Remember me
▼ Content

Off topic... Boeing 737 Max 8


Off topic... Boeing 737 Max 822-03-2019 20:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1177)
The Church of Global Warming seems to be on spring break, so what the heck...
From what I can gather, it seems Boeing has retrofitted the 737 with new engines, altering the pitch/angle of attack. New sensors are supposed to communicate with and adjust the trim to correct the pitch. Then I hear something this morning about the sensors being an optional purchase? WTF? Someone who knows please explain this thing. And who's on the hook? Boeing? Lack of training? Options not purchased by airlines?
22-03-2019 21:22
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The Church of Global Warming seems to be on spring break, so what the heck...
From what I can gather, it seems Boeing has retrofitted the 737 with new engines, altering the pitch/angle of attack. New sensors are supposed to communicate with and adjust the trim to correct the pitch. Then I hear something this morning about the sensors being an optional purchase? WTF? Someone who knows please explain this thing. And who's on the hook? Boeing? Lack of training? Options not purchased by airlines?



When the plane is taking off, it's AoA (Angle of Attack) rises. It rises more because of the increased size of the shroud creates lift. A plane's nose has to be pitched down to prevent stalling. The MCAS system does not disengage like autopilots do. With autopilot, simply pull back on the yoke and it's off. That's not how the MCAS is disengaged and pilots weren't made aware of this. Notice the difference? Pulling back on the yoke leads to a stall, why that can't allow the MCAS to disengage.
This is a problem that has been known since last year. There are 2 switches on the gauge panel that can be used to switch off the MCAS system. And pushing the yoke forward instead of pulling it back might work as well. Taking a plane into a dive avoids a stall. Too significant of a dive and it can't get air under it's wings again. Pilots simply weren't trained how to disengage the MCAS.
If they knew how to do that then they could manually fly the plane until they are at cruising altitude. I think both planes crashed before reaching cruising altitude which is about 35,000 feet.
And this problem arose because the FAA started allowing Boeing to certify it's own planes. And with a change in controls, recertification by pilots would've been required which would not be a selling point.
Almost have to wonder though if the airflow around the larger shrouds also sends false data to the sensors. AoA and air speed are what the MCAS needs to know. When the larger shrouds are creating lift then they would be slowing air movement or deflecting it. This part might not be easy to analyse. It would change wind speed beneath the wings.
Myself, I am of the opinion that air below the wings do help to create lift while the vacuum above the wings is given 100% of the credit. And if those engines deflect too much air then a vacuum could occur beneath the wing countering the effect of the air above the wing that has been accelerated to create vacuum/lift.
I think ITN could explain this much better than myself or about anyone else for that matter.

p.s., another way to look at it, the plane might be too small for such large engines. The airflow under the wings might be too little as a result. After all, in order for a vacuum above the wing to create lift, there needs to be pressure under the wing to push it up. This is what I meant when I said, when a plane loses the air under it's wings.
Edited on 22-03-2019 21:35
22-03-2019 23:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The Church of Global Warming seems to be on spring break, so what the heck...
From what I can gather, it seems Boeing has retrofitted the 737 with new engines, altering the pitch/angle of attack. New sensors are supposed to communicate with and adjust the trim to correct the pitch. Then I hear something this morning about the sensors being an optional purchase? WTF? Someone who knows please explain this thing. And who's on the hook? Boeing? Lack of training? Options not purchased by airlines?



When the plane is taking off, it's AoA (Angle of Attack) rises. It rises more because of the increased size of the shroud creates lift.
No, it doesn't. Explained below.
James___ wrote:
A plane's nose has to be pitched down to prevent stalling.
No, it doesn't. You can go up, down, even sideways, and not stall. You can stall when going up or down as well. It's a bit easier to stall when gong sideways (yes, airplanes can fly sideways).
James___ wrote:
The MCAS system does not disengage like autopilots do.
Nor would you want it to. MCAS is not an autopilot or anything like an autopilot.
James___ wrote:
With autopilot, simply pull back on the yoke and it's off. That's not how the MCAS is disengaged and pilots weren't made aware of this.
Pilots ARE made aware of how to to disable the MCAS system.
James___ wrote:
Notice the difference? Pulling back on the yoke leads to a stall, why that can't allow the MCAS to disengage.

The last thing you want to do when flying slow is to pull back on the stick.
James___ wrote:
This is a problem that has been known since last year.
Nope. The problem showed up recently for the reasons I'll explain below.
James___ wrote:
There are 2 switches on the gauge panel that can be used to switch off the MCAS system.
Correct. One for each pilot.
James___ wrote:
And pushing the yoke forward instead of pulling it back might work as well.
No need, and dangerous.
James___ wrote:
Taking a plane into a dive avoids a stall.
No, it doesn't. Planes can stall while descending.
James___ wrote:
Too significant of a dive and it can't get air under it's wings again.

As long as the wing is flying, it has all the air it needs. Only in the stall, when the wing is no longer flying, is air over the top disrupted (air is still available under the wing).
James___ wrote:
Pilots simply weren't trained how to disengage the MCAS.
Yes they are. The tricky part is recognizing that it needs disengaging in time. Explained below.
James___ wrote:
If they knew how to do that then they could manually fly the plane until they are at cruising altitude.
Failure of MCAS means the plane returns to the airport. It is not authorized to continue the flight. It must land as soon as practical.
James___ wrote:
I think both planes crashed before reaching cruising altitude which is about 35,000 feet.
They both crashed shortly after takeoff, while MCAS is active. Explained below.
James___ wrote:
And this problem arose because the FAA started allowing Boeing to certify it's own planes.
No, the FAA certifies every single aircraft that Boeing builds. Boeing has it's own FAA inspectors dedicated for this. They work for the FAA, not Boeing, even though they have a desk in a Boeing office.
James___ wrote:
And with a change in controls, recertification by pilots would've been required which would not be a selling point.

MCAS is a change in the primary flight control system of the aircraft. That requires recertification.
James___ wrote:
Almost have to wonder though if the airflow around the larger shrouds also sends false data to the sensors.
Nope. The sensors aren't located anywhere near the engines. Explained below.
James___ wrote:
AoA and air speed are what the MCAS needs to know.
Just AoA actually, but that too is explained below.
James___ wrote:
When the larger shrouds are creating lift then they would be slowing air movement or deflecting it.
All engines deflect air around them.They also create turbulence behind them. No flight sensors are located near the engines for this reason.
James___ wrote:
This part might not be easy to analyse. It would change wind speed beneath the wings.

It does not change wind speed beneath or over the tops of the wings. It creates turbulence, but general wind speed is unchanged.
James___ wrote:
Myself, I am of the opinion that air below the wings do help to create lift while the vacuum above the wings is given 100% of the credit.
You are correct here. Even a flat plank of plywood can fly. Be sure to secure your loads this summer!
James___ wrote:
And if those engines deflect too much air then a vacuum could occur beneath the wing countering the effect of the air above the wing that has been accelerated to create vacuum/lift.
Engines deflect air upwards, toward the wing. They actually help to create lift in this way. An engine nacelle (even the large ones used on the MAX) act a bit like a leading edge flap.
James___ wrote:
I think ITN could explain this much better than myself or about anyone else for that matter.


I appreciate your faith in my knowledge of aviation. So here goes:

The 737MAX is basically a new-fangled 737. It has larger engines new glass displays in the cockpit, and of course, the MCAS system which make use of sensors that have already been on the 737 for awhile, but up until now were not used in any kind of feedback loop.

The new engines are the issue. They are larger, and therefore must hang below the wing further forward to clear the ground.

A wing is a pivot point. That pivot point is actually right at the thickest point on the wing (where the main wing spar is located). That is also quite near where the all the forces lifting the aircraft tend to center (known as the center of lift). There is also gravity, of course, trying to make the aircraft fall out of the sky. This center of gravity is usually just slightly forward of the center of lift (there are some designs where this is an exception, the 737 is not one of them).

Thrust is another force acting on an airplane. This of course comes from engines.
Drag is another 'force' acting on the airplane. This is the combined effect of shoving a fuselage, wing, tail, and engine through the air. That air provides resistance.

In the regular 737, the engines are mounted on pylons below the wing. The center of drag is above this, so the engine at full thrust will tend to rotate the wing into a climb. The pilot compensates by a trim tab device that produces a nose down command to the tail just enough to counter this upward tendency.

On the MAX, these engines are large, and the center of thrust they produce is further offset from the center of drag. This produces a pronounced upward rotation to the wing. It is more than the usual trim system can deal with conveniently. Thus, Boeing introduced the MCAS system, which helps make the plane fly more like a regular ole' 737. MCAS stands for Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System.

The problem with the pronounced nose-up attitude is really only a problem when the plane is flying slow with lots of thrust, such as during takeoff. Once above a few thousand feet, the plane is cleaned up and the wing is flying faster, no longer producing this pronounced nose-up attitude.

Slow flying planes have a high angle of attack. These sensors are mounted near the nose of the aircraft (they are actually part of the pitot tubes you see mounted there). There is one for each side...a captain and copilot side.

Like any machine, sometimes these sensors can fail. MCAS uses the sensor on the active side of the flight control system (the pilots can switch it between them who is active). Thus, MCAS is depending on a single sensor to gain information about how much nose-down command it must give to counteract those big engines while flying slow with lots of thrust.

If that sensor fails (which is what triggered the crashes in the first place on both aircraft), MCAS no longer has any idea what the angle of attack really is. It just cycles and cycles, further commanding the nose down. This is a trim command, and the pilot can fight it, but it's work. This is not an easy failure to recognize quickly, however. By the time many pilots can figure out what's wrong, the plane, which is already low and flying slow with lots of thrust, is commanded into the ground.

Boeing is working on a fix for MCAS. All MAX planes will stay grounded until the fix is installed (which is a software upgrade).

The fix makes the software listen to BOTH angle of attack sensors, not just the active one. If they disagree, EICAS is alerted and the pilots are notified. MCAS is automatically disabled as well at this point. If a sensor fails, MCAS automatically shuts down with it. The pilots need to know quickly (hence the EICAS alert), so they can manually counter the upthrust moment of those big engines. This failure constitutes a failure of a primary flight control system, and the plane MUST land as soon as practical at the nearest airport (usually the one they just took off from).

MCAS currently cycles every five seconds, moving the tail surface each time. It will now be programmed to cycle only once, limiting its effect of the system fails.

I know this sounds like some crappy on your phone running aircraft, but it's the hard truth these days. Software is increasingly being put in control of flight control systems. The FAA has been taking a very detailed look at the software being installed in aircraft, and the quality assurance programs used to verify their function.

In-flight entertainment system software is of little consequence if it fails. You just can't watch the movie or hear the audio anymore.

Software controlling radios and other avionics becomes more important. That GPS system might be giving you bad information. That transponder might be broadcasting an incorrect packet of data. These don't affect flight, but it could get pilots lost. My own brother got lost with the GPS in his plane that was misprogrammed. Fortunately, I was with him and directed him to a nearby airport using the 'old fashioned way' of navigating.

Now software is being installed in flight control systems. Now the software is critical. It can kill people. The FAA takes a VERY serious look at this software before certifying such an aircraft. After this MAX episode, they will become positively anal about it. They should. The FAA will be satisfied with MCAS with the changes that Boeing is making to it.

The 737 is a great airplane. With the changes in MCAS, the MAX will be a great airplane.


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2019 03:35
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(694)
The disturbing thing, is that they won't know if the software is buggy, until a flight crashes. Won't really know if it's fixed, without trying it for while.
23-03-2019 06:33
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1177)
Thanks for taking the time ITN. Very well explained. Let me see if I have this in the correct nutshell.

Newer, bigger engines on the original 737 fuselage with farther forward placement causing higher angle of attack at high thrust/low speed. Sensors monitoring the angle send info to auto trim through the MCAS system, which was the "fix" for retrofit engines and flight irregularities. Sensor failed and auto trimmed too much forcing nose down and into crash. Have I got it?

Seems what you're saying is pilots are doing far less flying these days and much more flight system management. Seems crazy they pull out a troubleshooting manual with 300 lives at stake. I may be short sighted here but shouldn't the fixes be part of the software? I mean hey, if the computer is going to fly the damn thing, it should also be offering solutions to problems, right? Seems pretty ****ed up that the copilot was frantically thumbing through a troubleshooting manual as the plane slams into the ground. What am I missing?
Edited on 23-03-2019 06:35
23-03-2019 17:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The disturbing thing, is that they won't know if the software is buggy, until a flight crashes. Won't really know if it's fixed, without trying it for while.


That's true of any software. Like a theory of science, you can't prove a piece of software correct. You can only find bugs in it. This is true even of a 'hello' program (the simplest type of program).

This particular bug was due to not handling the available inputs correctly. A similar bug got Toyota a while ago (remember the 'stuck accelerator' thing? It was solved by putting a second sensor on the accelerator pedal. That design is used in almost all cars today. If one of those critical sensors disagree with the other, a 'safe down' routine can be called that prevents runaway action.

Bugs of this nature are simply due to depending on a single critical sensor rather than duel sensors. If that sensor fails (all sensors eventually fail), there is no valid input for that software.

So you might say that it's partially a 'hardware' flaw as well, since only a single sensor was used. Fortunately, no hardware change is necessary. A second sensor is already available because this aircraft has a copilot and that sensor is for his instruments.

I have bugs in my Subaru FADAC software. It flags a gas cap left open as the wrong error (a vapor cannister error). Putting the gas cap on doesn't clear the error because a vapor cannister error is a permanent code. That's the bug. It shouldn't be. There is no harm in recycling the test each time you start the car.

The Eyesight system in my Subaru is great and works very well for certain functions. It can't steer the car though. It does help center up the steering on sloped roads and light curves so I have don't have to use so much pressure on the wheel. The cruise control follower system works very well (unless weather obscures the camera's view, at which point it shuts off).

There are bugs in both Linux and Windows (especially Windows!). There are bugs in every library they use. There are bugs even in the CPU's they run on.

There are bugs in hardware designs too. Remember the 727 skin failure on Aloha airlines? That bug was fixed by using a doubler plate riveted just above the forward boarding door. It was triggered under the conditions of corrosion and short flights in sea air conditions (which stresses the airframe more).

You are driving a 2003 Ford. Lots of bugs in that design. That's why you had to spend so much for fixing it. Equipment doesn't last long on Fords because of the materials they use.

Everything is a trade off. Hardware, software, aircraft designs, automotive designs, even the computer you are using right now. It's an imperfect world, full of imperfect equipment and the software to run it.

The best we can do is use our experience as a guide to limit the cost of future designs to life and limb. Morbid as that sounds, it is nevertheless true.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-03-2019 17:53
23-03-2019 18:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Thanks for taking the time ITN. Very well explained. Let me see if I have this in the correct nutshell.

Newer, bigger engines on the original 737 fuselage with farther forward placement causing higher angle of attack at high thrust/low speed. Sensors monitoring the angle send info to auto trim through the MCAS system, which was the "fix" for retrofit engines and flight irregularities. Sensor failed and auto trimmed too much forcing nose down and into crash. Have I got it?

The new engines actually cause the nose to rise too much for the available engine power. This slows the aircraft, which also increases its angle of attack. If left unchecked, you will have a full power stall. Otherwise, that's essentially correct.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Seems what you're saying is pilots are doing far less flying these days and much more flight system management.

Unfortunately, many airline pilots haven't flown in years. These aircraft are giant automated cushmobiles. As an example, here's what happens with an engine fire on one of these babies:

A sensor in the engine compartment senses the fire. Fuel is automatically shut off, the air vents are closed, the igniter is disabled, and the extinguisher system is automatically deployed. If the sensor detects the fire is out, the fuel is turned back on, the igniter is enabled, and the engine is restarted automatically (this can only be tried once). THEN the pilot is notified what happened.

The sensor in this system is pretty reliable. It consists of a tube running around the engine compartment that's fill with gas and sealed. Increasing temperatures increase the pressure on this gas and push against a contact switch on the end of the tube. A second system uses thermocouples.

The fire extinguisher is pretty reliable. It's just a sealed high pressure bottle with a squib mounted near it's mouth. Firing the squib shoots a blade across the neck of the sealing cap, shearing it off. The pressure is released into plumbing feeding the engine on fire and to a blowout plug mounted somewhere aft along the fuselage. This plug is checked before every flight to make sure it's still there. The copilot does this check.

It is said that you can practically show the airplane a picture of the gate and airport you want to go to and it will take you there.

Put these guys in a small plane and they're all over the sky. They have literally forgotten how to fly.

Now, that said, if you put a small plane driver into a 737 cockpit, they can't handle the high speed nature and narrow flight envelope of that thing. That takes specialized training, and a lot of it.

Both pilots can still navigate on their own, but the physical technique of flying is radically different between the two aircraft.

A competent instrument pilot that's in practice, even if he has never flown a 737 before, CAN fly it and even land it, with coaching that can come from the ground. Both pilots know how to use the radio.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Seems crazy they pull out a troubleshooting manual with 300 lives at stake. I may be short sighted here but shouldn't the fixes be part of the software?
Yes. The software is being fixed. Training procedures are also being improved to better recognize this type of failure.
GasGuzzler wrote:
I mean hey, if the computer is going to fly the damn thing, it should also be offering solutions to problems, right?

It IS a solution to a problem. The failure is that the computer failed to be a solution to the problem. The problem is the low center of thrust on the new engines.
GasGuzzler wrote:
Seems pretty ****ed up that the copilot was frantically thumbing through a troubleshooting manual as the plane slams into the ground. What am I missing?

You are missing that no matter how long they could've thumbed through the manual, it won't help the situation. The FIRST thing any pilot should do is fly the plane, f**cked up as it is. Talking to ATC, looking up problems in a manual, putting out a fire, ALL of it is secondary to flying the plane. Imagine a distracted driver in a car (you've seen them!). It's the same thing in the sky.

I have to also recognize that the training was inadequate for this type of failure. It simply wasn't anticipated. Pitot tube and angle of attack failure are most uncommon. They are pretty simple instruments. The last time I had such a failure in my plane, water had gotten in it through a leaking tube. It disabled my altimeter and airspeed indicator. It happened while I was in the air.

I didn't bother to talk to ATC, I didn't bother to do anything but fly the plane, and land it as soon as practical. Only AFTER I learned how to fly the plane again without my instruments did I talk to ATC just enough to get clearance to land a damaged aircraft.

I've had engine failures in flight. The key is again to fly the plane (it's a perfectly good glider!) rather than try to spend a lot of time troubleshooting the engine failure. (That failure was caused by a rod end bolt coming off and the rod jammed the crankshaft.)

I've had in flight fire in the cockpit (electrical fire). I've had my artificial horizon fail spectacularly on final approach while still in the clouds (couldn't see the airport yet). I've had engines fail on takeoff. In each case, I flew the plane first, and did what I needed to to flop the thing on the nearest runway or even an open field.

I do have some 737 time (not a lot). These jets can be handled like any instrument flight as long as you are in practice for such flights (here in the Pacific NW it's easy to stay in practice!). I understand the MAX problem and what is being done to alleviate future occurrences. I am confident the new software will solve the problem just like it did for Toyota.

(no, my 737 time wasn't a simulator. It was the actual aircraft. My copilot was an ex-trucker. Nice guy.)


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2019 18:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
HarveyH55 wrote:
The disturbing thing, is that they won't know if the software is buggy, until a flight crashes. Won't really know if it's fixed, without trying it for while.


All of the systems have a software testing program. This program is NOT changed but additions are added on. So the new improvements do not put bugs into the old testing programs.

Boeing's 737 aircraft has been around for 50 years and everyone is used to a plane in which the center of thrust is almost on the center of gravity. This makes the aircraft fly almost by itself. Add power and the plane will climb up to a limit if the engine power. Reduce power and it will come down in a glide.

The latest 737 Max has spread the center-of-gravity further away from the center-of-thrust. This means that pilots that are used to the other versions have to be carefully trained that the response of the aircraft isn't exactly the same as previous versions. On one flight of the Max the pilot and copilot lost control and another pilot that was sitting there told them what to do and there was no further problems. The latest crash has voice recorder of the two pilots shouting for a manual, showing that the foreign pilots were insufficiently trained. We have not had any problems with those piloted with American pilots who are typically given a great deal more expensive training.
23-03-2019 19:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Wake wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
The disturbing thing, is that they won't know if the software is buggy, until a flight crashes. Won't really know if it's fixed, without trying it for while.


All of the systems have a software testing program.

There is no program that tests other programs, Wake. Testing is done by software testers, test technicians wind tunnel testing, and in flight testing.
Wake wrote:
This program is NOT changed but additions are added on. So the new improvements do not put bugs into the old testing programs.

That's a change, Wake. Also, new code wasn't just 'tacked on'. It is a functional change.
Wake wrote:
Boeing's 737 aircraft has been around for 50 years and everyone is used to a plane in which the center of thrust is almost on the center of gravity.

WRONG. The center of gravity has NOTHING to do with the thrust line. Airplanes fly very well with engines stuck on at one end of the other.
Wake wrote:
This makes the aircraft fly almost by itself.

WRONG. Positive longitudinal stability and slightly positive lateral stability is what makes the airplane fly itself. Piloted aircraft use a slightly negative lateral stability to make it easier for the pilot. Note there is NOTHING about engines here.
Wake wrote:
Add power and the plane will climb up to a limit if the engine power. Reduce power and it will come down in a glide.

Aren't you forgetting thermals? You know, that thing about convection you are always going on about?
Wake wrote:
The latest 737 Max has spread the center-of-gravity further away from the center-of-thrust.
WRONG. Center of thrust has NOTHING to do with center of gravity in the stability of an aircraft.
Wake wrote:
This means that pilots that are used to the other versions have to be carefully trained that the response of the aircraft isn't exactly the same as previous versions.

It IS the same. That's what MCAS does. It makes the plane fly the same.
Wake wrote:
On one flight of the Max the pilot and copilot lost control and another pilot that was sitting there told them what to do and there was no further problems. The latest crash has voice recorder of the two pilots shouting for a manual, showing that the foreign pilots were insufficiently trained.

A problem everywhere, but yes...foreign pilots are typically horribly trained.
Wake wrote:
We have not had any problems with those piloted with American pilots who are typically given a great deal more expensive training.

Not yet. Luck of the draw on that one, though.


The Parrot Killer
23-03-2019 23:45
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Center of thrust has NOTHING to do with center of gravity in the stability of an aircraft.



With the 737Max it just might. When it has a tendency to fly nose up with the slightly forward placement of it's thrust, the larger cowling around the engines also increase lift. 2 planes have crashed because they stalled. The MCAS failed to prevent that. That is it's purpose. With you isn't, it's all about word games.
It's also nice seeing the Bromance that you and GasGuzzler have going on. I think it's sweet
24-03-2019 00:32
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote:With the 737Max it just might. When it has a tendency to fly nose up with the slightly forward placement of it's thrust, the larger cowling around the engines also increase lift.

The jet is rigid. The center of mass is the center of gravity in this case because gravity is uniform across the jet. The center of gravity is not dependent upon the jet's orientation or gender, nor is it affected by forces of thrust.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 02:37
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:With the 737Max it just might. When it has a tendency to fly nose up with the slightly forward placement of it's thrust, the larger cowling around the engines also increase lift.

The jet is rigid. The center of mass is the center of gravity in this case because gravity is uniform across the jet. The center of gravity is not dependent upon the jet's orientation or gender, nor is it affected by forces of thrust.



NotDaMann, you just made them seem like a couple of homosexuals. It's cool if they are. I try to support diversity
24-03-2019 09:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
WRONG. Center of thrust has NOTHING to do with center of gravity in the stability of an aircraft.



With the 737Max it just might.

WRONG. Center of gravity has NOTHING to do with nose-up tendency on the MAX.
James___ wrote:
When it has a tendency to fly nose up with the slightly forward placement of it's thrust,

WRONG. It is because the line of thrust is lower than usual, not because it's further forward.
James___ wrote:
the larger cowling around the engines also increase lift.

WRONG. The produce drag, but almost no lift.
James___ wrote:
2 planes have crashed because they stalled.

WRONG. They dived into the ground. They were not stalled.
James___ wrote:
The MCAS failed to prevent that.

WRONG. The MCAS system failed to recognize the nose tendency had already been corrected and was still trying to correct it.
James___ wrote:
With you isn't, it's all about word games.

Your typical comment, simply because you don't know the terminology.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 09:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:With the 737Max it just might. When it has a tendency to fly nose up with the slightly forward placement of it's thrust, the larger cowling around the engines also increase lift.

The jet is rigid. The center of mass is the center of gravity in this case because gravity is uniform across the jet. The center of gravity is not dependent upon the jet's orientation or gender, nor is it affected by forces of thrust.


Correct. You have it exactly.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 16:37
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
You guys will probably miss this, read the article https://www.yahoo.com/news/fix-737-max-anti-stall-software-ready-industry-203046003.html. Since when is one system (MCAS) independently monitored by another system?
24-03-2019 16:52
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:With the 737Max it just might. When it has a tendency to fly nose up with the slightly forward placement of it's thrust, the larger cowling around the engines also increase lift.

The jet is rigid. The center of mass is the center of gravity in this case because gravity is uniform across the jet. The center of gravity is not dependent upon the jet's orientation or gender, nor is it affected by forces of thrust.


Correct. You have it exactly.



That's actually wrong isn't. You guys and your desire to bond is preventing any sort of discussion. The centre of mass example https://binged.it/2Fy72Iw.
With the centre of gravity, just pick a line going from the nose of the plane back and half of the plane's mass will be in front of the centre of gravity and half of it will be behind it. The centre of mass might not be directly above the centre of gravity. Still, the centre of mass influences how wing flaps are deployed when the plane banks into a turn. It will need to be known.
And when a plane is cruising in a straight line, it's centre of gravity will help to determine it's wing plane which is the basis of aircraft design by Boeing. You might not know this but the wings are connected to a wing box under the plane. It's the wing box that is connected to the frame. This is how stress or load is transferred from the wings to the fuselage. And this in turn translates thrust into linear momentum.
I still haven't mentioned what you guys have missed. It is obvious and could explain why their will be an independent system monitoring the MCAS system. Why the secondary warning system? That might be so a pilot will know to temporarily disengage the MCAS.
Attached image:


Edited on 24-03-2019 17:10
24-03-2019 17:08
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: With the centre of gravity, just pick a line going from the nose of the plane back and half of the plane's mass will be in front of the centre of gravity and half of it will be behind it. The centre of mass might not be directly above the centre of gravity. Still, the centre of mass influences how wing flaps are deployed when the plane banks into a turn. It will need to be known.

James__ you shifted goalposts again.

When discussing a particular model plane in general, the assumption is an empty plane, which has a fixed center of gravity because it is rigid.

If you shift the topic to problems with load balancing or how different passenger manifests imply different centers of gravity, then you have a different discussion.

Otherwise the jet's center of gravity remains independent of the plane pitching up or down.



You're still wrong. The orientation of the wings and the rear elevators determine how the balance of the airplane is controlled when flying in a straight line. This will normally be associated with the wing plane. This means a fore and aft centre of gravity needs to be known. Then the stress on the rear elevators can be calculated. This can alter the AoA or counter the nose up tendency of the 737Max.
With a centre of mass, this isn't considered. This goes back to what you guys have missed.
24-03-2019 17:40
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: With the centre of gravity, just pick a line going from the nose of the plane back and half of the plane's mass will be in front of the centre of gravity and half of it will be behind it. The centre of mass might not be directly above the centre of gravity. Still, the centre of mass influences how wing flaps are deployed when the plane banks into a turn. It will need to be known.

James__ you shifted goalposts again.

When discussing a particular model plane in general, the assumption is an empty plane, which has a fixed center of gravity because it is rigid.

If you shift the topic to problems with load balancing or how different passenger manifests imply different centers of gravity, then you have a different discussion.

Otherwise the jet's center of gravity remains independent of the plane pitching up or down.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 18:15
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
James___ wrote: The orientation of the wings and the rear elevators determine how the balance of the airplane is controlled when flying in a straight line.

IBdaMann wrote:
Will you admit that you just shifted to "balance of the airplane" whereas you were originally discussing the "center of gravity"?


This is funny. Balance fore and aft of the airplane is it's centre of gravity. It's where the force of gravity in front of and behind it exert the same amount of force.

James___ wrote: This means a fore and aft centre of gravity needs to be known. [/quote]
IBdaMann wrote:
Will you admit that you are claiming right here that there are somehow two different centers of gravity for a given plane that you claim need to be known? I would mention that *the* center of gravity is a singular item, not a pair of foci.


The centre of gravity is different than the centre of mass. Mass has to do with how weight is consider with it's relationship to height, width and depth. Mass is not dependent on gravity but is relative to it. ie., in space with no gravity a 1kg weight will still have the same mass. The centre of mass would be calculated the same in space as on Earth. The centre of gravity is entirely dependent on the downward force of gravity.
It bothers me IBDaMann when you fail to understand the basic difference between mass and gravity's effect on mass.
24-03-2019 18:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote:You're still wrong.

I think we have well established that you will believe I'm wrong regardless of what I write. You are a science denier. We will never agree.

James___ wrote: The orientation of the wings and the rear elevators determine how the balance of the airplane is controlled when flying in a straight line.

Will you admit that you just shifted to "balance of the airplane" whereas you were originally discussing the "center of gravity"?

James___ wrote: This means a fore and aft centre of gravity needs to be known.

Will you admit that you are claiming right here that there are somehow two different centers of gravity for a given plane that you claim need to be known? I would mention that *the* center of gravity is a singular item, not a pair of foci.

James___ wrote: With a centre of mass, this isn't considered. This goes back to what you guys have missed.

In the case of rigid aircraft the center of gravity = the center of mass.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 19:41
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.
24-03-2019 20:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
You guys will probably miss this, read the article https://www.yahoo.com/news/fix-737-max-anti-stall-software-ready-industry-203046003.html. Since when is one system (MCAS) independently monitored by another system?


It isn't. MCAS is it's own system.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:With the 737Max it just might. When it has a tendency to fly nose up with the slightly forward placement of it's thrust, the larger cowling around the engines also increase lift.

The jet is rigid. The center of mass is the center of gravity in this case because gravity is uniform across the jet. The center of gravity is not dependent upon the jet's orientation or gender, nor is it affected by forces of thrust.


Correct. You have it exactly.



That's actually wrong isn't.

Now you are going to get physics wrong yet again.
James___ wrote:
You guys and your desire to bond is preventing any sort of discussion. The centre of mass example https://binged.it/2Fy72Iw.
With the centre of gravity, just pick a line going from the nose of the plane back and half of the plane's mass will be in front of the centre of gravity and half of it will be behind it.

The center of mass is the center of gravity, James.
James___ wrote:
The centre of mass might not be directly above the centre of gravity. Still, the centre of mass influences how wing flaps are deployed when the plane banks into a turn. It will need to be known.

No, they are the same point, James.
James___ wrote:
...deleted nonsensical portion.
I still haven't mentioned what you guys have missed. It is obvious and could explain why their will be an independent system monitoring the MCAS system.

There isn't.
James___ wrote:
Why the secondary warning system?

That is part of the MCAS system.
James___ wrote:
That might be so a pilot will know to temporarily disengage the MCAS.

A useful warning device. It is driven by MCAS itself.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 20:30
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


This image is from this thread. It shows I quoted you while you posted after I did. Just not possible. After all, have played online games in real time with people all over the world. Someone realized I was right and merely wanted to confuse people.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/CQH8KU3NRckmBqso7

What you don't understand is if the centre of gravity is relative to the wing plane, then it's position will be different than the centre of gravity. When Boeing designs an airplane, it starts with the wing plane.
If you look at a wing, it has both a leading edge and an aileron. Their positions will be relative to the wing's plane. The rear elevators will also be positioned relative to this plane. This has nothing to do with centre of mass. This is because most of the plane is above the wing plane. Yet it's the wing plane that will have the greatest influence on AoA, or should have.
You see, the rear elevators can account for the torque of the thrust generated by a plane's engines. They are beneath the wing, right? They are applying torque as well as thrust. we need to consider these different forces as well. But we're not.
With the 737Max being the plane in question, no one has posted the change in thrust rating between the old and new engines. Could be why they have a tendency to nose up. And since the torque is coming from below the wing plane then the centre of mass makes it top heavy.
As for thrust, the CFM56-7 develops between 19,500 to 27,300 lbs. of thrust.
The LEAP develops 29,317 lbs. of thrust. Extra thrust equals extra torque equals nose up and why the MCAS. This also shows that it can be a dramatic increase in a nose up tendency if a pilot's used to flying with an CFM56-7 with lower thrust values.
It's also possible that the engines were moved forward to shift the centre of gravity forward to compensate for this along with the MCAS? It's possible. If so that was the mistake. Moving the engines towards the rear would've let more weight in front of them counteract the effects of increased torque. They might've just made a simple mistake in logic. You know, make the front of the plane heavier and then it'll be more difficult for the nose to lift as it has a tendency to do.

And this is why knowing the difference between the centre of gravity and the centre of mass matters.
24-03-2019 20:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: With the centre of gravity, just pick a line going from the nose of the plane back and half of the plane's mass will be in front of the centre of gravity and half of it will be behind it. The centre of mass might not be directly above the centre of gravity. Still, the centre of mass influences how wing flaps are deployed when the plane banks into a turn. It will need to be known.

James__ you shifted goalposts again.

When discussing a particular model plane in general, the assumption is an empty plane, which has a fixed center of gravity because it is rigid.

If you shift the topic to problems with load balancing or how different passenger manifests imply different centers of gravity, then you have a different discussion.

Otherwise the jet's center of gravity remains independent of the plane pitching up or down.



You're still wrong. The orientation of the wings and the rear elevators determine how the balance of the airplane is controlled when flying in a straight line.

WRONG. The orientation of neither the wing nor the rear stabilizer (this plane has no elevators) determine the balance of the aircraft.
James___ wrote:
This will normally be associated with the wing plane.

WRONG. The entire aircraft determines it's flight characteristics.
James___ wrote:
This means a fore and aft centre of gravity needs to be known.

Yes it does. You do not seem to understand anything about the center of lift, which is a different point than the center of gravity.
James___ wrote:
Then the stress on the rear elevators can be calculated.

They don't need to be calculated except by the designers of the aircraft.
James___ wrote:
This can alter the AoA or counter the nose up tendency of the 737Max.

Center of gravity and center of mass have no effect on the nose up tendency of the MAX.
James___ wrote:
With a centre of mass, this isn't considered.

The center of mass and the center of gravity are the same point. Just different names for the same point.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote: The orientation of the wings and the rear elevators determine how the balance of the airplane is controlled when flying in a straight line.

IBdaMann wrote:
Will you admit that you just shifted to "balance of the airplane" whereas you were originally discussing the "center of gravity"?


This is funny. Balance fore and aft of the airplane is it's centre of gravity. It's where the force of gravity in front of and behind it exert the same amount of force.

Gravity exerts the same amount of force anywhere on the aircraft. No balance point necessary. That force is 32 ft/sec/sec.
James___ wrote:
James___ wrote: This means a fore and aft centre of gravity needs to be known.

IBdaMann wrote:
Will you admit that you are claiming right here that there are somehow two different centers of gravity for a given plane that you claim need to be known? I would mention that *the* center of gravity is a singular item, not a pair of foci.


The centre of gravity is different than the centre of mass.[/quote]
No, it isn't. It's just two different names for the same point.
James___ wrote:
Mass has to do with how weight is consider with it's relationship to height, width and depth. Mass is not dependent on gravity but is relative to it. ie., in space with no gravity a 1kg weight will still have the same mass. The centre of mass would be calculated the same in space as on Earth. The centre of gravity is entirely dependent on the downward force of gravity.
[quote]James___ wrote:
It bothers me IBDaMann when you fail to understand the basic difference between mass and gravity's effect on mass.

Shifting the goalposts again, James. Aircraft do not operate outside the influence of gravity. Indeed, they CAN'T. An aircraft cannot fly without gravity and an atmosphere, not even a hot air balloon.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-03-2019 20:38
24-03-2019 20:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.


Center of mass is not the same as mass, James. You are moving the goalpost again.
Center of gravity is not the same as gravity, James. You are moving the goalpost again.

Timestamps are set by your own computer, James. Check your time settings. They are f**ked up.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


The time stamp is set by the computer you are using.

I've noticed that several of his posts have appeared out of order for some reason.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 20:46
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


The time stamp is set by the computer you are using.

I've noticed that several of his posts have appeared out of order for some reason.


His posts and the time stamps have been changed by someone who runs this forum. Occam's Razor.
24-03-2019 21:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


This image is from this thread. It shows I quoted you while you posted after I did. Just not possible. After all, have played online games in real time with people all over the world. Someone realized I was right and merely wanted to confuse people.

Paranoia.
James___ wrote:
What you don't understand is if the centre of gravity is relative to the wing plane, then it's position will be different than the centre of gravity.

WRONG. The center of gravity has nothing to do with the wing, other than the wing being mass.
James___ wrote:
When Boeing designs an airplane, it starts with the wing plane.

WRONG. It starts with the intended mission of the aircraft. There is no other starting point for any aircraft.
James___ wrote:
If you look at a wing, it has both a leading edge and an aileron.
Not all wings have ailerons.
James___ wrote:
Their positions will be relative to the wing's plane.
The wing IS a plane. That's why it's called an airplane!
James___ wrote:
The rear elevators will also be positioned relative to this plane.
The 737 does not have elevators. It uses a full flying horizontal stabilizer.
James___ wrote:
This has nothing to do with centre of mass.
Ailerons are elevators are where they are because they effectively change the shape of the wing (yes, the horizontal stabilizer is also a wing).
James___ wrote:
This is because most of the plane is above the wing plane.

WRONG. High wing airplanes, low wing airplanes, and midwing airplanes all fly perfectly well. Many have both ailerons and elevators.
James___ wrote:
Yet it's the wing plane that will have the greatest influence on AoA, or should have.

WRONG. Every flying surface on the aircraft as it's own angle of attack. The one for the tail is independent of the one for the wing. Even the vertical fin has an angle of attack.
James___ wrote:
You see, the rear elevators can account for the torque of the thrust generated by a plane's engines.
That torque moment is around the center of drag, NOT the center of gravity or the center of mass.
James___ wrote:
They are beneath the wing, right?

Irrelevant. The engines are below the center of drag.
James___ wrote:
They are applying torque as well as thrust.
More thrust does mean more torque around the center of drag.
James___ wrote:
we need to consider these different forces as well. But we're not.

Yes, Boeing DID consider this additional thrust. That's why they BUILT the MCAS system.
James___ wrote:
With the 737Max being the plane in question, no one has posted the change in thrust rating between the old and new engines.
Boeing did. See the Boeing specs for this aircraft. They ARE published, you know.
James___ wrote:
Could be why they have a tendency to nose up.

Nothing to do with center of gravity.
James___ wrote:
And since the torque is coming from below the wing plane then the centre of mass makes it top heavy.

WRONG. Thrust line has NOTHING to do with how 'top heavy' an aircraft is.
James___ wrote:
It's also possible that the engines were moved forward to shift the centre of gravity forward to compensate for this along with the MCAS?

WRONG. Fore and aft position is irrelevant. The engines were moved forward to better clear the ground when the aircraft is sitting at the ramp.
James___ wrote:
It's possible. If so that was the mistake. Moving the engines towards the rear would've let more weight in front of them counteract the effects of increased torque.

WRONG. Center of gravity has nothing to do with center of drag.
James___ wrote:
They might've just made a simple mistake in logic.

You are not using logic. I doubt you have any idea what bringing up this strawman even means.
James___ wrote:
You know, make the front of the plane heavier and then it'll be more difficult for the nose to lift as it has a tendency to do.

WRONG. This is NOT the purpose of putting the engines forward. The balance of the aircraft remains the same, even with the larger engines. It must, or the aircraft won't fly.
James___ wrote:
And this is why knowing the difference between the centre of gravity and the centre of mass matters.

There is no difference. They are the same point.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 21:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: Just not possible.


Yet it happened. You know that it happened because it bothers you.

James___ wrote: Someone realized I was right and merely wanted to confuse people.

If conclusions were an Olympic event, you would win the long jump.

James___ wrote: If you look at a wing, it has both a leading edge and an aileron.

Don't forget the flaps.

Let's get a bit of terminology down. The wing has a leading edge and a trailing edge. The wing has camber which is adjusted with the flaps.

James___ wrote: You see, the rear elevators can account for the torque of the thrust generated by a plane's engines.

The elevators do not "account for" thrust; they convert contact force into angular acceleration.

James___ wrote: They are beneath the wing, right? They are applying torque as well as thrust.

Only the engines apply thrust.

James___ wrote: With the 737Max being the plane in question, no one has posted the change in thrust rating between the old and new engines.

A "nose up" is caused by angular acceleration ... or the sum of the torques not equaling zero ... and not because of a change in the source of thrust ... or am I missing something?

James___ wrote: It's also possible that the engines were moved forward to shift the centre of gravity forward to compensate for this along with the MCAS?

I notice your spelling of "centre" and can't help but wonder if you're using that funky British physics (you know, from where we get the term "mad scientist").

James___ wrote:And this is why knowing the difference between the centre of gravity and the centre of mass matters.

In this case, center of mass = center of gravity.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-03-2019 21:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


The time stamp is set by the computer you are using.

I've noticed that several of his posts have appeared out of order for some reason.


His posts and the time stamps have been changed by someone who runs this forum. Occam's Razor.


Occam's Razor is not a proof. There is only one guy that runs this forum, and he is not changing timestamps. There is something wrong with the computer you are using. That determines the timestamp with this software.


The Parrot Killer
24-03-2019 21:38
James___
★★★★☆
(1288)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


The time stamp is set by the computer you are using.

I've noticed that several of his posts have appeared out of order for some reason.


His posts and the time stamps have been changed by someone who runs this forum. Occam's Razor.


Occam's Razor is not a proof. There is only one guy that runs this forum, and he is not changing timestamps. There is something wrong with the computer you are using. That determines the timestamp with this software.



It is proof isn't. Someone switched out my post with NotDaMann's so that would be discussed and not the fact that neither of you know the difference between centre of mass and centre of gravity. Someone on your side moved the goal posts. Shows what a joke this forum has become.


edited to add;
ITN, I will say that you and IBDaMann are right because you say you are. That is what we need to accept, right? I agree with both of you.

Edited on 24-03-2019 21:42
24-03-2019 21:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
James___ wrote: His posts and the time stamps have been changed by someone who runs this forum. Occam's Razor.

It's just as much Occam's Razor as it is Grant's Tomb.

You should learn what Occam's Razor means.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2019 18:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:
Interesting, someone changed the time stamp on my post AGAIN. Now why would a moderator change the order of posts? Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that IBDaMann doesn't understand that mass and gravity are 2 different things? That's pathetic.

I understand the difference between mass and gravity.

You do not understand that, in the case of a rigid aircraft, center of mass *is* the same as the center of gravity.

Regarding your time stamp, from where are you posting?


The time stamp is set by the computer you are using.

I've noticed that several of his posts have appeared out of order for some reason.


His posts and the time stamps have been changed by someone who runs this forum. Occam's Razor.


Occam's Razor is not a proof. There is only one guy that runs this forum, and he is not changing timestamps. There is something wrong with the computer you are using. That determines the timestamp with this software.



It is proof isn't.

WRONG. You obviously don't know what a proof is. Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not a proof.
James___ wrote:
Someone switched out my post with NotDaMann's so that would be discussed and not the fact that neither of you know the difference between centre of mass and centre of gravity.

There is no difference. They are the same.
James___ wrote:
Someone on your side moved the goal posts.

Inversion fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Shows what a joke this forum has become.

Why? Because someone is on this forum that disagrees with you?
James___ wrote:

edited to add;
ITN, I will say that you and IBDaMann are right because you say you are. That is what we need to accept, right? I agree with both of you.


I already know you don't. Condescending lies don't work.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Off topic... Boeing 737 Max 8:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Maybe I'll understand you if we take this topic one question at a time?1505-10-2016 15:32
An MSc dissertation survey - takes 10 mins max2326-07-2016 17:51
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact