italia:
Do you realize that's what I said?
Er, that'll be why I wrote "I thought you'd spotted that little error" and "I wouldn't be so quick to back-track". The whole point is that
since then you have changed position and said that ft's post made sense after all, and you are now questioning your own textbooks.
I meant the people in this thread!
Yes I realise that. The point I was making is that the understanding is already out there, including the reference you yourself gave. Meanwhile, two people in this thread - and you are one - are attempting to reinvent the wheel on this density topic to the extent that you are now questioning your own sources of knowledge.
The ref you linked to explains succinctly the change of density at constant MAP as one climbs. I'm at a loss to understand why you can't accept the explanation as it makes perfect sense. When one goes to altitude, for a given ambient pressure the density is higher. Ergo, when one goes to altitude, for a given MAP the density is higher.
What doesn't make sense is ft's hypothesis that if you set an MAP the density will also be
set at any altitude.
So before we go any further can you just confirm which of those two makes sense to you? Because so far you have swapped between both.
