Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1474802)

* Give robbo a helicopter * :salute:

Originally Posted by Krauter (Post 1474822)

ROFLMAO Oh god.. seriously Speed is not a law in aerodynamics?

Where is your evidence to back this up? I'd post links but I know that you won't read them as apparently they're above your IQ level also.

Please provide fact in written sources before you spew more of your BS

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 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.