying straight and level and when they have gotten the speed neccesary to maintain level flight with the use of speed. If a helicopter would slow down with the same power applied it would fall down, just like an aircraft would.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1474865)

If a helicopter would slow down with the same power applied it would fall down, just like an aircraft would.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1474865)

There are two stages of flight with harrier and helicopter, the first is vertical and the second is horizontal flight. So my point is that both of these aircraft is not DEPENDENT on increasing speed to be able to fly. But when they DO increase speed, they fly just like any other aircraft.

Originally Posted by Rip (Post 1474742)

There is a difference in pressure, as the water pressure is lower at the top of the boat at the bottom due to depth difference. The big factor however is that the external pressure is increasing while the pressure in the people compartment hopefully remains the same. This actually squeezes the sub reducing displacement. It also gets colder as you go down counteracting the reduced displacement somewhat.

A submarine will always be adjusting ballast to adjust for these factors and maintain a near neutral buoyancy. Depending on operations you will run a little heavy or light and counteract it with ship controls as required.

Now to that, the planes on a sub are used to change the up or down angle to use the forward motion to maintain or change depth. There is no "lifting action as water unlike air doesn't compress and creates no pressure differential. Water pressure is determined by depth and is constant.

Rip

Originally Posted by Krauter (Post 1474909)

If you would provide fact to back up your stories I'd appreciate it even more. This is a free forum, I can post where I would like to.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1474956)

Sorry to break your world, but this is pure bull****. You cannot compare helicopters to airplanes. In no way. Except they both fly.
To explain: if a helicopter is in straight and level flight and drops speed, it actually will start to climb. Now, why that? Because helicopters do not have a fixed rotor. In fact, each rotorblade can be moved differently in a way that while its moving from back to the front, it is required to produce lift. While going back from the front to the back, it should prudoce as less drag as possible. For that being possible, the angle of incidence is being changed. The same happens, when you move the stick. Each rotor blade is being set accordingly. Now, when you move the throttle stick, the exact same happens, but to all blades at the same time. So actually, your "throttle"-stick is not a throttle stick. Modern helicopters are all working that way. Why? Because you have a giant gyroscope mounted on top of the helicopter (the rotor). Do you know, what happens to a gyroscope if you try to change its orientation in threedimensional space?

So in fact, when you reduce forward motion in a helicopter, it will start to climb, because the power setting is always equal. Its just a matter of conservation of energy. Prior to changing anything, in straight and level flight, potential energy and kinetic energy are in balance (otherwise, you wouldn't fly straight and level, right?). Now, if you reduce the kinetic energy, the reaction will be a raise in potential energy (= climb).

The same goes for any other airplane, of course. Limitation: do not touch the power setting (= conservation of energy).
If you do touch the power setting, the assumption of straight and level flight is no longer applicable. The equations of movement become way more complex (too complex to discuss them here). They include nonlinear transitions as well as stimulation of the phugoid oscillation.

However, your statement, and i quote: is as wrong as it gets. Keyword is same power applied. Just a matter of 6th class physics.


Again wrong. You always need speed to fly. Its just a matter of which speed. In case of a helicopter, its the speed of the blades against the air. In case of a harrier (when hovering, starting or landing), its the speed of its combustion residues (btw, thats why a first-generation harrier could never start vertically when on MTOW and needed those funny looking british carriers with the ski-jump).
For planes flying straight and level, its always the speed of the air moving over the lift-producing parts.

For the discussion to go on (on a more mature level, i hope):


This man is right. So in a sub, you will never be able to maintain constant depth without working on buoyancy. As soon as you only 1 gram above or below what you should have, the sub will start to climb or descent. It will then (due to the pressure outside) alter its volume. But because the mass is (first approximation) constant, the "relative density" is changed. It gets higher when descending and lower when climbing, therefore accelerates the effect the 1 gram difference had. So you always need (at least a little) speed to maintain any depth.

Thanks for reading. :)

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475005)

We could argue hours and hours over the airodynamics of helicopters.

I think that you should have gotten the point. Helicopters are flying machines as well as traditional airplanes.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475005)

Besides it is not the speed of the wind that makes the airplane or helicopter fly, it is the difference in pressure. You could have all the speed you would like, but if the air is not very dense, speed is irrelevant, it is ultimately a matter of pressure.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475005)

And ofcourse the air needs speed, but Krauter was talking about the speed of the craft, not the relative speed of the wind as you can see when he speaks about helicopters, so it is completely irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Krauter (Post 1474857)

For one, the Harrier is a specialized vertical Takeoff Aircraft.

Helicopters are a special branch of aircraft. If you're talking about helicopters then say "speed is not essential to helicopter flight"

/facepalm

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1474767)

And secondly, airplanes do not have to go faster to keep flying, I explained this to another guy in a later post, which you didnt read. Speed has little to do with airodynamics, it just happen to be a great tool.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475032)

No, we could not. Nothing you said in your post changes anything of what i have said. You, sir, are wrong with what you have said about descending aircrafts when dropping speed. You are at best just ignorant.
And to compare helicopters to traditional airplanes, saying both are flying machines is about equal to saying human can live on mars and earth, because both are planets. Its so weird i can't even stop laughing.

However, you said, and i quote: . You are right with this statement. In a way. Since we live in a real world, we have to rely on what we can observe. Now, since we don't have a difference in pressure high enough to produce any noticable lift (as long as we have no moving air or plane), the statement that pressure difference is the key for lift is wrong. It actually is the speed, combined with a properly shaped wing profile, that is producing a pressure difference. Not vice versa. In a theroetical world, your statement would be equal to mine, because we cannot differ between actio and reactio. At least not mathematically, as it would be required to be sure if our assumption is true. You might think about that.



I am sorry, but i don't see any post from Krauter saying what you are referring to. I can only find this post:

And what should i say? He is correct. You were talking about planes. Planes unequals helicopters. Now, you said speed is not needed for a plane to fly. I quote again:
Later on, you throw a helicopter in the discussion. Your argument seemed to be, that helicopters can hover, and thats why planes don't need speed to fly. This is again so dumb, i need to hurt me to stop laughing. I repeat: traditional airplanes are in no way comparable to helicopters in terms of how they fly. You will never ever get an airplane to hover without (strong) winds.

And, just by the way. Saying someone else trying to help you understand something to "get lost", is just a sign of ignorance. However, you might still believe pressure difference is the key to flying. If that would be true, how do space rockets fly? Is it the difference of the pressure in the fuel tanks versus the surrounding air pressure?

Originally Posted by SeaTurtle (Post 1465447)

Same problem here, what a pain. :D

Do you know how to get just the fix without having to install the full mod ?

Thanks !

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475036)

He were indirectly addressing helicopters as part of the problem, which is a strong indication. And helicopters are subject to airodynamics too.

And besides you dont need to use a helicopter, you could use a harrier or you could use a cessna or you could use a piper cub. It doesnt MATTER.

How many times do I need to tell you this. Enough of this. Don't try to outsmart me boy or i'll send you down to a pit you will never return from.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475036)

AND THIS: "And to compare helicopters to traditional airplanes, saying both are flying machines is about equal to saying human can live on mars and earth, because both are planets. Its so weird i can't even stop laughing." <- I don't even want to bother answering that. It is so far beyond the point, it is logical and correct from my point of view. You have nothing to say against that. Now really, GET LOST!

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475042)

Sure, helicopters are subject to airodynamics. As are a harrier, cessna or piper cub. However, cessna, piper cub (and all other traditional fixed-wing-planes) do need speed to fly. A helicopter does not need speed (of the aircraft) to hover. Thats why you cannot compare them the way you want to. Harriers (when hovering) are none of both. They are, in fact, not even flying.
So, you see, it actually does matter. Just because the basic principles behind those effects are the same, they are not producing these effects the same way. Thats why you can't compare them.

And, i would LOVE to see the dark pit i will never return from. The only thing i ever saw from you in this thread was ignorant behaviour. You didn't even try to provide proof for your claims.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475052)

I surely provided proof that they didnt need to INCREASE speed like krauter said.

And I also provided evidence that helicopters and harriers didnt need speed to fly.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475052)

And secondly, he suggested speed was a LAW, which it isnt, there is nothing to prove with that, there is no proof that speed is a law. You cant prove a negative.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475052)

Now understand me correctly, if speed is a law, you would see it take effect ALWAYS. And thats where it doesnt take effect, It is entirely possible to fly without the aircraft having speed. It is possible, piper cubs have done this, jet fighter like harriers can do this, helicopters can do this, sailplanes can do this.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475052)

If it WAS a law, it would be seen all over the spectrum, which we cant see all over the spectrum.

Everything you said below is wrong, i'm tired of this discussion now so I wont be quoting today.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

Here we go:

WHERE? I don't see any proof. Only your statements.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

You are right here. Speed is not a law. But the law for lift contains the variable speed. Squared.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

Now, you are getting wrong again. No aircraft whatsoever can fly without speed.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

2) The air moves along the plane at a certain speed

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

You cannot decide which one is true, as long as you are within the reference frame. You NEED an external observation to say which one is right.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

Tired of being wrong? That would be good, since you could learn something.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475036)

Don't try to outsmart me boy or i'll send you down to a pit you will never return from.
You're not at my level, i've been trying to tell you and krauter this for some time now. And that is downwards ofcourse. You wont take a hint.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1475117)

The worst possible type of failure in a debate is insisting that you are smarter than the other person. It shows you have nothing to say.


Unless you started the thread it is not your place to demand someone else leave.

First of all, as you say, pressure differential is the primary ingredient for any heavier-than-air craft to fly. What you are missing is that this pressure differential is generated by the forward motion of the aerodynamic device through the air. The wing of an airplane, the rotor blades of a helicopter and the blades of a jet turbine are all identical in this, and the lift is indeed totally dependent on the speed of said aerodynamic device through the air.

The helicopter itself may hover, but the lift is generated by the rapid movement of the rotor blades through the air. The Harrier may hover as well, but the lift is generated by the speed of the turbines in the jet engine. Increase that speed and the hovering craft rises, reduce it and it falls. So rather than being unimportant, as you insist, in the examples you give speed is actually everything. Without it the aircraft cannot fly.

The submarine, on the other hand, is better compared to the Zeppelin or blimp. As with lighter-than-air craft, the submarine's capacity to hover is dependant upon it's being overall lighter than the medium it displaces. This has nothing to do with forward motion, though in most cases perfect bouyancy is impossible to achieve or maintain, so the airship, or submarine, does require a minimum forward motion to maintain a precise altitude or depth. A submarine can rise by lightening its load, i.e. reducing ballast. An aircraft - traditional, helicopter or Harrier - can not. No matter how light you make it, it will not rise without speed.

This particular argument started when melin71 complained that in order to maintain depth he had to retain, not a little forward motion, but full speed, which is not something true of real submarines.

You made this statement:

You were wrong then, and you have continued to be wrong ever since. Accusing people of having lower IQs than you won't change this, nor will telling them they have already lost and should go away.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

Aircraft are not dependent on speed to fly, thats what I said. relative speed of air molecules cannot be used in this example.

Reason 1: Because krauter was talking about speed in the manner we percieve speed of airplanes as you can deduce of his speech from helicopters.
Reason 2: Air density change everything.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

And hence what I told Krauter. Speed is not a law, get this straight. If it was a law it would take effect all the time. It is not a law.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

Now you are twisting the subject, my argument all the way was that you do not have to RELY on speed for aircrafts to fly. Get this straight too.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

And hence, the variable speed of the air INDICATES that this isnt a law. IF air molecules attack the wing at a lower speed due to a storm, you would have to reduce speed of the aircraft to maintain healthy speed and avvoid overspeeding it. Thats why we have indicated and true airspeed.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

No you dont need external observations, the airplane have vor navigation systems and gps to measure ground speed. You use ground speed, subtract indicated airspeed and get true airspeed, then you'll know the speed of the wind.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

Get real, now don't post any more to me now. I have flown real airplanes, my nephew is a pilot, i've spent 15 years in simulators and i fly RC planes daily and i've read rod machado's flight book.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475123)

1: I never claimed I had higher IQ's (Lie)

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1474767)

You need to get a higher IQ to understand this, I understand that you do NOT understand it, but thats ok. There is hope for you!:DL

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475123)

2: I didnt tell him to go away for no reason

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475003)

Fact has been given, how many times do I need to give you the facts. I told you, to back off now. You are not a cat with 9 lives. You're already dead in this thread. Do yourself a favor and get lost.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475003)

3: I was not wrong about comparison between low vs high pressure

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475003)

4: Krauter said "TO INCREASE" speed. And I said flight is not dependant on increasing speed. Airodynamics is not dependant on speed to work (We were talking of ground speed of the airplane if you missed it. So you're wrong here.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475003)

5: Yes when the aircraft is moving it is using speed as a tool to gain lift from the air molecules that attack at a faster pace. I said that too if you had read my posts. But again, aircrafts is not dependent on speed, that is ground speed, not air speed you silly goose.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475003)

Sorry for the choice of words im using with you, but what CAN I possibly do when im dealing with idiots. I HAVE to say something when the idiots wont stop when my point is proven over and over.

There is an old quote, when arguing with idiots, make sure your arguments are short and concise. There is truth in that.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475136)

What does the air density change? It changes only the amount of lift produced, nothing else.

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475136)

I am not twisting anything, you just don't get it. You HAVE to rely on speed. There is just no other way. Show me any plane flying aerodynamically without speed. ANY. Emphasis lies on aerodynamically!

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475136)

VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475136)

For your statements of IAS and TAS, i will quote Wikipedia:Since you don't even bother reading this, let me say the following below.

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475123)

1: I never claimed I had higher IQ's (Lie)

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1475145)

You said his IQ was too low for him to understand, implying that yours was high enough to do so, thereby implying that yours was higher. Now at the bottom of this post you call him (or is it me) an idiot. (Not a lie)

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475144)

Well ofcourse you have to rely on speed if you consider airodynamics in average. But get this straight (AGAIN), flying is not dependant on speed. This is probably the tenth time I'm saying this.