SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - maintain depth

Page 7 of 9

« First

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- Silent Hunter 5 (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=244)

- - maintain depth (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=172783)

KarlKoch

08-23-10 07:07 AM

Here we go:

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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.

Now, you are getting wrong again. No aircraft whatsoever can fly without speed. I assume you are talking about a plane being stationary above the ground. This is possible and true, but not without speed. You need the wind being as fast as the plane would be without wind. And, since you mess up with reference frames, this error is understandable. You need to understand that the following statements are equal:
1) The plane moves through the air at a certain speed
2) The air moves along the plane at a certain speed
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.

Quote:

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.

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

DelphiUniverse

08-23-10 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

Here we go:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

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

And hence, the variable speed of the air INDICATES that this isnt a law. IF air molecules attack the wing at a higher 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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475060)

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

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.

Sailor Steve

08-23-10 08:18 AM

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

GET LOST!

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:

Quote:

This isn't a bug. The deeper you get, the higher pressure you reach. The u-boat is like an airplane in the air. Your dive scope keeps the u-boat level. If speed drops you will sink, naturally.

It's the same principle with airplanes. The higher you get in the air the less dense the air will be and the greater speed will be needed to maintain straight and level flight.

It's not a bug. It's a shame they "fixed" something that should not be fixed.

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.

DelphiUniverse

08-23-10 08:28 AM

Quote:

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.

1: I never claimed I had higher IQ's (Lie)
2: I didnt tell him to go away for no reason
3: I was not wrong about comparison between low vs high pressure
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.
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.

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.

KarlKoch

08-23-10 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

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

Quote:

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.

I agreed on that one. Before. Do you actually read, what i am posting?

Quote:

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.

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!

Quote:

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.

What? I already said you, you are mixing your reference frames. But i will tell you in a second.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475113)

VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does every airplane carry its own VOR-ground station of GPS-satellite? No, they are located on the ground, OUTSIDE the airplane, and therefore are NOT in the same reference frame. They are external observations.

For your statements of IAS and TAS, i will quote Wikipedia:

Quote:

The Airspeed Indicator (ASI), driven by the Pitot tube, shows what is called Indicated airspeed (IAS). The ASI is calibrated so that IAS corresponds to TAS @ sea level, 15 degrees Celsius and 1013.2 HPa (29.92 InHg) of air pressure - called International Standard Atmosphere or ISA conditions. When the air around the aircraft differs from said ISA conditions, IAS will no longer correspond to TAS, thus it will no longer reflect aircraft performance. In fact, the ASI will indicate less and less as the air density decreases with altitude and temperature increases.
For this reason, TAS cannot be measured directly. In flight, it can be calculated either by using an E6B flight calculator or its equivalent function on many GPSs. The data required are Outside air temperature (OAT), Pressure altitude and CAS (IAS corrected for installation and instrument errors). Modern aircraft instrumentation use an Air Data Computer to perform this calculation in real time and display the TAS reading directly on the EFIS.
Since temperature variations are of a smaller influence, the ASI error can be roughly estimated as indicating about 2% less than TAS per 1,000ft of altitude above sea level. Thus for a given IAS, the True Airspeed is about 2% higher than IAS per 1,000ft of altitude above sea level. An aircraft flying at 15,000ft with an IAS of 100kt, is actually flying at 130kt TAS, or 130kt through the air.

Since you don't even bother reading this, let me say the following below.

Quote:

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.

Okay, so your nephew should have some books on aerodynamics. You might ask him nicely and he will hand them to you, so you can read them. In fact, your nephew should have WAY more knowledge of what is going on than you have. Instead of spending 15 years in simulators, you should have read a book once in a while. I can give you some starting literature on the subject:
-Fundamentals of Aerodynamics by John Anderson
-Flight theory and Aerodynamics by Charles Dole
- heck, go to the next university and ask for the teaching book there

Don't you see you are making a fool of yourself here? You try to argue with someone far younger than you seem to be (i am 28, for what its worth), yet being far above your horizon on this subject. Get over it. You are not the smartest person in the world. I am not, too, but, contrary to you, i am fully aware of that.

I hope you are a troll and trolled me perfectly. Otherwise, i just lost my faith in humanity.

KarlKoch

08-23-10 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475123)

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

Proof:

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475123)

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

Proof:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475003)

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

Right, but in the reasons for that.

Quote:

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.

What? WTF has ground speed to do with a flying airplane? Tell it to me, i am really curious. And equation for that?

Quote:

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.

Please, please please read the literature i suggested to you in my last post.

Quote:

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.

There is no idiot arguing with you. Sincerly. Everyone in this thread is saying that you are wrong. Everyone but you. Its the same as driving on a speedway in the wrong direction and saying "Where the hell to all these wrong-way-drivers come from?".

DelphiUniverse

08-23-10 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475136)

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

Air density change the effect on the airplane based on the speed of wind. It's very easy to understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475136)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475136)

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

Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

Quote:

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.

I have already read more credible data than wikipedia.

Now for the "hundreth time" get off this thread.

Sailor Steve

08-23-10 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475123)

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

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)

Quote:

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

I didn't say it was for no reason. You did try to resolve your argument on more than one occasion by telling your opponent to go away. That is bad debating at the least, and offensive at worst.

Quote:

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

But you were wrong to insist that speed is not important.

Quote:

Actually an increase in speed is required for the aircraft to climb. Aerodynamicists call it "specific excess energy". This means that a specific amount of power is required to maintain altitude at a given speed. If and increase in altitude is attempted the plane will lose speed, as climbing also requires energy. To offset this power must be increased. The groundspeed is irrelevant, since it's the motion though the air that generates lift.

Quote:

you silly goose.

Rude name-calling is not only bad debate, but is highly offensive.

Quote:

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.

You have proven nothing. Your original point - that the problem described is not a bug - was wrong.

Your second point - comparing a submarine underwater to the flight of an aircraft - was also wrong. The two have nothing in common at all.

Oh and while we're on the subject, you at one point attempted to show that someone else didn't know what he was talking about by pointing out that

Quote:

(It's a german u-boat, not a submarine btw)

Unterseeboot is German for "under water boat". Submarine is English for "under water". The two words mean exactly the same thing.

Quote:

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

Again you attempt to dismiss your opponents by impugning their intelligence. This does not reflect well on your own, especially considering that one of them is a pilot, which suggests some knowledge of aerodynamics, and at least one is a current or former submariner, which implies at least a little understanding of what he's talking about.

You claim superior knowledge, yet you cite no references, and ignore references cited by the people you call "idiots". What are your credentials, exactly?

DelphiUniverse

08-23-10 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1475145)

Implying? :DL

Sailor Steve

08-23-10 09:05 AM

Quote:

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.

I showed that this is not true. You haven't replied to my explanation of the movement required to generate lift.

Quote:

I have already read more credible data than wikipedia.

Then please quote thos sources, and show us where we can read them. In this particular case the Wiki article is a very good description of the subject. If you can actually show otherwise, please do so.

Quote:

Now for the "hundreth time" get off this thread.

I thought you didn't tell people to go away.

DelphiUniverse

08-23-10 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1475148)

I showed that this is not true. You haven't replied to my explanation of the movement required to generate lift.

Ok, now its hammer time. W_E W_E_R_E T_A_L_K_I_N_G O_F G_R_O_U_N_D S_P_E_E_D (A_S P_E_R_C_I_E_V_E_D I_N G_E_N_E_R_A_L)
Capacity needed to grasp sentence. Next question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1475148)

Look at quote above. Dont talk to me about generating lift, this is ancient knowledge from my side, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Look at the quote above.

Btw, you never answered my previous post about "implying"

KarlKoch

08-23-10 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475144)

Air density change the effect on the airplane based on the speed of wind. It's very easy to understand.

Which effect? Show me the equations that your statemant relys on. Please.

Quote:

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.

There is a difference in aerodynamics in average and in special? What is the average aerodynamics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475144)

Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

What effect has the method of signal propagation to do with external or internal? Does it make a difference if the information is propagted via electromagnetic signals, sound waves or anything else? Don't ever use a technical term when you don't understand its meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475144)

I have already read more credible data than wikipedia.

True, but i have nothing electronic at hand now. And for your level of understanding Wikipedia is far enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475144)

Now for the "hundreth time" get off this thread.

May i ask you for permission to print and publish your posts on this particular post? I need them for my colleagues to laugh.

edit:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475151)

Ok, now its hammer time. W_E W_E_R_E T_A_L_K_I_N_G O_F G_R_O_U_N_D S_P_E_E_D (A_S P_E_R_C_I_E_V_E_D I_N G_E_N_E_R_A_L)
Capacity needed to grasp sentence. Next question.

Look at quote above. Dont talk to me about generating lift, this is ancient knowledge from my side, and has nothing to do with the discussion. Look at the quote above.

Btw, you never answered my previous post about "implying"

What in gods name has the ground speed to do with a flying aircraft? When you could name one thing completely irrelevant for aerodynamics, you found it!

And your posts are no proof. Your posts are statements. Statements can be true or false. Name a source for your statements, so they can be checked.

And please. Just write down the equation for lift.

Sailor Steve

08-23-10 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475147)

Implying? :DL

I speak strictly according to fact. Though you did not directly claim superiority, statine that he lacks the intelligence to understand certainly does equate to claiming that you do, which is the same as saying it without actually having to say it.

And you have now stooped to calling people "idiots". There is no implication there, but direct insult. This is bad debating, proves nothing, and is not part of any real argument.

Lord Justice

08-23-10 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve (Post 1475117)

Point 1 = nonsense, its ones opinion, it shows what one feels when dealing with a certain member, regardless of whom is right or wrong. Point 2 = Agreed. Point 3 = Regard to last para, is your opinion so right? worthy to tell him he is wrong and continued to be wrong!! In your eyes yes, in anothers does it hold so much to be desired?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DelphiUniverse (Post 1475123)

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

Sorry for the choice of words im using with you,

Point 4 = agreed regard to IQ, pepole twist words all the time to support there meaning or objection, thus indirectly attempting to make original said comments worse, to beg favour of the situation. Point 5 = Dont be sorry Sir, for your own choice of words, as long as they adhere to the forum rules, one has relative freedom. P.S If i may, this thread should have been titled Maintain Discipline, my opinion only. A most worthy read though. Good day.

DelphiUniverse

08-23-10 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch (Post 1475152)

May i ask you for permission to print and publish your posts on this particular post? I need them for my colleagues to laugh.

You can start with printing this for your collegues:

Originally Posted by KarlKoch:
VOR navigation actually IS an external observation. Just like GPS is. Or does

DelphiUniverse:
Vor stations is not external observation, it is a broadcasting station. GPS is not an external observator either.

:haha:

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.

Page 7 of 9

« First

Show 20 post(s) from this thread on one page