Downwind turn Myth
11-22-2010, 05:41 PM
#76
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jackson,
MS
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
I wasn't assuming any kind of turn. If you are flying straight and level near stall speed and experience an extreme abrupt tail wind before the plane could react to the change wouldn't that possibly cause it to stall and possibly spin?
11-22-2010, 05:47 PM
#77
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Napa,
CA
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: H.Dale
I wasn't assuming any kind of turn. If you are flying straight and level near stall speed and experience an extreme abrupt tail wind before the plane could react to the change wouldn't that possibly cause it to stall and possibly spin?
I wasn't assuming any kind of turn. If you are flying straight and level near stall speed and experience an extreme abrupt tail wind before the plane could react to the change wouldn't that possibly cause it to stall and possibly spin?
11-22-2010, 05:49 PM
#78
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: H.Dale
I wasn't assuming any kind of turn. If you are flying straight and level near stall speed and experience an extreme abrupt tail wind before the plane could react to the change wouldn't that possibly cause it to stall and possibly spin?
I wasn't assuming any kind of turn. If you are flying straight and level near stall speed and experience an extreme abrupt tail wind before the plane could react to the change wouldn't that possibly cause it to stall and possibly spin?
11-22-2010, 05:51 PM
#79
RE: Downwind turn Myth
All,
I believe a little perspective is in order.I agree that an airplane turning,or even doing "normal" aerobatics is "drifting" in a sea of air,like someone swimming in a river.The cases I have pointed out are the extreme.
What hasn't adequately been addressed,is that when we fly rc,everything is based on "point in space" perspective,based on where you are standing,that is ground based perspective.That's the reason we need inputs to make nice round loops in the wind from our static,ground based perspective.So when you make that turn downwind in a 30 kt wind aloft,because of the physics,the mass of the aircraft must accelerate 60 kts groundspeed,or "point in space" to maintain the same airspeed.The resistance is based on that first law of physics.If you don't pull g,and accelerate,eventually the airplane will,in the "sea of air",but your turn will not look like you want it to.That's the rub,and the cause of many crashed models.
So,I will say,Highhorse is technically correct in most,but not all cases,but misleading in the application of our models,and the fixed,ground based,point in space regime we operate in.I'm out of this one.
Erik
I believe a little perspective is in order.I agree that an airplane turning,or even doing "normal" aerobatics is "drifting" in a sea of air,like someone swimming in a river.The cases I have pointed out are the extreme.
What hasn't adequately been addressed,is that when we fly rc,everything is based on "point in space" perspective,based on where you are standing,that is ground based perspective.That's the reason we need inputs to make nice round loops in the wind from our static,ground based perspective.So when you make that turn downwind in a 30 kt wind aloft,because of the physics,the mass of the aircraft must accelerate 60 kts groundspeed,or "point in space" to maintain the same airspeed.The resistance is based on that first law of physics.If you don't pull g,and accelerate,eventually the airplane will,in the "sea of air",but your turn will not look like you want it to.That's the rub,and the cause of many crashed models.
So,I will say,Highhorse is technically correct in most,but not all cases,but misleading in the application of our models,and the fixed,ground based,point in space regime we operate in.I'm out of this one.
Erik
11-22-2010, 06:14 PM
#80
My Feedback: (50)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Napa,
CA
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: Erik R
"...everything is based on ''point in space'' perspective,based on where you are standing,that is ground based perspective."
Erik
"...everything is based on ''point in space'' perspective,based on where you are standing,that is ground based perspective."
Erik
11-22-2010, 06:15 PM
#81
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: , MA
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
Highhorse.......I'll let David comment on your 'real world' observations (though you immediately contradict and state there were observable speed differences), knowing at low accelerations, effects may not be so observable. Doesn't mean they don't exist.....further, your experiences are anecdotal, the senses easily fooled while flying, and if were true, do indeed, defy the laws of physics. (Again, you'd need to be in an inertialess aircraft, one that could instantly match [infinite acceleration]changing conditions in order NOT to have an effect. Impossible).
F=MA, i.e., there MUST be effects, whether observed, or not. And, in fact, those effects are demonstrable/repeatable and significant (as I wrote earlier), as observed from a steady platform (earth).....and while also anecdotal, most importantly, they do have physics on their side. Your observations are either flawed or taking place at such gentle accelerations (as opposed to speeds) as to be (humanly) undetectable.
This is a topic that surfaces every few years here. Certainly anaircraft properly instrumented and recorded has dispelled the myth of 'The Myth' by now! Anyone?
Ray
F=MA, i.e., there MUST be effects, whether observed, or not. And, in fact, those effects are demonstrable/repeatable and significant (as I wrote earlier), as observed from a steady platform (earth).....and while also anecdotal, most importantly, they do have physics on their side. Your observations are either flawed or taking place at such gentle accelerations (as opposed to speeds) as to be (humanly) undetectable.
This is a topic that surfaces every few years here. Certainly anaircraft properly instrumented and recorded has dispelled the myth of 'The Myth' by now! Anyone?
Ray
11-22-2010, 06:20 PM
#82
RE: Downwind turn Myth
Gents,
I did make a study picture, 180 degrees turn without wind, yellow.
180 degrees with wind and compensation for windspeed (red) by pilot input.
Third situation (green) make your turn as you make it without wind and after some time you will be in the middle of nowhere.
You see that to make the right turn the longitudinal axis has to "up wind" with the nose to keep the right track.
With wind the turn takes much longer especially the second part.
The first part you have to turn much faster than without wind.
A picture just to talk about.
BTW I do fly propeller planes but that's no different I think, only our speed is lower so the influences of wind a relative more.
Cees
I did make a study picture, 180 degrees turn without wind, yellow.
180 degrees with wind and compensation for windspeed (red) by pilot input.
Third situation (green) make your turn as you make it without wind and after some time you will be in the middle of nowhere.
You see that to make the right turn the longitudinal axis has to "up wind" with the nose to keep the right track.
With wind the turn takes much longer especially the second part.
The first part you have to turn much faster than without wind.
A picture just to talk about.
BTW I do fly propeller planes but that's no different I think, only our speed is lower so the influences of wind a relative more.
Cees
11-22-2010, 06:28 PM
#83
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: H.Dale
I wasn't assuming any kind of turn. If you are flying straight and level near stall speed and experience an extreme abrupt tail wind before the plane could react to the change wouldn't that possibly cause it to stall and possibly spin?
I wasn't assuming any kind of turn. If you are flying straight and level near stall speed and experience an extreme abrupt tail wind before the plane could react to the change wouldn't that possibly cause it to stall and possibly spin?
Again, windshear or even gusts are a different topic, and not the subject of this thread.
11-22-2010, 06:34 PM
#84
Senior Member
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: H.Dale
I'm not sure why the analogy of a bicycle being on the ground makes a difference. If an airplane requires 30 mph of wind flowing over the wings to keep it in the air and an abrupt tail wind causes that to drop below 30 then how does it stay in the air? The wind shear in the L-1011 crash was just that, an abrupt change in wind speed from what I remember.
I'm not sure why the analogy of a bicycle being on the ground makes a difference. If an airplane requires 30 mph of wind flowing over the wings to keep it in the air and an abrupt tail wind causes that to drop below 30 then how does it stay in the air? The wind shear in the L-1011 crash was just that, an abrupt change in wind speed from what I remember.
When the bicycle/airplane speed -on the ground- equals the tailwind speed, there is 1) no perceptible wind on your face, and 2) no wind passing over the wings.
Downwind takeoff -ground speeds- have to be -increased- by the amount of the tailwind, to get the -airspeed- to the take off number.
As many airplanes have no groundspeed indicators, the tailwind effect is factored into the runway length needed to takeoff.
Windshear problems are rare in model airplanes, and would be mostly encountered while sloping.
We sometimes see a plane gliding parallel to the slope suddenly, without any control input, roll an extreme amount, either towards the slope or away from the slope, depending on the magnitude and direction of a momentary change in the usual wind flow up the slope.
11-22-2010, 06:35 PM
#85
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: Taurus Flyer
Gents,
I did make a study picture, 180 degrees turn without wind, yellow.
180 degrees with wind and compensation for windspeed (red) by pilot input.
Third situation (green) make your turn as you make it without wind and after some time you will be in the middle of nowhere.
You see that to make the right turn the longitudinal axis has to ''up wind'' with the nose to keep the right track.
With wind the turn takes much longer especially the second part.
The first part you have to turn much faster than without wind.A picture just to talk about.
BTW I do fly propeller planes but that's no different I think, only our speed is lower so the influences of wind a relative more.
Cees
Gents,
I did make a study picture, 180 degrees turn without wind, yellow.
180 degrees with wind and compensation for windspeed (red) by pilot input.
Third situation (green) make your turn as you make it without wind and after some time you will be in the middle of nowhere.
You see that to make the right turn the longitudinal axis has to ''up wind'' with the nose to keep the right track.
With wind the turn takes much longer especially the second part.
The first part you have to turn much faster than without wind.A picture just to talk about.
BTW I do fly propeller planes but that's no different I think, only our speed is lower so the influences of wind a relative more.
Cees
Added to my last post:
This can be a problem when flying with too low airspeed and you want the turn as on the picture, tipstall.
You also can look to the picture as a sideview making a looping.
Cees
11-22-2010, 07:03 PM
#87
My Feedback: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Langley,
BC, CANADA
Posts: 815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
A helicopter is a different animal altogether. If you pedal turn a helicopter in a 20kt wind then you have 20kts of airflow over the rotor disc no matter what heading you are pointing. The rotors don't know where the front of the helicopter is. Hence by spot turning you haven't really changed airspeed at all (albeit the ASI value will change as it only shows forward airspeed). There are some issues caused by the fuselage and horizontal stabiliser but this is a different argument. This is obviously different from a conventional fixed wing aircraft where the direction of the airflow is fundamental to flight.
For the main rotor disk yes - however you will lose all tail rotor authority. Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness (LTE) is a critical, low-speed aerodynamic flight characteristic which can result in an uncommanded rapid yaw rate which does not subside of its own accord and, if not corrected, can result in the loss of aircraft control.
LTE is not related to a maintenance malfunction and may occur in varying degrees in all single main rotor helicopters at airspeeds less than 30 knots.
11-22-2010, 07:09 PM
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: coral springs,
FL
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: siclick33
highhorse
That may all well be true if you let the model drift with the wind, however, if you fly a loop directly in front of you (i.e. fixed in space relative to the ground and not the air) then the model will have more airspeed one way than the other at different parts of the loop. Otherwise, why do we bother taking off into wind?
highhorse
That may all well be true if you let the model drift with the wind, however, if you fly a loop directly in front of you (i.e. fixed in space relative to the ground and not the air) then the model will have more airspeed one way than the other at different parts of the loop. Otherwise, why do we bother taking off into wind?
11-22-2010, 07:11 PM
#89
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: coral springs,
FL
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: siclick33
Ok, i'll ask another question then.
When you fly a perfect loop in front of you (as if I do) why do the control inputs differ depending on where the wind is coming from?
Ok, i'll ask another question then.
When you fly a perfect loop in front of you (as if I do) why do the control inputs differ depending on where the wind is coming from?
11-22-2010, 07:12 PM
#90
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: 67Jag
Highhorse.......I'll let David comment on your 'real world' observations (though you immediately contradict and state there were observable speed differences), knowing at low accelerations, effects may not be so observable. Doesn't mean they don't exist.....further, your experiences are anecdotal, the senses easily fooled while flying, and if were true, do indeed, defy the laws of physics. (Again, you'd need to be in an inertialess aircraft, one that could instantly match [infinite acceleration] changing conditions in order NOT to have an effect. Impossible).
F=MA, i.e., there MUST be effects, whether observed, or not. And, in fact, those effects are demonstrable/repeatable and significant (as I wrote earlier), as observed from a steady platform (earth).....and while also anecdotal, most importantly, they do have physics on their side. Your observations are either flawed or taking place at such gentle accelerations (as opposed to speeds) as to be (humanly) undetectable.
This is a topic that surfaces every few years here. Certainly an aircraft properly instrumented and recorded has dispelled the myth of 'The Myth' by now! Anyone?
Ray
Highhorse.......I'll let David comment on your 'real world' observations (though you immediately contradict and state there were observable speed differences), knowing at low accelerations, effects may not be so observable. Doesn't mean they don't exist.....further, your experiences are anecdotal, the senses easily fooled while flying, and if were true, do indeed, defy the laws of physics. (Again, you'd need to be in an inertialess aircraft, one that could instantly match [infinite acceleration] changing conditions in order NOT to have an effect. Impossible).
F=MA, i.e., there MUST be effects, whether observed, or not. And, in fact, those effects are demonstrable/repeatable and significant (as I wrote earlier), as observed from a steady platform (earth).....and while also anecdotal, most importantly, they do have physics on their side. Your observations are either flawed or taking place at such gentle accelerations (as opposed to speeds) as to be (humanly) undetectable.
This is a topic that surfaces every few years here. Certainly an aircraft properly instrumented and recorded has dispelled the myth of 'The Myth' by now! Anyone?
Ray
My fellow aviators and I have been in many, many situations where the performance margins were razor-thin, and ANY effects of the "downwind turn" myth, had they been real, would also have been FATAL.
This quote is the most telling and laughable
Certainly an aircraft properly instrumented and recorded has dispelled the myth of 'The Myth' by now! Anyone?
You will not find an aviator with any depth of experience who buys into this "junk science" any more than you will find a credible marine biologist who believes in the Loch Ness monster.
But then again, what do I know? I mean, I'm simply some guy who's made this his study and career for 35 years. I can't possibly compare my varied and extensive real-world experience and training to your, ummmm.....keyboard.
How foolish of me to even try.
11-22-2010, 07:14 PM
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: coral springs,
FL
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: warbird_1
a
And by what form of education can you instruct us as to a final theory. you don't know what your talking about. if 'im going 100 mph with a tailwind speed of 20 mph and i turn into that tailwind which now becomes a 20 mph headwind and all the time maintaining the said 100mph . your saying my airspeed doesn't increase? I'm talkng about airspeed over the wing , not ground speed. last time i knew 100 and 25 made 125. it makes no difference weather you enter a loop from the tailwind position . once you enter a headwind your airspeed ''at least over the wing'' increases . it's a common sense issue. the guy probably got to the top of the loop and stalled it, then fought it to the ground . or maybe something inside the plane messed up because he was inverted like his battery came loose ....
let me see you take off downwind with a scale turbine jet with a 20mph tailwind. wait ,let me get my video camera out first. i don't want to miss this one
ORIGINAL: highhorse
There is absolutely no AERODYNAMIC reason to take off into the wind. We do that for shortened ground rolls.
Once an a/c is in the air and not in contact with the ground, steady-state wind direction is completely, totally, 100% irrelevant aerodynamically.
There is absolutely no AERODYNAMIC reason to take off into the wind. We do that for shortened ground rolls.
Once an a/c is in the air and not in contact with the ground, steady-state wind direction is completely, totally, 100% irrelevant aerodynamically.
And by what form of education can you instruct us as to a final theory. you don't know what your talking about. if 'im going 100 mph with a tailwind speed of 20 mph and i turn into that tailwind which now becomes a 20 mph headwind and all the time maintaining the said 100mph . your saying my airspeed doesn't increase? I'm talkng about airspeed over the wing , not ground speed. last time i knew 100 and 25 made 125. it makes no difference weather you enter a loop from the tailwind position . once you enter a headwind your airspeed ''at least over the wing'' increases . it's a common sense issue. the guy probably got to the top of the loop and stalled it, then fought it to the ground . or maybe something inside the plane messed up because he was inverted like his battery came loose ....
let me see you take off downwind with a scale turbine jet with a 20mph tailwind. wait ,let me get my video camera out first. i don't want to miss this one
11-22-2010, 07:16 PM
#92
Senior Member
RE: Downwind turn Myth
A typical takeoff distance chart...
The takeoff -speed- is determined by the weight and density altitude.
The takeoff -distance- is determined by the weight and density altitude and the wind speed and direction.
The takeoff -speed- is determined by the weight and density altitude.
The takeoff -distance- is determined by the weight and density altitude and the wind speed and direction.
11-22-2010, 07:25 PM
#93
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: rcand
Wow, I must have misread all those airspeed indicators in the full scale planes I flew because I never saw it go up because I turned into the wind
ORIGINAL: warbird_1
a
And by what form of education can you instruct us as to a final theory. you don't know what your talking about. if 'im going 100 mph with a tailwind speed of 20 mph and i turn into that tailwind which now becomes a 20 mph headwind and all the time maintaining the said 100mph . your saying my airspeed doesn't increase? I'm talkng about airspeed over the wing , not ground speed. last time i knew 100 and 25 made 125. it makes no difference weather you enter a loop from the tailwind position . once you enter a headwind your airspeed ''at least over the wing'' increases . it's a common sense issue. the guy probably got to the top of the loop and stalled it, then fought it to the ground . or maybe something inside the plane messed up because he was inverted like his battery came loose ....
let me see you take off downwind with a scale turbine jet with a 20mph tailwind. wait ,let me get my video camera out first. i don't want to miss this one
ORIGINAL: highhorse
There is absolutely no AERODYNAMIC reason to take off into the wind. We do that for shortened ground rolls.
Once an a/c is in the air and not in contact with the ground, steady-state wind direction is completely, totally, 100% irrelevant aerodynamically.
There is absolutely no AERODYNAMIC reason to take off into the wind. We do that for shortened ground rolls.
Once an a/c is in the air and not in contact with the ground, steady-state wind direction is completely, totally, 100% irrelevant aerodynamically.
And by what form of education can you instruct us as to a final theory. you don't know what your talking about. if 'im going 100 mph with a tailwind speed of 20 mph and i turn into that tailwind which now becomes a 20 mph headwind and all the time maintaining the said 100mph . your saying my airspeed doesn't increase? I'm talkng about airspeed over the wing , not ground speed. last time i knew 100 and 25 made 125. it makes no difference weather you enter a loop from the tailwind position . once you enter a headwind your airspeed ''at least over the wing'' increases . it's a common sense issue. the guy probably got to the top of the loop and stalled it, then fought it to the ground . or maybe something inside the plane messed up because he was inverted like his battery came loose ....
let me see you take off downwind with a scale turbine jet with a 20mph tailwind. wait ,let me get my video camera out first. i don't want to miss this one
You are quite obviously a stupid, crappy pilot who simply was not looking hard enough for the clues, which simply MUST have been there (because others will it to be so). You must have been too obtuse to percieve the data.
You are lucky to have survived.
Now go sit quietly in the corner please, while these keyboard jockeys give you flying lessons ....
11-22-2010, 07:26 PM
#94
RE: Downwind turn Myth
Gents,
I did show the picture and I do show the plane.
67Jag, Ray, did write:
Certainly an aircraft properly instrumented and recorded has dispelled the myth of 'The Myth' by now! Anyone?
How many people know and (data) log the airspeed of their valuable plane?
(This is not all!)
Cees.
I did show the picture and I do show the plane.
67Jag, Ray, did write:
Certainly an aircraft properly instrumented and recorded has dispelled the myth of 'The Myth' by now! Anyone?
How many people know and (data) log the airspeed of their valuable plane?
(This is not all!)
Cees.
11-22-2010, 07:46 PM
#96
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: invertmast
Wait.. you guys mean their is a speed lower that 199.99mph, and the throttle stick works in every other position other than Full-power to!?
Wait.. you guys mean their is a speed lower that 199.99mph, and the throttle stick works in every other position other than Full-power to!?
invertmast
Yes.
An old diagram!
Cees
11-22-2010, 07:55 PM
#97
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: ChelmsfordEssex, UNITED KINGDOM
Posts: 521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: Erik R
Highhorse,
In simple terms,think of a 3D airplaneflying into a 20kt headwind,and doing a a 3D type push/pull over of 180 degrees.At completion it is now in a 20 kt tailwind.It used thrust/lift to overcome the physics principal described earlier,yet realized a 40 kt loss of airspeed,with a corresponding loss in coefficient of lift.The above is an extreme example,and with the smooth,high energy type flying we do with jets,this effect is usually negligable.
Erik
Highhorse,
In simple terms,think of a 3D airplaneflying into a 20kt headwind,and doing a a 3D type push/pull over of 180 degrees.At completion it is now in a 20 kt tailwind.It used thrust/lift to overcome the physics principal described earlier,yet realized a 40 kt loss of airspeed,with a corresponding loss in coefficient of lift.The above is an extreme example,and with the smooth,high energy type flying we do with jets,this effect is usually negligable.
Erik
Case1: Model does 40kts into a 20kts headwind and changes course 180 degrees. Speed over ground changes from (+40-20) kts to (-40 -20 kts) ie +20 to -60 kts. Delta V = 80 kts.
Case 2 Model does 40kts into zero wind. Speed over ground changes from (+40-0) kts to (-40 -0 kts) ie +40 to -40 kts. Delta V = 80 kts. THE SAME change in velocity. So the forces produced by the wings to create that change in velocity ARE THE SAME.
The coefficient of lift is a number used to describe the lifting properties of an airfoil and doesn't change with speed. It changes with angle of attack.
Unless the controls are manipulated to change the airspeed with direction (by using throttle or using "G" to wipe off speed) then the model will stay at constant AIRSPEED .
11-22-2010, 08:04 PM
#99
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: , MA
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: Downwind turn Myth
Confusing several things here. To get back to the original position of HH: 'A plane turning downwind will not be affected (as closely observed by the pilot), as it is in a sea of air that is moving evenly.....so the plane exactly follows that 'sea' during the maneuver. I.e. a turn within the air will be an exact circle...no slowing or increase of speed, no increase/decrease of lift.' Close enough?
Think about it, folks. Your asking that aircraft's mass to undergo no acceleration (change in speed), for if it does, then there must be forces changed (or effects realized) to compensate, since F=Ma. If at HH's 'steady state' (which is NOT same as steady wind), then true....I guess....if SS means no acceleration. But a turn/maneuver is by definition an acceleration and therefore some force is required for equilibrium (more power/more lift/whatever). And, since the mass cannot be accelerated at an infinite rate, there is a time lag...and therefore observable effects (e.g., some temporary loss of lift turning DW...until the aircraft catches back up to the wind). The more inertia or the greater the acceleration, then the greater this effect.
Common sense if nothing else...supported by physics. Physics is hardly junk science, HH, simply because you don't observe it.
Ray
Think about it, folks. Your asking that aircraft's mass to undergo no acceleration (change in speed), for if it does, then there must be forces changed (or effects realized) to compensate, since F=Ma. If at HH's 'steady state' (which is NOT same as steady wind), then true....I guess....if SS means no acceleration. But a turn/maneuver is by definition an acceleration and therefore some force is required for equilibrium (more power/more lift/whatever). And, since the mass cannot be accelerated at an infinite rate, there is a time lag...and therefore observable effects (e.g., some temporary loss of lift turning DW...until the aircraft catches back up to the wind). The more inertia or the greater the acceleration, then the greater this effect.
Common sense if nothing else...supported by physics. Physics is hardly junk science, HH, simply because you don't observe it.
Ray
11-22-2010, 08:11 PM
#100
RE: Downwind turn Myth
ORIGINAL: FILE IFR
Don,
I'm on your side regarding the (basic) 'Myth'.
You're doing great.
Don,
I'm on your side regarding the (basic) 'Myth'.
You're doing great.
I swear that Stephen Hawking, Scott Crossfield, Bob Hoover, and Hoot Gibson could log on here and say the same thing and a few ding-dongs would shout THEM down too, presumably because they don't have enough RC experience or something. So I can't take the nay-sayers insults too serioously.
My next thread titles: "The Moon Landings were real", and "Professional Wrestling is Fake".