Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 117

Thread: A photograph of Boeing Bobby discovered on the WWW

  1. #61
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,871

    Default

    The most astonishing aspect of this thread is that two or three educated people who have had what seems to be a good education are arguing about the facts of simple aerodynamics !
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  2. #62
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    The most astonishing aspect of this thread is that two or three educated people who have had what seems to be a good education are arguing about the facts of simple aerodynamics !
    Aerodynamics and how plane flies, for pilots and the general educated public, is full of misconceptions, myths, and things that most educated people don't know:
    Myths and misconceptions:
    - That the air separated at the trailing edge must reach the trailing edge together.
    - That the fulcrum effect is what makes a high-win more stable than a low-wing (even Mentour Pilot fell in that myth).
    - The dangers of turning downwind.
    Things not well known or not well understood
    - The wing-induced angle of attack in the tail.
    - The dangers of stall (hint, loss of lift is not your main problem).
    - The pitch down moment induced by pitching up.
    - Phugoid (and how to really control your plane with no elevator or trim).
    - How to recover from a spiral dive (hint, it is almost the opposite of how to recover from a garden-variety dive).

    And the list goes on....

    And THEN you have the not-so-well educated people, of which even the aeronautical engineers pilots communities have their its share, that say totally absurd thins. These are things told to me by ACTUAL pilots and aeronautical engineers:
    - The Tomahawk doesn't behave so well flying with a tailwind because of its T-tail.
    - We are taking off with a strong headwind so we need to turn with care because the bottom of the wing will catch all that wind when we face the underside to it.
    - We are fast and high for the landing but I will not add flaps because this plane tends to float too much with flaps down (and he didn't go around either and we ended up touching down in the last 1/3 of the runway and stopping at the very end of the paved surface.
    - A 747 glide like a piano. And a Cessna? Like a pianola.

    And, again, the list goes on...

    So, Brian, to be honest, I find this discussion with Evan and 3WE being of much higher level than what I had with some supposedly educated pilots and aeronautical engineers.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  3. #63
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brianw999 View Post
    The most astonishing aspect of this thread is that two or three educated people who have had what seems to be a good education are discussing the facts of complex aerodynamics !
    Which brings me to the reason I started this little diversion. We see a pilot (who may or may not be BoeingBobby) reading a book called How Airplanes Fly. To which I replied:

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    Truly. How many pilots could accurately describe why a wing generates lift? I wonder if you could?
    Now, notice that I said "describe", not "know". How easy is it to explain?

    As it turns out, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to explain the manner in which a wing generates lift without either brushing over broad concepts or getting into bewildering technical discussions involving things like viscosity and velocity vectors and friction and how a boundary layer forms and the complex reasons that cause an airflow to change pressure when being diverted by an airfoil shape. In order to fully understand it all, you need to go back and study fluid dynamics and Bernoulli and Euler and understand fairly complex equations. I freely admit that post #33 brought on intense dizzyness and I might have passed out for a while.

    And, in addition to it being so difficult to explain in simple language using concepts that laypeople can grasp, it's also a debatable science based on prediction and observation, which fosters argument within the science community itself and leads to somewhat divergent theories. The most popular explanation by far of How Airplanes Fly is completely wrong! Nobody absolutely knows How Airplanes Fly. Because no one** can explain it in a clear and concise manner.

    Which brings me full circle to the reality. Most pilots probably could not correctly and definitively explain How Airplanes Fly.

    (Although I guess I would consider it satisfactory if they just answer, "By maintaining healthy airspeed and attitudes without breaking off the rudder.")

    ** I'm still digging in this respect and hold out some hope for the future.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    Evan from all the disappointing things you are saying, this is the most disappointing one:

    [the manner in which a wing generates lift] it's also a debatable science based on prediction and observation
    I don't know exactly what you mean, but in what way and opposed to what other science that doesn't suffer this shortcoming?

    which fosters argument within the science community itself and leads to somewhat divergent theories.
    No it doesn't. Unless you think that the shape of the Earth, how may zeroes does the age of the Earth have, and evolution foster arguments within the science community itself and leads to somewhat divergent theories.

    The most popular explanation by far of How Airplanes Fly is completely wrong!
    Most popular among whom? Since wen truth is based on popularity and ignorance? Show me ONE scientific textbook used by aerodynamicist, fluidmechanicist or aerospace engineers that says that the travel time is the same above and below. There may be some, but I have read quite a few and I have never seen such a thing.

    Go to youtube and you will see that most Americans (and I would say most of the world population, but these videos were about Americans) can't answer simple things like how seasons happen, what creates the phases of the moon, how the fall of a heavy ball compares with a light ball, or, I don't know, what is the Capital city of the Untied States, name a country whose name stars with U or in what state was KFC founded. Maybe science is not sure whether United States stars with U or Kentucky Fried Chicken was founded in Kentucky?

    Because no one** can explain it in a clear and concise manner.
    It would be much easier face-to-face, with a piece of paper and some markers on the table, being able to talk and exchange words more fluidly, and being able to make a gesture of a hand at an angle of attack, than with plain text as the only resource (and I did take the time to make a drawing in Paint and attach it, showing in I hope a VERY intuitive way why, after a bit of reflection on it, the same-transit-time postulate should make no sense whatsoever even to a 5-years-old, as it didn't make sense to me when I first saw it in a BOOK FOR PILOTS well before having my 1st class in aero or fluid dynamics).

    By the way, NOBODY can TOTALLY explain ANYTHING in a clear in concise manner. Or better, nobody can explain totally anything. The chain of "why and how" about ANYTHING will eventful reach the limit of our knowledge, and that will never change no matter how many new and better theories we discover about anything. And even within the realm of our knowledge, the deeper tyou go the most complex things get in ANUY FIELD of knowledge. Yes, you can explain quantum mechanics in a layman-friendly way. But as soon as you want to go deeper into the details and in accuracy, it is not so simple anymore. There is a reason why it takes YEARS of HARD STUDY to become an aeronautical engineer or a Physicist. With that said: Wing pushes air down, so air pushes wing up, is 100% accurate and accounts for 100% of the lift. And I hope that is easy enough to grasp.

    Are you putting different standards for the generation of lift than for any other field of knowledge?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  5. #65
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel
    Wing pushes air down, so air pushes wing up, is 100% accurate and accounts for 100% of the lift.
    However... if we conduct a one minute Google search...

    Quote Originally Posted by Professor Holger Babinsky, Cambridge University Department of Engineering
    “What actually causes lift is introducing a shape into the airflow, which curves the streamlines and introduces pressure changes – lower pressure on the upper surface and higher pressure on the lower surface.”
    And then there is the question of WHAT CAUSES that pressure differential...

    Quote Originally Posted by A second-year MIT student
    The effects of viscosity lead to the formation of the starting vortex, which, in turn is responsible for producing the proper conditions for lift. The starting vortex rotates in a counter-clockwise direction. To satisfy the conservation of angular momentum, there must be an equivalent motion to oppose the vortex movement. This takes the form of circulation around the wing. The velocity vectors from this counter circulation add to the free flow velocity vectors, thus resulting in a higher velocity above the wing and a lower velocity below the wing.
    Or...

    Quote Originally Posted by Some other site
    If the wing has an angle of attack or if it has the classic airfoil shape, the air stream going over the wing will traverse well above the wing's upper surface, ie. making an arc. Here's where Bernoulli steps in: The air which is closer to the wing's upper surface is travelling slower than the stream of air making the arc over the wing. Because of the Bernoulli effect this causes a low-pressure pocket on the upper surface of the wing.
    And this one also claims that the incorrect Bernoulli / Meeting-at-the trailing-edge theory is:

    ...one of the most persistent and widespread aerodynamic physics myths in modern history. This myth is so prevalent and persistent that even Albert Einstein, one of the most brilliant physicists of all time, believed it and got it all wrong.
    Again, Gabriel, I'm not challenging your expertise. I'm pointing out how confusing it is out there for someone who is not aerodynamicist, fluidmechanicist or aerospace engineer to sort this all out, because a clear explanation with widespread consensus doesn't seem to exist outside of the engineering world, and more specifically is not well-known to those people who fly commercial airplanes for a living.

  6. #66
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,408

    Default

    I have to say, no you know what F it.

  7. #67
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    However... if we conduct a one minute Google search...
    Oh, a google search of "some other site" and "this one also". Proof that the scientific community doesn't agree and have competing theories on how lift is generated.

    Professor Holger Babinsky, Cambridge University Department of Engineering is right. These pressure differences is what makes the wing push the air down and what makes the air push the wing up. Pressure is the way that fluids make and receive force (also viscous friction). "The wing pushed the air down" and "The air pushed the wing up" HAS TO MEAN that the pressure above the wing is lower than below the wing. In which other way would this action-reaction pair take place?

    A second-year MIT student is also right. The viscous nature of the flow in the boundary layer is what causes the separation in the trialing edge, the separation of the flow in the trailing edge is what causes the circulation, and this circulation is what causes the air to go faster above than below, and this speed difference is what causes the pressure difference, and this pressure difference is what pushes the air down and the wing up, and that is lift.

    I explained all this in the post #33 I believe.

    "Some other site" doesn't understand Bernoulli or lift at all. The speed will be higher and the pressure will be smaller near the upper surface than farther up. What he says is more fucked up than the air meeting at the trailing edge which, although not true, at least would explain some lift if it was true (not as we know it). This "other site's" explanation, if you think of it, has the being pushed up by the wing, not down.

    And yes, "this one also" is correct that the Meeting-at-the trailing-edge theory is a persistent myth (outside academy). Why? I don't know. It is known to be wrong since the times that the fluidmechanicist got the Kutta condition right and discovered that they were wrong about generation of lift being impossible. The very first physical/mathematical models that were able to predict lift (in the very early 20th century, around the same time Einstein was publishing the Special Theory or Relativity and the Wright Brothers were achieving the 1st powered flight) have the air not-meeting-together at the exit. Do you know what other very persistent myths are out there? The turning-to-downwind dangers and the pendulum effect of high-wing planes. Einstein believed the equal-transit? I'd love to see that. It would be more interesting than surprising. He basically invented quantum mechanics with his electrodynamics theory that won him the Nobel prize (published before any relativity stuff) and yet later got all Quntum Mechanics wrong. He even got wrong the cosmological constant in his General Relativity equation, twice: First by postulating that such a constant needed to exist to keep the universe basically static (not contracting nor expanding) and later, when Hubble proved that the universe was expanding, by saying that the cosmological constant was the biggest blunder of his career and deleting it from the equation (and now we are using it back to account for dark energy and how the universe is not only expanding but doing so at an ever faster rate too).

    You know why? Because:
    a) Einstein was not an expert in Quantum Mechanics
    b) Einstein was not an expert in Mechanics of Fluids and
    c) Even experts are wrong some times (that's how he got the cosmological constant wrong in a field where he was the expert).

    And c) applies even for the greatest known genius that the Universe had come up with so far.

    Again, Gabriel, I'm not challenging your expertise. I'm pointing out how confusing it is out there for someone who is not aerodynamicist, fluidmechanicist or aerospace engineer to sort this all out, because a clear explanation with widespread consensus doesn't seem to exist outside of the engineering world, and more specifically is not well-known to those people who fly commercial airplanes for a living.
    That I can agree with, it happens with many things. People is in general ignorant and there are myths and misunderstandings around everything.

    But this is what I am complaining about:

    [How lift is generated] is also a debatable science based on prediction and observation, which fosters argument within the science community itself and leads to somewhat divergent theories. [...] Nobody absolutely knows How Airplanes Fly
    There may be [ok, there are] myths and misunderstandings in the general public and among some pilots and engineers. But the science behind the generation of lift is not debatable, it is as based on prediction and observation as any science (look up the scientific method), it doesn't foster any argument within the scientific community, there are no divergent scientific theories, and some people knows so well how airplane flies that they can model a FULL airplane and fly it in the simulator before the first rivet is built, only to find out that, when the plane is finally built and test flown, it matches the model surprisingly well. What else do you need to give credit that it works to the only one generation-of-lift theory that exists in the scientific community?

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  8. #68
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Evan:

    Please read stick and rudder.
    Please ride a bicycle.

    They are insightful.

    I too cringe that you continue to say “we don’t know how lift is generated”.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  9. #69
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Myths and misconceptions:
    - The dangers of stall (hint, loss of lift is not your main problem).
    Gonna argue this one...

    I think “loss of lift” is very much what did in Air France. Not_loss of control...

    It’s also a major issue with the forgiving Cessnas. Tommys, not so much.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    This is the best material FOR PILOTS that I have ever found.

    It was written by a person pretty much related with science both from the academic (he has a PhD) and professional (worked in rhe AT&T Bell Laboratories) point of views, in both cases involving Physics (and other stuff) but not aerodynamics.

    He is also a Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Ground Instructor. He also is (or was?) an FAA Aviation Safety Counselor.

    Undoubtedly, he could use his experience and knowledge in aviation coupled with his scientific approach to prepare this material in a way that is correct, avoiding all of the common misconceptions, errors and voids, and yet you don;t need to solve the Navier Stokes equations to understand it. Right concepts, explained mostly conceptually, with not a lot of Maths (and where Maths is uses it is mostly for practical tricks like how much you can climb if you bleed X knots of speed rather than to solve the Physics, although you have a bit of that too).

    From this work I, don't know if learned, but realized, for example that the loss of lift is not your biggest problem in a stall, and that to recover of a spiral dive you should not do it as if it was a normal dive.

    THIS is the kind of stuff that I would like every pilot to know and understand (which is not the same).

    The material is quite old, the site is a simple HTML page, it is not filled with eye-catching slides and videos, so it might be a bit boring for current standards. But it is great material. As I said, the best I found for pilots.

    And it is free.

    How is the work named? "See how it flies".

    Add the picture in the "cover"?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	camber5.png 
Views:	10 
Size:	25.5 KB 
ID:	22204

    https://www.av8n.com/how/

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  11. #71
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Gonna argue this one...

    I think “loss of lift” is very much what did in Air France. Not_loss of control...

    It’s also a major issue with the forgiving Cessnas. Tommys, not so much.
    Loss of vertical damping. AF had lift approx = weight most of the time.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  12. #72
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Loss of vertical damping. AF had lift approx = weight most of the time.
    It was unable to produce more lift to get upward acceleration- which could happen on an unstalled wing.

    The crisp descent initiated when lift the was lost when it stalled

    (And yes, the accelerations described are transient- some lift is restored from higher downward velocity dragging the wings upward- but, the stalled wing can’t get enough lift to arrest the descent NOR ADDITIONALLY gain back altitude.)
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  13. #73
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    This is the best material FOR PILOTS that I have ever found.

    https://www.av8n.com/how/
    Ok, this looks helpful. I have to find the time to concentrate on it.

    But a quick scan revealed this:

    the fact remains that suction above the wing does more than 100% of the job of lifting the airplane.
    Ok, aside from the fact that we cannot exceed "100% of the job of lifting the airplane", this also seems to contradict your Newtonian explanation:

    Wing pushes air down, so air pushes wing up, is 100% accurate and accounts for 100% of the lift.
    Is there any wonder I'm confused?

    Maybe I won't be after reading through this. But for the third time, this is only about arriving at a clear, concise explanation that can be understood by people without a deep understanding of physics.

  14. #74
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    Ok, aside from the fact that we cannot exceed "100% of the job of lifting the airplane", this also seems to contradict your Newtonian explanation:



    Is there any wonder I'm confused?
    We are constantly amazed at your understanding or lack thereof...and your lack of listening.

    As Gabe ALREADY stated- top and bottom effects are inseparable- and it’s mostly semantics.

    Suction on top actually depends 100% on pressure from below. Technically, there is no such thing as
    suction anyway.

    Is “the world” confused- sure. But, please don’t ask questions and express confusion about what Gabieeee already explained thoroughly and possibly repeatedly.

    If you are saying: “Here’s another fun one”, fine...
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But a quick scan revealed this:
    the fact remains that suction above the wing does more than 100% of the job of lifting the airplane.
    I don't remember what this part said, how how he got to that conclusion (because the guy doens't just say something like that without a previous explanation).
    But I am always willing to bet that it will be in line to what I explained in #51: You can have reduction of pressure both above and below the wing at the same time, just that it will be even lower above. So the lower side of the wing pushes down and the upper side pushes up harder. Hence, If you integrate the pressure over the upper area, you will get more than the lift=weight because you need to overcome the pull not only the weight but also the pull on the lower side.

    Ok, aside from the fact that we cannot exceed "100% of the job of lifting the airplane", this also seems to contradict your Newtonian explanation:
    Wing pushes air down, so air pushes wing up, is 100% accurate and accounts for 100% of the lift.
    Of course it doesn't violate my Newtonian explanation. I am standing on rollers and y shove a bowling ball back at 10 MPH and, simultaneously, I shove another identical ball forward at 5 MPH. If I make a fore on the balls the balls make a force on me in the opposite direction, that force distributed over the contact area between the balls and my hand are pressures. Because I shoved back stronger than forward, the ball I shoved back will have done on me a greater forward force than the back force made by the one I shoved forward. The end result is that I end up moving forward on the rollers. But the ball I shoved forward made a force back on me, so the ball I shoved back had to make a forward force on me that is more than 100% of the force that is necessary to explain my final state of forward motion.

    Is there any wonder I'm confused?
    To be honest, no. Not at this point. But I agree that plain text with no voice, no slides, no gesture, no drawings and no real time interaction is hard to follow.

    I am confident that if we were face to face with paper and markers on the table, in less than 2 hours you would not be confused anymore. How far away from El Paso are you?

    Maybe I won't be after reading through this. But for the third time, this is only about arriving at a clear, concise explanation that can be understood by people without a deep understanding of physics.
    I looks to me that, for some reason (and I can be part of the reason), you are making it more complicated than it really is.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  16. #76
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I don't remember what this part said, how how he got to that conclusion (because the guy doens't just say something like that without a previous explanation).
    This was in the context of steady, level flight.

    For the airfoil in figure 3.6, under cruise conditions, there is almost no high pressure on the bottom of the wing; indeed there is mostly suction there.5 The only reason the wing can support the weight of the airplane is that there is more suction on the top of the wing. (There is a tiny amount of positive pressure on the rear portion of the bottom surface, but the fact remains that suction above the wing does more than 100% of the job of lifting the airplane.)
    Of course it doesn't violate my Newtonian explanation.
    I'm not saying it does. I'm saying it seems to. I'm not questioning your grasp of aerodynamics, I'm questioning your (and apparently every other aeroengineer's) grasp of explaining things in a consise, succinct manner (a summary that can be widely understood, especially by pilots and the people who train them) without introducing confusion. This is, itself, an art (if not a science).

    Here's where I want to start:

    The wing produces circulation in proportion to its angle of attack (and its airspeed). This circulation means the air above the wing is moving faster. This in turn produces low pressure in accordance with Bernoulli’s principle. The low pressure pulls up on the wing and pulls down on the air in accordance with all of Newton’s laws. This causes the wing to lift upward.

    Not a bad start.

    Now, there are things here that I call "conveniences". Think of them like plot conveniences. You are asked to accept them without understanding them. Annoyingly curious five-year-olds don't do that, and they shouldn't have to (up to a point where things become too technical for them, which is beyond, I think, where we need to go with this).

    To begin with, 'The wing produces circulation' is, at this stage, a 'convenience'. It needs further explanation...

    So, when I find time, I'm back to reading your link...

  17. #77
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Holy left winglet!

  18. #78
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    It's inappropriate to put personal stuff like this up- but his face is obscured, BUT his aircraft is not.- hopefully the mods won't mind.

    Is this suitable for uploading to the photo database?

    PS- Do not over think this, the intent is light humour.

    Click to see full size.
    Attachment 21966
    Oh, don't you try to be funny, on his 51st birthday... please.

    LH also has a intercontinental history, the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955.
    A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
    The operator on the DUS - NYC route, on the DUS - BKK route, and on the shiny new DUS - LAS nonstop route? EW, one of the dearest LH daughters .

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. A whole decade here on this platform.

  19. #79
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Holy left winglet!
    The best part is that LHBs post just above reminds me that, on post #1 of this thread, I said, “Don’t over think this”.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  20. #80
    Senior Member LH-B744's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    1 hr away from EDDL
    Posts
    1,269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    The best part is that LHBs post just above reminds me that, on post #1 of this thread, I said, “Don’t over think this”.
    Now I know why Gabe is my friend. He's able to write longer forum entries than me. Let's combine his #23 here and his #33 and his #62, together that must be more than I've ever written here on this platform since more than 10 years.

    The problem really is time. Let's say that Gabe's entries at least are always 10 or 41 (!) times longer than the average jp forum entry which you or me write. Further let's assume that if I really try to control myself, as in the recent A380 topic, you need 15 seconds to read one of my entries.

    That would mean, for an average Gabe entry, we need 41x15 = 615 seconds, or a little bit more than 10 minutes, only to read it, without the answer.

    That's the truth, isn't it. I'm too old today to lie!

    PS: Another problem is, that Gabe's entries (most of the time) contain good stuff. Not for nothing I call him a flight instructor. So, most of the time, it's even worth the 10 minutes.
    LH also has a intercontinental history, the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955.
    A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
    The operator on the DUS - NYC route, on the DUS - BKK route, and on the shiny new DUS - LAS nonstop route? EW, one of the dearest LH daughters .

    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. A whole decade here on this platform.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •