Originally Posted by Clandestino
Our esteemed PPRuNe colleague seems to share another trait with the legendary captain Dudley: persistence. While obvious t-person is obvious, his marveling on application of the second Newton's law on the frozen 737 racing down the runway with too low thrust (How did he achieve the V2? - See NTSB report, findings, #20) shows where many a debate here takes a wrong turn; folks with feeble grasp of elementary physics, building up advanced aerodynamic theories on flawed basic notions.
Considering the laws of aerodynamics, that Mother Nature applies with absolute impartiality while showing no mercy….
Perhaps if our colleague here weren’t quite so “lost in Babylon” as he claims he is, he might be able to make himself just “a tad” more understandable. For example: am I the only one here who read “…while obvious t-person is obvious…” numerous times, each time attempting to understand just what the heck was being said? Immediately following that statement, we read “..his marveling on application of the second Newton’s law on the frozen 737 racing down the runway with too low thrust (how did he achieve V2? – See NTSB report, findings, #20)…” Again … am I the only one who read this while scratching his head, wondering … “what in the heck does THAT mean?” In the sheer hope that his reference to NTSB report finding #20 would provide some clue as to what he meant, I re-read that finding. It says, “The aircraft accelerated at a lower-than-normal rate during takeoff, requiring 45 seconds and nearly 5,400 feet of runway, 15 seconds and nearly 2,000 feet more than normal, to reach liftoff speed.” So, was the “real” point being made that the flight crew used less than full engine thrust on the takeoff? Geeze, I thought we all knew that. So … maybe we were being reminded that it was the use of that lower thrust level that caused the airplane to take 45 seconds and nearly 5400 feet of runway to reach liftoff speed? Geeze … again, I think we all knew that as well. So, perhaps he was making the point that many debates and some airplane takeoffs take a wrong turn? Ummm … I just don't know! Was he trying to let us know that he has a “feeble grasp of elementary physics” … and this sometimes causes him to “…build up advanced aerodynamic theories on flawed basic notions?” I’m not sure … maybe. Unfortunately, he jumps from this train of thought to one involving psychologists, penal law experts, Mother Nature., and cockpit ignoramuses – leaving us to determine into which category he would place himself … I guess.
Oh wait, wait … I think I’ve got it … perhaps Clandestino wants all of us to understand that when you have a group of “psychologists” who engage in a debate on penal law while attempting to rush a “frozen 737” down a runway, if they use “too low thrust” they just may “take a wrong turn” and have to appeal to Mother Nature, who will, as he correctly points out, meet out her decisions, “…with absolute impartiality while showing no mercy.” Or .... well ... maybe not.