APenNameAndThatA

Beautiful looking bench and workspace.

Stops things oxidising because on oxygen?

The correct bits, the last two paragraphs, come from Wikipedia.

Ground effect affects high wing aircraft less than low wing aircraft. It is wrong to imply that ground effect affects a Jabiru and a Moran Sierra the same. As the FAA book says, "When the wing is at a height equal to its span, the reduction in induced drag is only 1.4 percent. However, when the wing is at a height equal to one-fourth its span, the reduction in induced drag is 23.5 percent and, when the wing is at a height equal to one-tenth its span, the reduction in induced drag is 47.6 percent. Thus, a large reduction in induced drag takes place only when the wing is very close to the ground." edited... No need for personal attacks....mod

IIRC, getting an ABN takes about five minutes online.

OP stated “Mr FV is not computer savvy”

My car says my average speed is 50 kph. I drive a mixture of city and highway. The service interval is 15000 km, or every 300 hours. Cars are pretty tired at 200 000 km, or 4000 hours. Given that they operate at lower power than airplane engines, they seem kind of vaguely comparable.

If you are approaching at 55 kt, with minimum rate of descent, would you also be in the region of reverse command. That is, might your rate of descent increase if you moved the control column forward or backwards? I agree with your comment, of course. Slow, with. power and hight AOA is tricky.

I read it in the end, OME. It is best to forgive liars when they confess, otherwise there is no motivation to fess up. Riddle me this, OME, with the second scale you posted, if you hung a litre of water off the scale, would it show 10 N and 1000 g, or would it show 1 N and 100 g? Just to be clear, the Shinco scale has newtons on the left and grams on the right. (Newtons and kg seem to be in the Grade 7 curriculum in Australia, so there will be lots of spring scales marked with both.)

And OME, I have a confession. I said I read the link you posted. I didn’t. I lied. Can you let us know your real name in case we meet you one day? I’m Andrew Nielsen.

I’ll have one last go at straightening this out. See the spring scale you posted a pic of? 10 N = 1000 g = 1 kg. F = ma 10 = 1 x 10 with units 10 N = 1 kg x 10 m/s/s If we look sub in the spring scale, we see 1000g weight = 1 kg weight = 10 N weight = 1 kg mass times 10 m/s/s acceleration due to gravity on Earth. I am so sad to see this end. The sooner it does, the sooner we can move onto angle of attack meters. Once again, look at the scale *you* posted. 1 x 10 = 10 N, not 10 kg. ☹️ Apart from anything else, can you imagine if there were two meanings of kg that were an order of magnitude apart? There would be so many accidents. And, OME, if you are trolling, you really shouldn’t because some people listen to you. But if you are trolling, you won and gave me a laugh.

It’s really funny knowing every brick but being clueless whether you have a cathedral or a pile of rubble.

Fancy doing that with what looks like his daughter. Attempting a Double Darwin.

OME, are you saying that a litre of water has a weight of 1 kg and a mass of 100 grams?

So you are saying that an average light sport aircraft has a mass of about 40 kg?

So does that mean that if an RAAus aeroplane has a maximum takeoff weight of 600 kg it has a maximum takeoff mass of about 60 kg?

I did follow the link. I am clarifying that you still say that something with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg.

So you are saying that something with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg?

OME, you stated before that something with a weight of 3 kg has a mass of 0.3 kg. I am asking you if you still believe that.

We need to hear about the 3 kg vs 0.3 kg, please OME.

8 hours ago, APenNameAndThatA said: if I am forcing a box steadily across the floor, I am not exerting a force on it because it is not accelerating Obviously I was demonstrating that you are wrong to suggest that if something is not accelerating then no force is being applied. Anyway, please answer directly about the 3 vs 0.3 kg.

I bet you can't explain that statement It is easy to explain that statement. If I sit a 1 kg weight on my desk, it exerts about 10 N force on the desk but neither it nor the desk are accelerating.

So can we just straighten this out? Does something on Earth that has a weight of 3 kg have a mass of 0.3 kg. Before you said it did. I don’t know what you think now.

Aro is right, BTW. You can have a force without anything being accelerated. At first I thought that Aro was being picky when he picked you up on the following. "I think we agree that the magnitude of a force is the result of the acceleration of a mass, which we can calculate using the equation F = m.a" But on reflection, he is quite right. Force might be expressed in in terms of acceleration, but clearly force can exist without a mass being accelerated. If I sit a book on a desk, it is not accelerating but the book and the desk are each exerting a force on each other. If you want to go around teaching people, you need to make sure that you are right. What Aro said was actually *important*. I used to be confused and thinking to myself, "If the gravity is accelerating the book on the desk at 9.8 m/s/s, then how come it isn't moving." The answer is that that amount of force would accelerate the book if there was not contrary force. Force can be expressed in terms of the acceleration that it would produce if it was unopposed, but it is not defined in terms of acceleration but in the units newtons. ***a newton is not an expression of acceleration but of force***. And, to repeat myself, I think it is poor form that you would ask a question, have people go to the trouble on answering it and not attempting to come up with a consensus or even reflecting on the correct bits of their answers. One answer in particular about the change in the amount of lift of a wing because of diagonal flow across the wing was changed. It means that if someone is side slipping steadily that the wings will be producing unequal lift. There are questions about pilots changing AoA, it happening automatically. There are questions about the roll axis being different from the axis along whitch the AoA is measured and that being different from the angle of incidence. It brings up the question of how much pilots doing hesitation rolls are motivated to not lose height and how much they are motivated to no move laterally across they sky. Thanks for nothing. Furthermore, when you said that the answer was C or "same", all you had to do to explain what you meant was "Lift is defined in terms of being at right angles to chord of the wing". That means that a) Your answer was wrong, because it was too simple, and b) even if you accept the assumptions that would have made your answer right, your explanation was wrong. So, you have no business telling others that they know "f-g nothing".

By your definition, if I am forcing a box steadily across the floor, I am not exerting a force on it because it is not accelerating. I think that we can agree that that is wrong. Also "To keep the box moving you have to apply a force that is greater that Friction force." Actually, the same as the friction force. If it was greater than the friction force you would accelerate the box. I also think that it is poor form to accuse someone on knowing f-ing nothing when you repeatedly state that something with a mass of 0.3 kg has a weight of 3 kg.