blinking is overrated

Rapid succession of blinks detected at 0.53

blink 182

He did blink. Twice.

I just saw a Storch with Flat Panel Glass and those are likely plastic not glass ••• Only recently do we have Fleming & Penicillin or Lister then last I saw there are 2 YT channels with 92 Million that neither both of them have any content → You could tell these folks that Gary Powers was a Government Hoax and none of them likely used the Coffee can in a B-36 near Arctic Circle Of course they did; They have those sim toys

For any plane that has enough power at altitude to reach coffin corner, the corner is infinitely small hence the term corner. The only thing that determines the +-3kt range for the U2 is the mission decision to cruise at that particular density altitude. I'm not sure what I think of the Powers stalling theory as I simply don't know the handling characteristics of the U2 regarding stall, spin, and mach tuck with mid mission weight and balance.

Then it is a good thing Boeing decided to install elevator controls. Pilot must control the airplane, the airplane does not control the pilot.

+Alvin lap pretty much all of them are ok except gojet or expressjet. lol. if i was you id look into endeavor

What's wrong with Expressjet? They are great! The only problem at the moment is the "Expressjet side". The ASA side is great! Respectful, and healthy work environment. I think It's great, unless I don't know any better...

What does the stick shaker mean?

The point of the video is to discuss the relationship of temperature and the compressor section. Turbojet and turbofan can be used interchangeably in this instance as a turbofan is essentially nothing more than a turbojet engine wrapped in a ducted fan, and both would be affected similarly.

A stick shaker is a device that shakes/vibrates the stick when the aircraft is stalling.

Yeah that bit where they said that turbine engines are uniquely affected by altitude made no sense. For any fixed compression engine, power output will simply be a function of intake air density.

@@totoritko I think he doesn't quite have the thermodynamics knowledge needed to truly understand why they behave as they do. However i think the intent of what he said is more like turbines don't have a linear response to throttle and altitude while otto-cycles engines do respond fairly linear. (Anybody here fly a Diamond? I'd like to know how their diesel-cycle behave near the ceiling, and are those in particular turbo-supercharged or open air?)

lalomcnombres Correct that 80%ish of the thrust is generated by the fan at lower altitudes but the video was discussing high altitude performance where the majority of thrust is still created by the jet. Cheers!

Ok, I admit I'm not the smartest pilot of the bunch, buy this is the 1st I've heard that. Certainly available power decreases significantly at altitude, which is why you REALLY need to descend aggressively in a high altitude stall recovery- there's just no power available for recovery. What I don't get is how available thrust for the fan will decrease while the jet will maintain it's power. It still operates off "suck, squeeze, bang, blow", no? So wouldn't the decreased air density effect it as well?

Ed McNames Well, you're absolutely right that the jet loses some of its efficiency at high altitude but think about the fan (N1), it's basically working on the principles of a propeller to produce thrust. It helps us create very fuel efficient and faster (less spool up time) reacting thrust at low altitudes but when we get up into cruise it's the jet that is responsible for the majority of our thrust. Even though that jet, like you say, produces less thrust in less dense air, compared to the now highly ineffective fan, our N2 is the work horse. Hope that clears it up, mate!

Brian H. I'd really like to see some quotes and preferably a physical explanation for that, because what you are saying makes very little sense to me. In essence what you are claiming is that somehow turbine blades become less efficient at lower air densities. However, this creates several problems for a turbofan engine design. Here's how: the required compressor energy input is essentially directly proportionally to air density. Why? Because from the ideal gas law you can derive that the amount of work to compress gas is W=nRT ln(V2/V1). Since V2 and V1 are fixed in an engine and 'n' is directly proportional to air density, it follows that work 'W' is a direct function of air density. So assuming for simplicity that an engine operates at a fixed rated rpm, the turbines can't do anything *but* extract the exact same proportional amount of energy from the gas stream as a function of air density. If they extracted any other proportion, the compressor would either overspeed or underspeed. And since the fan is driven by turbines essentially no different to the turbines driving the compressor, it follows that the fan is still receiving the same proportion of energy from the engine core. This means that the core jet retains the same relative proportion of available residual energy to produce thrust and hence the energy ratio between core and bypass shouldn't change significantly. Of course, I might be missing something, so please point me in the right direction if you think I got something wrong.

yes

kip sig Find an honest mom and pop 141 school with decent rates. Avoid pilot mills like ATP. They screw people over on a daily bases and provide an awful product.

what do you think is the best institute to study aviation in America =?

@@owenkip-sigey5613 Training is different in the USA. Are you looking for a university degree in aviation? Are you only looking for pilot certification? Do you want a planned and scheduled program, or do you want to work at your own speed with your own airplane?

That is a typical rate for a 737 emergency descent from cruise to 10,000.