Is it any chance to fly 62 lb for each horsepower?

JOhnH said:
What mechanism does this theory use to overcome the effect of 9.8m/s/s downward acceleration (ie, gravity)?
Click to expand...

Well clearly in real life, for a given aircraft mass and force of gravity, you have to produce lift to counter that gravity, and lift production will require thrust and therefore power to overcome induced drag (at the very least). So this was just a theoretical point, to clarify that drag cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, minimum cruise power will keep you airborne, and overcome both induced and parasitic drag, as shown for example here.
 
RotorDude said:
Well clearly in real life, for a given aircraft mass and force of gravity, you have to produce lift to counter that gravity, and lift production will require thrust and therefore power to overcome induced drag (at the very least). So this was just a theoretical point, to clarify that drag cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, minimum cruise power will keep you airborne, and overcome both induced and parasitic drag, as shown for example here.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get that you were tailoring your answer for someone that wants to ignore obvious physics and assumes planes have a frictionless surface and fly in a vacuum.
 
EdFred said:
Well, then the solution is to nuke the thread, and any other thread he starts. What say you MC? Not just lock it, nuke it.
Click to expand...

Nope, why? He isn't making himself a pest across the whole board or anything, just this one thread from what I'm noticing. He's not abusive, attacking, or violating the terms of service. He's presenting aviation related stuff, he hasn't tried to sell anything, who knows, his information could all be valid and the whole Wright aviation claim was fraudulent. We will never know the truth for sure.

The only issue here is the guy thinks we care.:rofl:
 
RotorDude said:
Well clearly in real life, for a given aircraft mass and force of gravity, you have to produce lift to counter that gravity, and lift production will require thrust and therefore power to overcome induced drag (at the very least). So this was just a theoretical point, to clarify that drag cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, minimum cruise power will keep you airborne, and overcome both induced and parasitic drag, as shown for example here.
Click to expand...

If lift is a result of thrust, does a plane climb when you have sex in it? Because that opens up possibilities, "Hey, we need to get over these hills baby, best start climbing the plane..."
 
Henning said:
I think I figured it out! This is all about be shut out of Wikipedia to disseminate his information, who ever had that I think got it, however, he has found an alternative that may actually give him a higher ranking on search engines. You Google an aviation related question and Google brings you to POA in the top 3 lines typically, often the first.

It's kinda brilliant, still ****ing insane, but they often go together.
Click to expand...

Not insane if you have a book to sell. it all makes sense now.
 
I wonder if he is a member of the Flat Earth Society?
 
register@teamandras.com said:
Simplex, given your mastery of all things aeronautical, maybe you can help.

Can you side slip a plane side to side while making a low approach over a runway, on a calm, windless day, while maintaining a constant heading and without turning?

Also, what's a heading?
Click to expand...

While using a metal landing calculator?
 
wsuffa said:
Not insane if you have a book to sell. it all makes sense now.
Click to expand...

That's what I was asking him for, the book, video, whatever. If he has one, he really chose the wrong way of going about marketing it though.:rofl:

If he made a couple persuasive, informative posts in Classieds of excerpts of his book and put an advertising link to the book, I think the response he received would be much different, and could even have spawned some sales out of curiosity. Coming across like a ranting lunatic doesn't really inspire sales.

But again, I question whether there is a profit motive. Nobody gets this personally invested over profit, plus there has been no mention of any such mechanism. This feels more like an issue of pride. Who he is is invested here somewhere.
 
Last edited:
I doubt there is any book or video involved.
This is not his first time on the board or other boards for that matter. It is all the same stuff that he presented before. nothing new or original to this thread.
I must admit he has some historically interesting links but the selective and isolated way he tries to present them are beyond common logic.

His constant reference to the May, 1908 flights is myopic.
The Wrights flew several flights witnessed by many news reporters, their best being about 5 miles and around 8 minutes in length.
Now how do you suppose they were able to do that? Cynically I can say they were strolling down the beach and walked upon a fully functional airplane setting in the sand. Wilbur says to Orville, hey Orv, an airplane...... lets take it up for a spin.

It is obvious that there was considerable and significant effort put into development that the Wright Bros. accomplished BEFORE the May, 1908 flights. At this time (1908) the French were only capable of pitifully dangerous uncontrolled "hops" a few 100 meters long.
EVEN the French recognized the Wright's superiority in flight when Wilbur amazed them in Paris later that year.
 
I really think there must be some mental illness/delusions at play. If you're serious about this, you come here and start a thread, "The Wright Brothers were not the first at powered flight," and you lay out your case, prepared to defend it. Instead, he comes in here and starts multiple obtuse threads on varied subjects in an attempt to get someone to say something that will allow him to pounce with his, "Well then, how did the Wright Brothers..." spiel. Seems like some sort of personality disorder. Then again, it could just be that he's a one-trick troll.
 
I guess honest to God crackpots aren't all that common in aviation.

They don't need external motivation; it all appears to be ego plus a good measure of delusion.

We used to get wacky manuscripts almost weekly when I was a grad student. Since I was studying cosmology, people thought I was a good target for "convincing," usually with a really long manuscript about how the mainstream was all out to get them, and starting their argument with a real obvious fallacy and taking it 200 steps further.

Unfortunately, I never kept any. They were good for a laugh, sometimes a really good one, and then thrown away. But, you can find similar examples on Usenet archives. One astounding one was Alexander Abian. The guy honestly believed that the world's problems would be solved by blowing up the moon, later that we needed to replace the moon with Venus, and that time was equivalent to mass, rather than the more conventional energy equivalence. I swear I'm not making that up.
 
Oh no!
Herpes gets banned and this guy shows up. :mad2:
 
Last edited:
"Soon after the first reports were received from Manteo,
on Roanoke Island, regarding the flights being
made by the Wright brothers in testing their aeroplane,
a considerable number of newspaper correspondents
visited the Scene of the trials, which is among
the high and pointed sand dunes of the North Carolina
coast on a long strip of land that extends from
Cape Henry, near Norfolk, Va., southward some 80
miles., ......................In view of these semi-public demonstrations, there
can be no further doubt of the claims made by the
brothers as to their ability to fly"
Scientific American, May 23, 1908 p. 367
 
MAKG1 said:
One astounding one was Alexander Abian. The guy honestly believed that the world's problems would be solved by blowing up the moon, later that we needed to replace the moon with Venus, and that time was equivalent to mass, rather than the more conventional energy equivalence. I swear I'm not making that up.
Click to expand...
I think Alexander may have changed his name to "Henning".
 
EdFred said:
Ugh. Don't sign me up.
Click to expand...

Worse:
Some legs of the trip, such as over the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, will mean five or six straight days of flying solo.
Click to expand...

It seems like the computer must do a pretty good job of flying all by itself, assuming that the pilot is not going to stay awake for six days. So is he just there for ballast? :confused:
 
Topping for any folks who are curious about his trolling on another board and want to compare notes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top