It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by turbofan
Is this "the" R_Mackey?
Much respect for doing the right thing if so.
posted by turbofan
Is this "the" R_Mackey?
Much respect for doing the right thing if so.
posted by ImAPepper
No, it isn't. Ryan has been asked on a few occasions to join and has refused. If you read Mackey's posts on JREF, you would know this isn't him.
More likely Rob Balsomo or one of his friends.
posted by 911files
reply to post by ImAPepper
No Pepper, this is Mackey for sure. He is just mad at me cause I took issue with him on measurement error once and is getting payback. But that is okay though, I'm starting to understand why they had a tough time getting the Ares rocket off the ground this week.
Originally posted by ImAPepper
Originally posted by turbofan
Is this "the" R_Mackey?
Much respect for doing the right thing if so.
No, it isn't. Ryan has been asked on a few occasions to join and has refused. If you read Mackey's posts on JREF, you would know this isn't him.
More likely Rob Balsomo or one of his friends.
Impact sensing would include accelerometers no doubt.
I read something about Bleed Air Ducts, however I'd have to look into that further.
Engine smoke would be picked up by Air/Fuel ratio sensors, fuel and/or oil pressure sensors, turbine RPM sensors ...ummm...what else...
Originally posted by SPreston
John Farmer is infamous for his mathematical errors of epic proportions.
posted by 911files
Preston, you guys crack me up. I guess since the guys at JREF caught this and are talking about it, might as well let the proverbial 'cat out of the bag'.
No it not Mackey but I was going to play along for awhile for the fun of it with the real Mackey's consent
...the incessant errors JREF disinformation specialists 911files and Reheat and weedwhacker have been spitting out.
Gee Dr Pepper; a busy little beaver making false accusations again? It seems that the NASA rocket scientist joined up specifically on October 30 2009 to correct the incessant errors JREF disinformation specialists 911files and Reheat and weedwhacker have been spitting out. Why would Rob Balsamo or one of his friends want to be a NASA rocket scientist?
Can you point out where in the last few pages that Ryan Mackey is in error? John Farmer is infamous for his mathematical errors of epic proportions.
Originally posted by R_Mackey
Originally posted by Pilgrum
You're also not doing your credibility any favours by adhering to a claim that a PA reading at about 100' or less from the ground (within 20' at best) is superior in accuracy to the radio height indication (within 1'). .
The Main altimeter on an aircraft comes off the Air Data Computer. It is based on pressure and is highly accurate.
It is true that the Radar Altimeter is more accurate, but where the difference resides is in the fact Baro Altitude is above a known object (sea level) whereas Radar Altitude is not above any known object. This is why a Baro altimeter is primary for IFR flight and a Radar Altimeter is not even required to fly an approach to minimums served by 99.9% of the flying public.
Being that you know exactly how high you are above a determined object within 20 feet in Baro Alt (MSL), verses the fact you do not know how high you are above any specific object in Radar Altitude, Baro altitude is more accurate for placement of an aircraft in time and space.
How accurate is the ADC when the aircraft is beyond certification speed and there is no correction value from flight tests, because there was no flight test done at 100 feet MSL above the certification speed? Vmo is 350/355 KCAS? 77 is going 483KIAS at 100 feet MSL.
An aircraft altimeter which has the current altimeter setting applied to the subscale should not have an error of more than ± 50 ft when compared on the ground against a known aerodrome/runway elevation. Altimeter initial certification requirements are ± 20 ft. at sea level increasing to ± 230 ft. at 40,000 ft. If the error is more than ± 50 ft. the accuracy of the altimeter is questionable and the problem should be investigated prior to flight. Investigation could include updating the altimeter setting, comparing with other altimeters, adjusting for height of location of altimeter and many other possibilities.
A radar altimeter indicates absolute altitude above the surface of the earth.
Originally posted by Reheat
Speaking of mistakes, I wonder why those "verified by the FAA" cult have not corrected "the technologist's" mistake and misleading statements about baro altimeter accuracy. The 20' accuracy that Turbo has been touting is a manufacturer's tolerance on the instrument itself which does not include the piping and other installation issue such as, placement and performance of the static ports. Consequently, it is misleading and WRONG. It is obviously aimed to mislead those who don't know the difference between the instrument itself and the installed system.
Originally posted by trebor451
Originally posted by Reheat
Speaking of mistakes, I wonder why those "verified by the FAA" cult have not corrected "the technologist's" mistake and misleading statements about baro altimeter accuracy. The 20' accuracy that Turbo has been touting is a manufacturer's tolerance on the instrument itself which does not include the piping and other installation issue such as, placement and performance of the static ports. Consequently, it is misleading and WRONG. It is obviously aimed to mislead those who don't know the difference between the instrument itself and the installed system.
Nor does Turbo understand that those numbers he was quoting were for operations within normal operating conditions.
Originally posted by Reheat
This is absolutely correct and I failed to include that. It doesn't even have to include any pressure anomalies around the static ports as previously suggested as a potential for errors. Since the altitude signal goes through the Air Data Computer (ADC) and the ADC had never seen that speed at that pressure it's anybody's guess at how that would affect the signal.
Originally posted by SPreston
Ryan Mackey is indeed a famous personage, in addition to being a NASA rocket scientist spouting disinformation from the Forum of Magicians and Illusion.
The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey
Originally posted by Pilgrum
Maybe I'm getting too lazy to look up operating specs and algorithms so perhaps someone could tell me (and everyone) a little more in-depth info on the radar altimeter operation.
There are 4 of them in this case - are they all in continuous operation and simply polled in sequence at 1 second intervals or is there some averaging function built into either them or the recorder's software?
Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I'm getting at is whether the returned readings are instantaneous at the moment of polling or do they have a 'smoothing' function built in. If there's any degree of averaging or smoothing built in to the individual devices' firmware it would rule out a spurious and extremely odd reading like what we'd expect from passing over a car, tree, whatever that could produce a lower reading than actual ground level.