[NSRCA-discussion] What a difference a year makes

Wed Mar 20 17:00:30 AKDT 2013

I don't know about you, but my Wong is in no way too lightly loaded. 😄

Matt

On Mar 20, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Keith Hoard <klhoard at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Actually stopping has nothing to do with a stall, it is when the wing exceeds the critical angle of attack. That can happen at very high speeds if the plane is heavy enough or you pull the stick back hard enough. 
> 
> Our pattern planes are too lightly Wong loaded to induce a stall at cruise speed. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Mar 20, 2013, at 19:17, "Phil S." <chuenkan at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> Jerry's right:  if the airplane don't stop forward motion, it ain't a stall.  And our planes don't stop in a snap roll...
>> Phil Spelt, KCRC Past President
>> AMA 1294 Scientific Leader Member
>> SPA 177 Board Member
>> (865)435-1476v, (865)604-0541c
>> 
>> On 3/20/2013 7:06 PM, Ronald Van Putte wrote:
>>> 
>>> Yeah!  According to Jerry, we don't really do a stall during our snaps and we're supposed to demonstrate a stall.
>>> 
>>> Ron
>>> 
>>> On Mar 20, 2013, at 5:59 PM, Jon Lowe wrote:
>>> 
>>>> OK guys, lets end this.  Back to discussing toy airplanes and what constitutes a snap!
>>>> Jon
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Bill's Email <silentav8r at cox.net>
>>>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Wed, Mar 20, 2013 5:49 pm
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] What a difference a year makes
>>>> 
>>>> This is where we have a huge ideological schism. You appear to think that science and data have political leanings. I do not. Certainly there is biased science, as is evidenced by the tobacco companies that found smoking to be harmless. And as a scientist you certainly understand that there is always disagreement, but one need to look at the preponderance of research and data when drawing a conclusion. In this instance that body of evidence comes down squarely in favor of global warming/climate change. To attempt to dismiss it on a political or ideological basis is less than what I would expect from a trained scientist.
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, I agree about the irony of MTBE, as well as the whole host of other fuel oxygenates, causing unforeseen consequences. Yet I draw a completely different conclusion. Fuel oxygenates have been unequivocally proven to reduce emissions and lessen pollution. To say that the decision to implement their use is flawed because of that unforeseen consequence to me is not a valid conclusion. Clearly the issue was improper containment systems which were addressed in the requirement to replace all USTs with either Plasteel or double-walled fiberglass. The problem is not MTBE in fuel. The problem is leaking tanks. The new regulations have resulted in a drastically reduced number of unauthorized releases.
>>>> 
>>>> On balance I think it can be argued that the environmental damage caused by MTBE is significantly less that the impact of severe air pollution. So I guess it is a lesser of two evils argument in a way. However, the point remains that what was done is far better than having done nothing. Certainly MTBE has caused significant impact, especially to the water supplies of particular cities such as Santa Monica. But again, the widespread and chronic negative effects of air pollution in my mind still justify that decision.
>>>> 
>>>> I agree that we must always examine science with a critical eye, but at some point the evidence is clear. Where politics comes into it is when we try to determine what to do about it. But if we continue to dismiss science and make people distrust it based on politics or dogma then I think that is a huge disservice to society. As I have said before. I'm willing to debate all dat long about what we can or should do about global climate change, but if we try to address the issue by pretending it is a hoax then I think we are all in trouble.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW - ice cores are very cool indeed, FROZEN in fact ;~}
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 3/20/13 3:23 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>>  
>>>>> I can only claim to be a geologist by education, having spent my career in the environmental field.  And I am honestly envious of your experience with the Antartic ice cores…very cool stuff.
>>>>>  
>>>>> There is no doubt that specific data sets with specific analyses can show not only increasing temperatures, but even linkage to human activity.  Skeptical Science is well known left leaning website.  We can disagree on the politics.
>>>>>  
>>>>> If I were not rather busy (to say the least) at the moment building a 43” long foamy with contra system at a target weight of 85 grams for ETOC, I’d dig up a number of links that are neutral or contrary to the specific topics you (Bill) noted.
>>>>>  
>>>>> And as I stated before, I’m not advocating all environmental regulations be canned, but the big picture and a balance of data and perspectives should be considered.  I spent much of my professional career cleaning up MTBE, which was forced on the petroleum industry despite warnings it would do more harm than good.  Just one example of a politically driven knee jerk reaction that despite intentions of helping the environment ended up harming the environment.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Dave
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill's Email
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:44 PM
>>>>> To: General pattern discussion
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] What a difference a year makes
>>>>>  
>>>>> Every good rant deserves a rebuttal. Here's mine.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/20/13 1:17 PM, Dave Lockhart wrote:
>>>>> The reason for that is some of the same “scientists” that (wrongly) touted global cooling in the 1970s are the same ones now (wrongly) preaching global warming.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Which ones are those?? Got any examples?? I think you may have a mistaken impression of the state of scientific thought at the time as well as today. This is a good graphic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=43
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> The simple change of language from “global warming” to “climate change” should be proof enough that global warming is not happening.
>>>>> This is not only wrong, but it is kind of a silly "proof". The main reason that the term has been changed was due to fact that many deniers made silly comments like "well it snowed here today, so much for global warming". The more precise term is in fact global climate change. That is being fueled by the increase in average global temperatures which are drastically affecting the climate. It is also worth understanding the difference between climate and weather.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> However, the politicians and greenies that used “global warming” as justification for bigger government and more government control of the private sector do not want to lose that traction as the fraud of global warming is being disproven.
>>>>> Again, this so wildly misunderstands the issue that it is hard to know where to start to respond. It is an example of the thinking that Al Gore invented global warming to take away your SUV.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   So they (the politicians and greenies) are now using “climate change” in a desperate attempt to tie any naturally occurring climate condition to human influence.
>>>>> No, they are using climate change for the reason I stated above.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here are a few nice graphics for people to look at. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm sorry, but the inability of any one person (or group of people) to understand something does not mean that the something is wrong. For instance, there are still people today who think the Earth is flat.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anthropomorphic influence on global warming/climate change is undeniable. I will grant that there is still much debate about what, if anything, we can do about it. But to deny its very existence will render that important debate nearly impossible.
>>>>> 
>>>>> BTW - for those that wonder. I am a geologist by education and profession. Way back in 1983 I helped in some of the early research on the deep ice cores from the Antarctic. This is not a recent science.
>>>>> 
>>>>> End of Rant for me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20130321/71c7c83d/attachment.html>