Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dtango on June 15, 2010, 05:44:33 PM
-
With the advent of flight simulations bringing virtual flight to the masses new and exciting forms of aerodynamics have emerged! In fact Aces High are full of these new aeronautics experts now.
Aerowhinenamics:
experts in this field provide brilliant colorful analysis often around a favorite airplane and why it’s porked. But don’t be fooled by their specialization because they are usually quite adept at providing colorful commentary and analysis of other aircraft too and still show why their favorite plane is porked in the process. They are so incredibly gifted that at times they have proven time and again that you can actually compare apples and oranges!
Masters of obscure research they are able to tell you that airspeed indicator readings of flight tests reports are actually incorrect because the needle would get stuck since the gears from ACME used for the gauge had a machine flaw in them. Some experts in this field have made great strides in actually proving that their favorite aircraft was produced and operational 4 months before the manufacturing plant said they were delivered.They can prove that all speeds and turning ability are all too low compared to the “real life” versions of their aircraft, their data coming from one report out of 23 others that show different (but the other 23 didn’t factor in the airspeed needle getting stuck you see). Yes, experts in this field all know that given the opportunity their favorite airplane would have undoubtedly singlehandedly “won the war” at a 20:1 kill ratio.
Aerowrongnamics:
experts in this field of study are some of the greatest geniuses the world has ever seen. In just one or two sentences they are able to demonstrate how daft Sir Isaac Newton was and the principles behind Newtonian physics. Often the venue for their innovative breakthroughs in physics come when an airplane in a sim doesn’t perform the way it supposed to in THEIR world of physics.
No need to step on the shoulders of giants, these experts leap over Prandtl and von Karman like they were hobbits and are able to estimate how an airplane should perform all in their heads without ever resorting to things like numerical methods of partial differential equations that mere mortals have to use. Masters of the physics generalizations like “the Spitfire XVI holds energy too well”, they usually prove these statements by flinging out a few well timed aerodynamics statements that on inspection brilliantly smash through Newton and Bernoulli. Meanwhile, the rest of us aerodweebs are left in the mental dust trying to sort out how on earth they reached those conclusions never realizing that our basis to trust Newton was totally flawed to begin with. Often times these experts can be bulldogs coming back time and again to convert others to their “advanced” thinking providing various proofs where they are indeed correct and Newton wrong. Indeed true pioneers of aerodynamics and remakers of the rules of physics!
Aerodumbnamics:
this is a cousin to the field of aerowrongnamics. Experts here however don’t have to resort to plowing through Newton at all. No need to explain things via Newton because these experts have an intuition that tells them what’s aerodynamically right or wrong. Because of their intuition there’s no need to study aerodynamics either.Sometimes the field is called Aerohunchnamics - experts here are masters of relying on their hunches to identify when something is amiss. Often they are able to collect data based on these hunches to support the hunches. But this is done in a truly clever way by looking for data that supports the hunch and throwing the other useless data away. Quite clever these experts are!
They are so confident in their hunches that often times they’ll put the data out there to prove something is amiss and then delegate to some other poor fool to spend the time and energy to slave through intricate calculations and mind-numbing science to try and prove or disprove their hunch for them. Many aerodumbnamicists don’t believe in UFO’s and site this as a common reason for why a sim’s flight model is wrong (e.g. “the Brewster Buffalo flies like a UFO!”).
Aeromythnamics:
(Sometimes also known as Aerofairytalenamics) The experts in this field of the science of flight scoff at the other experts because they know that the TRUE measure of flight performance has nothing to do with physics at all. For the high priests in this field they know that the true measure of understanding the physics of flight comes from the stories of the pilots themselves. The Holy Bible of flight performance are the countless reports from historical references and pilot reports that these experts have burned permanently into their brains (this somehow acts as a force field which protects them to any misguided physics logic thrown at them by physics barbarians).
They know that things like lift coefficients, weight, l/d ratios, propeller efficiency, are all just worthless techno-babble. If Robbie Robertson said he outturned a Bf109 in his P-47, or Geinz Huderian said he out-climbed a Spitfire in his FW190 then that’s the way a sim should always work Newton’s law’s be damned. Pilot perception IS reality, to Hades with Newton. I mean who would listen to ideas from a guy who got hit in the head by an apple anyways vs. a triple ace? How silly is that?
:D Cheers,
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
:aok
-
And then there are...
Egomaniacs:
They are very common on the BBS and create threads like this one.
-
With the advent of flight simulations bringing virtual flight to the masses new and exciting forms of aerodynamics have emerged! In fact Aces High are full of these new aeronautics experts now.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Skuzzy needs to sticky this post :D
ack-ack
-
Obviously Newton's mental status should be called into question after he received the blow to his head from the falling apple. Casting doubt on the validity of his "theories".
Anyways who are you going to believe; the guy that told you so on the computer, or the guy that doesn't even know how to turn one on. :confused:
-
hehehehehe
-
And then there are...
Egomaniacs:
They are very common on the BBS and create threads like this one.
Lol. When did being right make you an egomaniac :D?? Where's your intellectual sense of humor ;)?? I don't take my self seriously. You shouldn't either :P.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Obviously Newton's mental status should be called into question after he received the blow to his head from the falling apple. Casting doubt on the validity of his "theories".
Anyways who are you going to believe; the guy that told you so on the computer, or the guy that doesn't even know how to turn one on. :confused:
:rofl
Youre're absolutely right. I forgot to mention Intardnet-namics :D.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
Skuzzy needs to sticky this post :D
ack-ack
Probably went over Skuzzy's head. [*ducks and runs for cover!*].
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
With the advent of flight simulations bringing virtual flight to the masses new and exciting forms of aerodynamics have emerged! In fact Aces High are full of these new aeronautics experts now.
Aerowhinenamics:
experts in this field provide brilliant colorful analysis often around a favorite airplane and why it’s porked. But don’t be fooled by their specialization because they are usually quite adept at providing colorful commentary and analysis of other aircraft too and still show why their favorite plane is porked in the process. They are so incredibly gifted that at times they have proven time and again that you can actually compare apples and oranges!
Masters of obscure research they are able to tell you that airspeed indicator readings of flight tests reports are actually incorrect because the needle would get stuck since the gears from ACME used for the gauge had a machine flaw in them. Some experts in this field have made great strides in actually proving that their favorite aircraft was produced and operational 4 months before the manufacturing plant said they were delivered.They can prove that all speeds and turning ability are all too low compared to the “real life” versions of their aircraft, their data coming from one report out of 23 others that show different (but the other 23 didn’t factor in the airspeed needle getting stuck you see). Yes, experts in this field all know that given the opportunity their favorite airplane would have undoubtedly singlehandedly “won the war” at a 20:1 kill ratio.
Aerowrongnamics:
experts in this field of study are some of the greatest geniuses the world has ever seen. In just one or two sentences they are able to demonstrate how daft Sir Isaac Newton was and the principles behind Newtonian physics. Often the venue for their innovative breakthroughs in physics come when an airplane in a sim doesn’t perform the way it supposed to in THEIR world of physics.
No need to step on the shoulders of giants, these experts leap over Prandtl and von Karman like they were hobbits and are able to estimate how an airplane should perform all in their heads without ever resorting to things like numerical methods of partial differential equations that mere mortals have to use. Masters of the physics generalizations like “the Spitfire XVI holds energy too well”, they usually prove these statements by flinging out a few well timed aerodynamics statements that on inspection brilliantly smash through Newton and Bernoulli. Meanwhile, the rest of us aerodweebs are left in the mental dust trying to sort out how on earth they reached those conclusions never realizing that our basis to trust Newton was totally flawed to begin with. Often times these experts can be bulldogs coming back time and again to convert others to their “advanced” thinking providing various proofs where they are indeed correct and Newton wrong. Indeed true pioneers of aerodynamics and remakers of the rules of physics!
Aerodumbnamics:
this is a cousin to the field of aerowrongnamics. Experts here however don’t have to resort to plowing through Newton at all. No need to explain things via Newton because these experts have an intuition that tells them what’s aerodynamically right or wrong. Because of their intuition there’s no need to study aerodynamics either.Sometimes the field is called Aerohunchnamics - experts here are masters of relying on their hunches to identify when something is amiss. Often they are able to collect data based on these hunches to support the hunches. But this is done in a truly clever way by looking for data that supports the hunch and throwing the other useless data away. Quite clever these experts are!
They are so confident in their hunches that often times they’ll put the data out there to prove something is amiss and then delegate to some other poor fool to spend the time and energy to slave through intricate calculations and mind-numbing science to try and prove or disprove their hunch for them. Many aerodumbnamicists don’t believe in UFO’s and site this as a common reason for why a sim’s flight model is wrong (e.g. “the Brewster Buffalo flies like a UFO!”).
Aeromythnamics:
(Sometimes also known as Aerofairytalenamics) The experts in this field of the science of flight scoff at the other experts because they know that the TRUE measure of flight performance has nothing to do with physics at all. For the high priests in this field they know that the true measure of understanding the physics of flight comes from the stories of the pilots themselves. The Holy Bible of flight performance are the countless reports from historical references and pilot reports that these experts have burned permanently into their brains (this somehow acts as a force field which protects them to any misguided physics logic thrown at them by physics barbarians).
They know that things like lift coefficients, weight, l/d ratios, propeller efficiency, are all just worthless techno-babble. If Robbie Robertson said he outturned a Bf109 in his P-47, or Geinz Huderian said he out-climbed a Spitfire in his FW190 then that’s the way a sim should always work Newton’s law’s be damned. Pilot perception IS reality, to Hades with Newton. I mean who would listen to ideas from a guy who got hit in the head by an apple anyways vs. a triple ace? How silly is that?
:D Cheers,
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
Should be a sticky in the "Aircraft and Vehicles" forum...Classic!!! :aok
-
Lol. When did being right make you an egomaniac :D?? Where's your intellectual sense of humor ;)?? I don't take my self seriously. You shouldn't either :P.
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
lol I was joking.. I forgot to add the :neener: I guess... oh well... next time.
-
lol I was joking.. I forgot to add the :neener: I guess... oh well... next time.
LOL, I knew you were joking and I was trying to return your humorous insult back ;). Obviously my response was too authentic!
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
my favourite is still the guy that claimed , because 12.7 a sniper rifle could kill a person @ 2000 yards , his plane should kill a plane at that distance as well :)
-
hmmmm, the sniper i sortof imagine it would've had to have been .75 cal ATLEAST to get that far....but in a ( mustang for example ) you would have to acount for the spead of the bullets and the convergence rate, so a plane killing another plane @ 200yds is EXTREMELY unlikely... :old:
~slayer~
-
Hey the guy who referenced the .50 cal sniper was right. I mean all you need to do is tie 6 to 8 snipers to the wings, with spotters and portable ballistic computers to help compensate for all the variables and wallah you got it. Only problem is getting his fighter and the one who he is chasing to come to a complete halt so the shots can be made. Besides the Canadian sniper with, I believe the longest shot made for a kill, took more than one shot.
-
With the advent of flight simulations bringing virtual flight to the masses new and exciting forms of aerodynamics have emerged! In fact Aces High are full of these new aeronautics experts now.
Aerowhinenamics:
experts in this field provide brilliant colorful analysis often around a favorite airplane and why it’s porked.
Aerowrongnamics:
experts in this field of study are some of the greatest geniuses the world has ever seen.
Aerodumbnamics:
this is a cousin to the field of aerowrongnamics. Experts here however don’t have to resort to plowing through Newton at all.
Aeromythnamics:
(Sometimes also known as Aerofairytalenamics) The experts in this field of the science of flight scoff at the other experts because they know that the TRUE measure of flight performance has nothing to do with physics at all.
:D Cheers,
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
that was CLASSIC, saving it to my Aces High Facts, Humor and Funny Memories Archive Folder
thanks for that, dtango :aok :cheers:
-
Skuzzy needs to sticky this post :D
ack-ack
I was thinking the exact same thing.
But the problem is I keep asking my self a question, and conclude one of us doesn't have one, so hence I'm confused if I should sticky it, and if I did sticky it what would be it's downward acceleration do to the speed of internet travel causing its collision with other relative thinkers.
HiTech
-
I was thinking the exact same thing.
But the problem is I keep asking my self a question, and conclude one of us isn't, so hence I'm confused if I should sticky it, and if I did sticky it what would be it's downward acceleration do to the speed of internet travel causing its collision with other relative thinkers.
HiTech
I'm not sure, but I can guarantee that the 190 would still all be porked... :D
-
That's priceless Tango! :)
Hopefully a slight, good natured ridicule as this will encourage more rational course of thought in the future. :)
-
I was thinking the exact same thing.
But the problem is I keep asking my self a question, and conclude one of us doesn't have one, so hence I'm confused if I should sticky it, and if I did sticky it what would be it's downward acceleration do to the speed of internet travel causing its collision with other relative thinkers.
HiTech
:D - LOL - my head hurts!
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
I'm not sure, but I can guarantee that the 190 would still all be porked... :D
What?? You don't believe in UFO's either??? Blasphemy.
BTW- you're to blame for planting the seed for my OP. "Aeroflynamics". :aok
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
What?? You don't believe in UFO's either??? Blasphemy.
BTW- you're to blame for planting the seed for my OP. "Aeroflynamics". :aok
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
I think I used the term "Aeroflymanics"... :)
-
But the problem is I keep asking my self a question, and conclude one of us doesn't have one, so hence I'm confused if I should sticky it, and if I did sticky it what would be it's downward acceleration do to the speed of internet travel causing its collision with other relative thinkers.
You forgot that for a downward motion, a sticky would induce a gyroscopic force that would cause the BBS to rotate about the OP's moment of intent.
LOL just kidding, nice post dtango :aok
-
I'm not sure, but I can guarantee that the 190 would still all be porked... :D
Right, and that's why he missed a subgenus of the Aerowhineamics genus: the Aeroluftwhineamicist.
This guy's going to come up with reasons the 109 and 190 are porked. Mind, they're easy to confuse with Aerowrongnamicists (or even the much easier-to-identify "physicus oblivious" popularly known as the dynamoramus) since they're likely to contend that wingloading is immaterial to sustained turn rates and the a minor increment in prop pitch can cause a vomit inducing turnrate. It's best to steer clear of all members of the order "oblivious voluminous" unless you're willing to devote a forty-page thread to their uplift. Some might claim success in such endeavours but darkness proves very persistent, i.e., some might be wrong.
You'll note I've just proposed a taxonomy for the clueless. We could extend that but taxonomy is, frankly, taxing.
-
Stoney - baah, details smetails.
PJ_Godzilla :rofl Bravo! Bravo!
Tango
412th FS Braunco Mustangs
-
You forgot that for a downward motion, a sticky would induce a gyroscopic force that would cause the BBS to rotate about the OP's moment of intent.
That is unless at the moment of intent, the OP was already 90 degrees forward to the center of the universe thereby implying an "Aeromythnamics" effect on all comments relative to the "sticky". In that case, then, February would have 28.
-
hmmmm, the sniper i sortof imagine it would've had to have been .75 cal ATLEAST to get that far....but in a ( mustang for example ) you would have to acount for the spead of the bullets and the convergence rate, so a plane killing another plane @ 200yds is EXTREMELY unlikely... :old:
~slayer~
I really hope you were kidding.
:aok Nice post dtango.
the 190A8 is still too fat and slow :bolt:
-
I'm not sure, but I can guarantee that the 190 would still all be porked... :D
the 190A8 is still too fat and slow :bolt:
Well that didn't take too long.
-
Thank you very much Tango.
Having read that I can find a locker to squeeze myself into.
;)
-
Congrats Tango!
Precious!
<S>
-
:lol good stuff :aok
-
I really hope you were kidding.
did i say 200yds i meant 2000yds... :rofl
anyways...
~slayer~