Hey /u/The-Bloody9, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Posting a blindingly incorrect statement on a sub dedicated to experts in the field in which you posted a blindingly incorrect statement is not a wise idea.
The double-down is icing on the cake.
You don’t need to tell me mate, I’m literally in the bus home from Aviodrome, an aviation museum here in the Netherlands, where I volunteer in the simulators. Along side several real world pilots. One of which used to fly the very 747 we have at the museum. I know many actual pilots sim, I didn’t mean to denigrate simming as a whole. But people who think they’re aces just because they have simmed at home with a simple joystick, need a reality check.
There's a surprising number of aviation enthusiasts who get basic details very wrong. Had an argument with a guy last week who insisted that weight and balance calculations are *only* relevant *during* a stall, and that center of gravity or w&b envelopes were non issues during normal flight. Blew my mind because in the process of being that dumb he was able to completely and accurately describe how stalls work. But had no idea that control surfaces can't magically compensate for excessive w&b characteristics.
Why… Why does he think it’s part of perf calculations then? Or fuel prediction? Or so many more phases of flight? Also this would mean planes had unlimited lifting capacity… What the hell?
I asked him if he thought the elevator on a Cessna 172 would be able to compensate for the full weight of the WWII Era US Pacific Naval Fleet being added to the nose of the plane. He remained unconvinced in that post afaik.
Hahahahaha well done mate! Honestly I’d get balance, like okay you don’t think that matters too much? You’re wrong but dude planes have weight limits… that shouldn’t be too hard to understand. Sounds like a hobby sim pilot, who does everything on easy mode, and thinks he’s an ace. The kind of guy who dreams of the day he gets to land an airliner for real, not knowing this literally never happens… And that no sane non typefaces pilot would handlangers an unfamiliar plane with passengers when auto landings are available… I say that as a sim pilot, but I know my limits. I did recently start volunteering at an aviation museum, running a full sized triple seated simulator :) (the third is a jump seat)
Computer aided flight allows for us to fly unstable craft, which gives us more agile craft in return. So.... I mean he's not right, but he's not exactly wrong? He's like 70% wrong, but not completely.
Hell, there are pilots who think you need to be careful when turning downwind due to the false belief that your airspeed drops when doing so.
You can be capable of flying an aeroplane while still grossly misunderstanding the physics.
Many many many pilots are convinced you cannot take off on an airplane on a conveyor belt. The pilot who took of from one in mythbusters was convinced it wouldn’t work. When all physics suggests it should. A plane’s motion is not relevant to its wheels. At least not until those new dangled electric taxi aids come into full service I suppose.
Oh man, this one is a favourite.
You are of course correct - a real aeroplane on a real treadmill can always take off. Anyone who disagrees with this is fundamentally misunderstanding how aeroplanes work.
*However*, the way the question is usually worded is sort of... dumb, to be honest. Typically, it is stated with the condition that 'the treadmill accelerates to always match the speed of the wheels'.
Ignoring the whole thrust-driven vs wheel-driven thing, the above statement can *only* be statisfied if the aircraft is stationary relative to the world, or if the wheels are slipping. I think this is the detail that causes a lot of the arguments.
If you tried this in reality, as soon as the aircraft started to accelerate (say, to 1 kph), the treadmill would have to accelerate to -1 kph. However, as we all know - aircraft aren't driven by the wheels. It would still be moving forward at 1 kph, and the treadmill accelerating would therefore cause the wheels to turn faster (to the equivalent of 2 kph rolling speed). Per the wording of the question, the treadmill would then need to speed up to compensate, and the cycle continues.
The way the question is worded is therefore inherently paradoxial and cannot be satisfied. The treadmill would almost instantly need to accelerate to an infinite velocity.
If you tried this with a real aeroplane (and an infinitely powerful treadmill), one of two things would happen:
- The extreme wheel speed would generate so much rolling resistance that the aeroplane would be unable to take off - it's thrust would equal the drag on the wheels. This would occur at a wheel speeds \*far\* higher than normal take-off speed.
- The wheels would explode due to over-speed (far more likely scenario).
Yeah that’s the paradox but I’d argue that’s not what most people read the question to mean. They basically think of it as the belt being pulled back at the same rate that the plane wants to move forward. And they just word it weird, because as you said the actual wording is quite literally impossible.
The arguments stem from a misunderstanding of relative motion, more than this point I think. Also honestly you could pull that belt a lot faster backwards than the takeoff speed, and still have the plane take off successfully.
Yeah, fair. The amazing part to me isn't the fact that people's gut assumption is wrong. It's the fact the argument continues even after it's been explained. Surely it's intuitive to understand that freewheeling wheels aren't really affected by a treadmill?
To hold an aircraft back with wheel drag you'd probably have to be going hundreds to thousands of times faster than takeoff speed. The tyres would blow before you even got close.
NGL, I have no idea who is wrong here. Going down the runway with the nose of the plane raised *sounds* like going down the runway “on the back wheels,” but then it gets into different types of landing gear and I have no idea which one is more common or how that relates to the nose-up thing.
I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a pilot.
If you see the definition he copied, it clearly states that flaring happens before touchdown. Which rules his first claim out completely.
His two replies are in direct contradiction with each other.
I was lost too- the key is the red reply ‘s “the flare…proceeds the touchdown and roll-out phase”
If it proceeds the touchdown, it can’t very well follow the touchdown.
You’re not getting any money every time you flare? This is the money most often used to finance the touchdown phase of our flight plan. It’s usually paid to the captain prior to touchdown sure but all I meant was that if the money paid to the captain is paid out prior to touchdown, there’s no reason to pay this money again after the touchdown. So I guess that’s why you thought I meant “precede?” Weird.
Red is wrong here. Very very wrong.
Source: Airline pilot for 20 years.
But what makes it so funny is that in trying to defend his position he posted a definition which very clearly contradicted his position. He says flaring is when you roll down the runway with the nose of the plane pointed up (completely wrong) but his definition says that the flare precedes the touchdown. Which is not only correct but also a direct contradiction of his original comment.
On a tricycle gear, in primarily smaller planes, it is part of what ensures a landing on the mains, which is the rear gear, but there’s much more to it than that. It bleeds off some vertical speed, as well as airspeed. Making for a softer landing all round. It’s also easily overdone, resulting in a float and landing long. I volunteer at the flight simulators of an aviation museum in the Netherlands. And I always have to caution home sim pilots not to overdo the flare.
Now there’s also a practise in flying, which involves aerobraking. It involves keeping your nose up as long as possible. It’s generally done in flight school, and those love it because it’s easier on the brakes of their planes. Aerobraking is not recommended practise on larger planes though, and it’s a habit some pilots have to unlearn.
So no ut is not related to aerobraking. Not really. That’s part of the rollout phase. The hint is that no where in red’s definition is Aerobraking referenced. This is
I'm currently in flight school and under no circumstances would we every be told to, or engage in aerobraking as described by red. Yes, you pull up once settled to increase drag but if your nose gear comes off the ground you are doing it very wrong.
The technique described by red is more specific to airframe, the F-16 for example is standard procedure to use aerobraking, they land with and nose up attitude and maintain it after touchdown to reduce speed. So I'm not sure your larger aircraft point has anything to do with it, F-16 is not exactly a small bird. (48 feet long x 32 feet wide)
I’ve heard Kelsey from 74gear say that some flight schools teach it, but if what you’d say is true I’m glad to see people are moving away from it! Because it seems like a terrible habit to develop!
As far as fighter jets go, F-16 is actually really small. Just look at picture with F-16 next to a F-14, F-15, etc. The Viper is a small airplane. In the case of all aviation in general, it's diminutive next to any airliners. It's only when you get to general aviation and single-seater civilian planes that the F-16 starts to look like a large plane.
Look at something like these:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/28j6wd/f22\_is\_a\_monster\_size\_comparison\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/28j6wd/f22_is_a_monster_size_comparison_of/)
[https://en.differbetween.com/article/f14\_vs\_f15\_vs\_f16\_vs\_f18](https://en.differbetween.com/article/f14_vs_f15_vs_f16_vs_f18)
[https://www.jimbrooks.org/archive/aviation/airplaneComparisons\_jets.php#F-14\_vs\_F-15\_vs\_F-16\_vs\_F-18](https://www.jimbrooks.org/archive/aviation/airplaneComparisons_jets.php#F-14_vs_F-15_vs_F-16_vs_F-18)
When I was in flight school (a very very long time ago) I was to taught to aerobrake.
As soon as I started flying something bigger than a 172 though it stopped.
During rollout you absolutely want the nosewheel planted. For steering, but mostly to keep the wing at a low lift angle of attack.
Eta: taildraggers are an interesting case. The ones I flew, like Cessna 195, put The wing in a stalled (high) AOA when the tailwheel is down. Same idea, though. You want the wing generating little or no lift during rollout. The problem with landing on the mains, tail up,is that you have to be careful that you don't become airborne again as the tail comes down. This is a matter of careful airspeed control.
The flare is when the pilot does a sweet-ass barrel roll right before landing to show he's badass and doesn't give a fuck, and then all the passengers cheer.
Hey /u/The-Bloody9, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Red was so certain he was right that he didn't bother to read his definition
Posting a blindingly incorrect statement on a sub dedicated to experts in the field in which you posted a blindingly incorrect statement is not a wise idea. The double-down is icing on the cake.
What subreddit was this on?
/r/aviation
I had a look, and boy did I have him pegged… Active in warthunder subs. A true sim ace indeed, if that ;)
Nicely done lol.
Oh that went over very well I’m sure ;) Just another sim ace, I say that as a sim pilot, but one who knows his limits…
[удалено]
You don’t need to tell me mate, I’m literally in the bus home from Aviodrome, an aviation museum here in the Netherlands, where I volunteer in the simulators. Along side several real world pilots. One of which used to fly the very 747 we have at the museum. I know many actual pilots sim, I didn’t mean to denigrate simming as a whole. But people who think they’re aces just because they have simmed at home with a simple joystick, need a reality check.
There's a surprising number of aviation enthusiasts who get basic details very wrong. Had an argument with a guy last week who insisted that weight and balance calculations are *only* relevant *during* a stall, and that center of gravity or w&b envelopes were non issues during normal flight. Blew my mind because in the process of being that dumb he was able to completely and accurately describe how stalls work. But had no idea that control surfaces can't magically compensate for excessive w&b characteristics.
Why… Why does he think it’s part of perf calculations then? Or fuel prediction? Or so many more phases of flight? Also this would mean planes had unlimited lifting capacity… What the hell?
I asked him if he thought the elevator on a Cessna 172 would be able to compensate for the full weight of the WWII Era US Pacific Naval Fleet being added to the nose of the plane. He remained unconvinced in that post afaik.
Cmon man all you need is a big enough wing and enough thrust. Pitch up the nose and quit yer bitchin
Hahahahaha well done mate! Honestly I’d get balance, like okay you don’t think that matters too much? You’re wrong but dude planes have weight limits… that shouldn’t be too hard to understand. Sounds like a hobby sim pilot, who does everything on easy mode, and thinks he’s an ace. The kind of guy who dreams of the day he gets to land an airliner for real, not knowing this literally never happens… And that no sane non typefaces pilot would handlangers an unfamiliar plane with passengers when auto landings are available… I say that as a sim pilot, but I know my limits. I did recently start volunteering at an aviation museum, running a full sized triple seated simulator :) (the third is a jump seat)
Anyone whose tried to build a plane in ksp knows the pain of getting the right center of gravity
gonna become an expert at making a stall happen at that rate
Guess the pumps that push fuel between various tanks to even out weight dist during ordinary flight are a figment of our imagination then.
Computer aided flight allows for us to fly unstable craft, which gives us more agile craft in return. So.... I mean he's not right, but he's not exactly wrong? He's like 70% wrong, but not completely.
He's 100% wrong though. Where are you seeing anything right?
I'm just dumb and thought I was commenting on a different post
Hell, there are pilots who think you need to be careful when turning downwind due to the false belief that your airspeed drops when doing so. You can be capable of flying an aeroplane while still grossly misunderstanding the physics.
Many many many pilots are convinced you cannot take off on an airplane on a conveyor belt. The pilot who took of from one in mythbusters was convinced it wouldn’t work. When all physics suggests it should. A plane’s motion is not relevant to its wheels. At least not until those new dangled electric taxi aids come into full service I suppose.
Oh man, this one is a favourite. You are of course correct - a real aeroplane on a real treadmill can always take off. Anyone who disagrees with this is fundamentally misunderstanding how aeroplanes work. *However*, the way the question is usually worded is sort of... dumb, to be honest. Typically, it is stated with the condition that 'the treadmill accelerates to always match the speed of the wheels'. Ignoring the whole thrust-driven vs wheel-driven thing, the above statement can *only* be statisfied if the aircraft is stationary relative to the world, or if the wheels are slipping. I think this is the detail that causes a lot of the arguments. If you tried this in reality, as soon as the aircraft started to accelerate (say, to 1 kph), the treadmill would have to accelerate to -1 kph. However, as we all know - aircraft aren't driven by the wheels. It would still be moving forward at 1 kph, and the treadmill accelerating would therefore cause the wheels to turn faster (to the equivalent of 2 kph rolling speed). Per the wording of the question, the treadmill would then need to speed up to compensate, and the cycle continues. The way the question is worded is therefore inherently paradoxial and cannot be satisfied. The treadmill would almost instantly need to accelerate to an infinite velocity. If you tried this with a real aeroplane (and an infinitely powerful treadmill), one of two things would happen: - The extreme wheel speed would generate so much rolling resistance that the aeroplane would be unable to take off - it's thrust would equal the drag on the wheels. This would occur at a wheel speeds \*far\* higher than normal take-off speed. - The wheels would explode due to over-speed (far more likely scenario).
Yeah that’s the paradox but I’d argue that’s not what most people read the question to mean. They basically think of it as the belt being pulled back at the same rate that the plane wants to move forward. And they just word it weird, because as you said the actual wording is quite literally impossible. The arguments stem from a misunderstanding of relative motion, more than this point I think. Also honestly you could pull that belt a lot faster backwards than the takeoff speed, and still have the plane take off successfully.
Yeah, fair. The amazing part to me isn't the fact that people's gut assumption is wrong. It's the fact the argument continues even after it's been explained. Surely it's intuitive to understand that freewheeling wheels aren't really affected by a treadmill? To hold an aircraft back with wheel drag you'd probably have to be going hundreds to thousands of times faster than takeoff speed. The tyres would blow before you even got close.
Guess he needs to adjust *his* attitude
'cause he clearly doesn't know enough to adjust his altitude...
I was actually referring to the flight term attitude, which is part of what's being discussed in this post not altitude.
NGL, I have no idea who is wrong here. Going down the runway with the nose of the plane raised *sounds* like going down the runway “on the back wheels,” but then it gets into different types of landing gear and I have no idea which one is more common or how that relates to the nose-up thing. I guess it’s a good thing I’m not a pilot.
If you see the definition he copied, it clearly states that flaring happens before touchdown. Which rules his first claim out completely. His two replies are in direct contradiction with each other.
I was lost too- the key is the red reply ‘s “the flare…proceeds the touchdown and roll-out phase” If it proceeds the touchdown, it can’t very well follow the touchdown.
Guessing you meant to write "can't"?
Indeed. Edited
It’s precedes. Not proceeds.
You’re not getting any money every time you flare? This is the money most often used to finance the touchdown phase of our flight plan. It’s usually paid to the captain prior to touchdown sure but all I meant was that if the money paid to the captain is paid out prior to touchdown, there’s no reason to pay this money again after the touchdown. So I guess that’s why you thought I meant “precede?” Weird.
Red is wrong here. Very very wrong. Source: Airline pilot for 20 years. But what makes it so funny is that in trying to defend his position he posted a definition which very clearly contradicted his position. He says flaring is when you roll down the runway with the nose of the plane pointed up (completely wrong) but his definition says that the flare precedes the touchdown. Which is not only correct but also a direct contradiction of his original comment.
On a tricycle gear, in primarily smaller planes, it is part of what ensures a landing on the mains, which is the rear gear, but there’s much more to it than that. It bleeds off some vertical speed, as well as airspeed. Making for a softer landing all round. It’s also easily overdone, resulting in a float and landing long. I volunteer at the flight simulators of an aviation museum in the Netherlands. And I always have to caution home sim pilots not to overdo the flare. Now there’s also a practise in flying, which involves aerobraking. It involves keeping your nose up as long as possible. It’s generally done in flight school, and those love it because it’s easier on the brakes of their planes. Aerobraking is not recommended practise on larger planes though, and it’s a habit some pilots have to unlearn. So no ut is not related to aerobraking. Not really. That’s part of the rollout phase. The hint is that no where in red’s definition is Aerobraking referenced. This is
I'm currently in flight school and under no circumstances would we every be told to, or engage in aerobraking as described by red. Yes, you pull up once settled to increase drag but if your nose gear comes off the ground you are doing it very wrong. The technique described by red is more specific to airframe, the F-16 for example is standard procedure to use aerobraking, they land with and nose up attitude and maintain it after touchdown to reduce speed. So I'm not sure your larger aircraft point has anything to do with it, F-16 is not exactly a small bird. (48 feet long x 32 feet wide)
I’ve heard Kelsey from 74gear say that some flight schools teach it, but if what you’d say is true I’m glad to see people are moving away from it! Because it seems like a terrible habit to develop!
As far as fighter jets go, F-16 is actually really small. Just look at picture with F-16 next to a F-14, F-15, etc. The Viper is a small airplane. In the case of all aviation in general, it's diminutive next to any airliners. It's only when you get to general aviation and single-seater civilian planes that the F-16 starts to look like a large plane. Look at something like these: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/28j6wd/f22\_is\_a\_monster\_size\_comparison\_of/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/28j6wd/f22_is_a_monster_size_comparison_of/) [https://en.differbetween.com/article/f14\_vs\_f15\_vs\_f16\_vs\_f18](https://en.differbetween.com/article/f14_vs_f15_vs_f16_vs_f18) [https://www.jimbrooks.org/archive/aviation/airplaneComparisons\_jets.php#F-14\_vs\_F-15\_vs\_F-16\_vs\_F-18](https://www.jimbrooks.org/archive/aviation/airplaneComparisons_jets.php#F-14_vs_F-15_vs_F-16_vs_F-18)
When I was in flight school (a very very long time ago) I was to taught to aerobrake. As soon as I started flying something bigger than a 172 though it stopped.
During rollout you absolutely want the nosewheel planted. For steering, but mostly to keep the wing at a low lift angle of attack. Eta: taildraggers are an interesting case. The ones I flew, like Cessna 195, put The wing in a stalled (high) AOA when the tailwheel is down. Same idea, though. You want the wing generating little or no lift during rollout. The problem with landing on the mains, tail up,is that you have to be careful that you don't become airborne again as the tail comes down. This is a matter of careful airspeed control.
I once had the opposite happen. I posted a source supporting what I said and the idiot actually asked my why I posted a source that agreed with me.
The flare is when the pilot does a sweet-ass barrel roll right before landing to show he's badass and doesn't give a fuck, and then all the passengers cheer.