Jet Fan

You think turn and turd are synonymous.
What does that say about your flying?

So, the "discussion" doesn't seem to be going you way now, does it...….

Thank you for admitting the fact that in one IRF the air is still (actually, in an INFINATE number, but I digress),

So, that is established physics. Can you dynamically soar instill air?

Yes, "Galilleo's ship" is often sited, but Newton expressed it best.

If you know this, how come you can't figure out it invalidates your claim?

You use airspeeds and groundspeed in the same diagram-that is, vectors from different IRFs. The velocity of an aircraft doesn't "consist of" airspeed components and groundspeed components, it's velocity can be expressed as one or the other (or, indeed, be expressed reference any OTHER IRF). You try and take velocity from one frame and claim it effects the aircraft in another.

You can't do that.

then:


Your responses are getting less and less rational as time goes on. This *is* physics, the idea that it has anything more than a passing connection to meteorology is just absurd. If we were discussing a boat in the river would you insist it was hydrology, not physics?

Actually, I think your theory is a turd, a stinking one.

You should probably realize that when the guy with whom you're discussing the physics of a turning airplane says that the principles of physics don't apply because it's "meteorology", any chance of in intelligent conversation has completely vanished.

Jet Fan called it when he said:

Exactly, you may as well beat your head against the wall debating with a Flat Earther or a Chemtrail believer. All these type possess a defect in their reasoning. It doesn't matter how rationally you explain his errors, there will always be some irrational defense mechanism which kicks in to avoid seeing reality. In this case, Brercrow has pretty conclusively demonstrated that he's a member of that club by claiming that the principles of physics don't apply to a discussion of the motion of an airplane.

I never expected the guy to turn up. I just imagined we'd all agree the theory was rubbish. I obviously never expected others to rally to his cause.

His not exactly 100% behind his own theory either. There's zero verifiable information about Colin Taylor on his website, no picture, no nothing. He may not even exist and this could all be a massive troll. Maybe he saw something nasty in the woodshed, involving a naked man wearing a big watch who had a small....

I've already told you what's wrong with it. :ugh:

You can in the universe where the earth is flat, and airliners spray population control chemicals on the masses.

Brercrow
In diagram A) you say VG = VA +/- W: Therefore difference = 2W.
In diagram B) you say VG = W +/- VA : Therefore difference = 2VA.

In A you use the aircraft’s velocity as a reference, in B you use the Wind vector as a reference.

In the link you posted #201 The Downwind Turn, “Ft” is Zero. It does not exist. There is no FWD / AFT acceleration on the aircraft. There is only a centripetal acceleration towards the centre of the turn in the moving air mass (i.e. relative to the aircraft wing). The ground velocity changes by the vector addition of wind + aircraft's instantaneous heading and airspeed.

If you don't understand the difference then I can't help you.

No fair!!!!

Pprune towers has taken our chew-toy away!

Who are we going to point at and laugh now??