On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing" category.

And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back it
up, not for others to disprove it. If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 12:27:07 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing" category.

And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back it
up, not for others to disprove it.

So why do you never, ever back up your own bizarre assertions? Could
it be that there is no supporting evidence?

If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

Of course you will. But then, you have to keep up your track record of
invariably being wrong.

On 14/06/2018 13:27, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing" category.

And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back it
up, not for others to disprove it. If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

As you seem not to believe anything you do not have personal experience
of, here is a quote from a Boeing 738 pilot "I can only speak from
personal experience - the steepest approach I've flown in the 738 was a
4.5° final descent, but that's fully configured at flaps 40 from the top
down. Anything steeper or the slightest tailwind and you won't make it."
As in, the aeroplane stalls and falls out of the sky.

Most commercial airliners are not even permitted to go as steep as 4.2
degrees. The reason is that to keep flying at steep glide angles, the
airspeed has to exceed the maximum safe landing speed. For an amusing
way to verify this information, load a Boeing 737 or other airliner
model into a free flight simulator program on your computer or phone and
play with various glide angles and the associated speeds until you get
bored or stop crashing.

If you want better proof, then try writing to Boeing or Airbus, who will
no doubt give you the answer you seem unable to believe.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:46:43 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 14/06/2018 13:27, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of
landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy
never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.

If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing" category.


And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back it

up, not for others to disprove it. If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

As you seem not to believe anything you do not have personal experience
of, here is a quote from a Boeing 738 pilot "I can only speak from
personal experience - the steepest approach I've flown in the 738 was a
4.5° final descent, but that's fully configured at flaps 40 from the top
down. Anything steeper or the slightest tailwind and you won't make it."

A boeing 738? Whats that? And where did that quote come from?

As in, the aeroplane stalls and falls out of the sky.

And what approach speed was he doing? It does rather matter. He's not going
to stall if he's doing 200 knots. It it was a T tail plane I could believe it
since they had a habit of having tail stalls at steep attack angles when the
tailplane got into turbulent air from the wings.

Most commercial airliners are not even permitted to go as steep as 4.2

Not permitted is not the same as can't.

degrees. The reason is that to keep flying at steep glide angles, the
airspeed has to exceed the maximum safe landing speed. For an amusing

So? You descend fast then level out to a saner angle and slow down before
landing. And if airliners couldn't do steep descents then any depressurisation
at crusiing altitude would be certain death for the passengers.

I don't know what the initial approach angle of this C130 is but its a damn
sight more than 4 degrees. More like 40.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:07:38 +0000 (UTC)
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:46:43 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 14/06/2018 13:27, wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:22:52 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
Feel free to point out where exactly that means airliners are incapable of

landing at more than 3 degs and will stall at 6. I notice the other guy
never

posted a link to back up this assertion. Funny that.

You've had your free education for this month. Go and do your own research.


If you were a teacher I think your school would be in the "failing"
category.


And as you well know, if someone makes an assertion its up to them to back
it

up, not for others to disprove it. If he doesn't then I'll simply assume he
can't.

As you seem not to believe anything you do not have personal experience
of, here is a quote from a Boeing 738 pilot "I can only speak from
personal experience - the steepest approach I've flown in the 738 was a
4.5° final descent, but that's fully configured at flaps 40 from the top
down. Anything steeper or the slightest tailwind and you won't make it."

A boeing 738? Whats that? And where did that quote come from?

As in, the aeroplane stalls and falls out of the sky.

And what approach speed was he doing? It does rather matter. He's not going
to stall if he's doing 200 knots. It it was a T tail plane I could believe it
since they had a habit of having tail stalls at steep attack angles when the
tailplane got into turbulent air from the wings.

Most commercial airliners are not even permitted to go as steep as 4.2

Not permitted is not the same as can't.

degrees. The reason is that to keep flying at steep glide angles, the
airspeed has to exceed the maximum safe landing speed. For an amusing

So? You descend fast then level out to a saner angle and slow down before
landing. And if airliners couldn't do steep descents then any depressurisation
at crusiing altitude would be certain death for the passengers.

I don't know what the initial approach angle of this C130 is but its a damn
sight more than 4 degrees. More like 40.

Might help if I gave the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtpKGeDyf9M

On 14/06/2018 14:07, wrote:

I don't know what the initial approach angle of this C130 is but its a damn
sight more than 4 degrees. More like 40.

Give your ignorance of aerodynamics and you unwillingness to learn, I am
very glad you will not be flying the next plane I am on board.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 14/06/2018 14:08, wrote:

I don't know what the initial approach angle of this C130 is but its a damn
sight more than 4 degrees. More like 40.

Might help if I gave the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtpKGeDyf9M


So, a military pilot flying an empty aircraft, with a tiny fuel load to
reduce the landing weight even further, designed specially for short,
high, field operations while trying to impress potential buyers with its
safety margins in normal usage at not far above sea level, while not
worrying too much about margins of safety, should be, in your opinion,
the norm for day to day operations?

His maximum approach angle in that video does not exceed 15 degrees at
any time, and, as is normal at City airport, his final approach angle
for the last few seconds is about 6 degrees. At that, his landing speed
is higher than normal. City airport requires special certification of
and some modifications to aircraft using it.

Doing what he did is asking for trouble if done under less than ideal
conditions at maximum permitted landing weight, even in that aeroplane.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:13:38 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 14/06/2018 14:07, wrote:

I don't know what the initial approach angle of this C130 is but its a damn
sight more than 4 degrees. More like 40.

Give your ignorance of aerodynamics and you unwillingness to learn, I am
very glad you will not be flying the next plane I am on board.

That it?

On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:34:43 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
So, a military pilot flying an empty aircraft, with a tiny fuel load to
reduce the landing weight even further, designed specially for short,
high, field operations while trying to impress potential buyers with its
safety margins in normal usage at not far above sea level, while not
worrying too much about margins of safety, should be, in your opinion,
the norm for day to day operations?

I wondered how long it would be before a straw man came along.

His maximum approach angle in that video does not exceed 15 degrees at

And you know this how? Did you put your WHSmith protractor up against the
screen?

any time, and, as is normal at City airport, his final approach angle
for the last few seconds is about 6 degrees. At that, his landing speed
is higher than normal. City airport requires special certification of
and some modifications to aircraft using it.

And?

Doing what he did is asking for trouble if done under less than ideal
conditions at maximum permitted landing weight, even in that aeroplane.

And? The fact is he still did it. But yes, its military, so here's an A380
at farnborough. Not only a steep descent angle but turning at the same time,
yet oddly he didn't fall out of the sky:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iunRxiFON9U