Circumnavigation (99+21) The Grand Feint

[wildone]

 

wildone, on 08 May 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

Okay, I don't know why, but have we discussed Grundig's role in this

 

I think Greg Fowler kept him out of the loop for a reason

 

There, that is my one prediction

 

Thanks for the chapter CJ :bow:

 

 

 

 

Thanks, and thanks for acknowledging that it's cliffhanger-free!

 

 

 

 

Just where do you get that I acknowledged it being cliffhanger free?

[Benji]

Just where do you get that I acknowledged it being cliffhanger free?

 

................In the goats mind Steve, all in the goats mind!!! LOL!, it seems he has forgotten to post the title of the next chapter (unless I missed it)

[C James]

As for the Bellevue land in WA - it's in the narration that it's pure coincidence. However, we also know that, coincidental it might be, but there will be ramifications.

 

The Bellevue airstrip and gold mine... yep, it's just a coincidence. It caught me by surprise; I was looking for a strip near Mt. Kieth on the Goldfeilds highway. I knew there were a couple, and found that one in google earth. Then I saw the name, and thought, "oh crap," but then it occurred to me that coincidences happen, and can affect events.

 

Roughly the airspeed indicator in the Debonair is a measure of the impact of the air on the pitot tube and airframe. The ground speed is much higher at 10000 feet. It is incorrect to reduce the impact by 31%. A second problem is that at high angles of attack the indicated airspeed is lower as less and less frontal area of the pitot tube is exposed to the airstream. Bernoulli would probably kick in and at 90 dgrees you could use the pitot tube to create a vacuum. I am glad you did the flat plate calculation. I did the same thing to try and convince the contractor to bolt my new shed to the slab. We get high winds here at the base of the Chugach Mountains in the fall.

 

But the narration does not say indicated airspeed, so it means actual, so the 31% is accurate.

 

You live in some very windy country! I do as well, but not as much as you. The wind only gets above 80mph a few times a year here.

 

I'm still not certain what Bridget is looking for is aboard Kookaburra. Don't forget Ned did some major repair and remodeling work soon after Rachael got to Aussie.

 

Yep, cut off the bows (one was damaged) and put on new ones, to make her hull like a Lagoon 57.

 

Yep the bows were taken off Aries and by the looks of it they were put onto Atlantis by Ned, who said he had disposed of them....

 

Ned does seem to leave things laying about his yard a lot, doesn't he? On the other hand, I can see why he might not want to keep them; he fiddled the paperwork for the boat, and wouldn't want to leave evidence of shenanigans about.

 

I acknowledged it being cliffhanger free

 

Yes, I know you did, and I thank you for it.

LOL!, it seems he has forgotten to post the title of the next chapter (unless I missed it)

 

It's "Wheels within Wheels".

[ret2ak]

CJ says

"But the narration does not say indicated airspeed, so it means actual, so the 31% is accurate. "

 

That is complete and total nonsense. Mr. B's information is an indicated airspeed indicator. I am really surprised you would try to bluff your way out of this.

[ret2ak]

This is so much fun. Let us take C"Mitch"James at his word. Then

from www.csgn.network.com/tasinfocalc.html Mathematically increase your indicated airspeed (IAS) by 2% per thousand feet of altitude to obtain the true airspeed (TAS).

Direct quotes from CJames:

"take into account angle of attack, 70mph, and then factor in propwash."

"But the narration does not say indicated airspeed, so it means actual, so the 31% is accurate."

Therefore indicated airspeed from CJ himself is lower at 56 mph. 70-2/100x10*70=56 IAS

From Handbook for v35 Bonanza the V tailed version of the Debonair with almost identical characteristics:

Power on stall gear and flaps up indicated air speed 63 mph.

The conclusion.

The Debonair is in a deep stall and falling out of the sky like Air France 447.

[ret2ak]

I should not have applied the 2% to the TAS in this rule of thumb calculation. Correcting, the IAS would then be 58 mph. Now I can not resist throwing in two more factors. The temperatures in Australia would be higher than standard and the air would be thinner making the 2% too low. Secondly the Beechcraft table says power on. Full power would make them look better (as would sea level data) with a lower stall speed at 63 mph The handbook gives power off stall at 74 mph. The story has a power setting of about 75%, The high altitude reduces power available unless it is turbocharged.

Edited May 12, 2012 by ret2ak

[C James]

CJ says

"But the narration does not say indicated airspeed, so it means actual, so the 31% is accurate. "

 

That is complete and total nonsense. Mr. B's information is an indicated airspeed indicator. I am really surprised you would try to bluff your way out of this.

 

You're wrong, that's no bluff. It happens to be a fact, based on what the narration in a third person story HAS to be; it's actual, not subjective, for everything, unless it says so. It's not relevant where Basingstoke gets his info, nor what he thinks the airspeed is, for the purposes of a narrative statement. In a third person narrative, all such things are absolutes, not character subjective, unless stated as such. I can point to countless examples of you like, including all the cases where Trevor's indian ocean navigation was off by a bit or a lot, or when I list a distance, etc. If it's what the character is thinking or seeing, I have to say so.

 

If the narration says that a car is going 50mph, that's how fast it's going, regarless of what its spedomiter says. If the narration says that a building is ten stories tall, that's how tall it is. If the narration says that the character thinks somthing, or sees something, then it's subjective info reflecting the character's beleifs, experaince, etc. Otherwise, if something is stated in narration (not dialog) it is absolute. Those aren't my rules, those are the rules of third person narrative.

 

This is so much fun. Let us take C"Mitch"James at his word. Then

from www.csgn.network.com/tasinfocalc.html Mathematically increase your indicated airspeed (IAS) by 2% per thousand feet of altitude to obtain the true airspeed (TAS).

Direct quotes from CJames:

"take into account angle of attack, 70mph, and then factor in propwash."

"But the narration does not say indicated airspeed, so it means actual, so the 31% is accurate."

Therefore indicated airspeed from CJ himself is lower at 56 mph. 70-2/100x10*70=56 IAS

From Handbook for v35 Bonanza the V tailed version of the Debonair with almost identical characteristics:

Power on stall gear and flaps up indicated air speed 63 mph.

The conclusion.

The Debonair is in a deep stall and falling out of the sky like Air France 447.

 

Now this is entirely plausible, because I think you're right, the airspeed is too low. Yes, I'm standing by my claim that the airspeed is stated as an absolute, even though that potentially replaces a somewhat hard to open (put still feasible) door with a plot-wrecking full on stall.

 

If you're thinking that I forgot to convert true airspeed to indicated when I considered stall speed,while writing the chapter, you're right, I did, and that was a mistake.

 

My references, found online, list both 51 and 52 knots, though most DON'T say if that's clean or dirty. I've found one that is supposedly from the manual, and it says, Cruise speed 161 kts @ 75% Power Maximum speed 203 kts Stall speed Full Flaps 44 kts Stall speed No Flaps 51 kts Rate of climb 1,280 fpm Glide ratio 8:1 Take Off Roll Distance 572 ft Take Off Distance 1,294 ft Landing Distance 610 ft Loading +4 G’s, -2 G’s Maximum Range 1100 nm Maximum Endurance 6.5 hrs @ 135 kts Fuel Consumption 16.5 gph @ 75% Power Powerplant IO-520BB

 

If we say 51knots, that rinds up to 59mph, and that'd be indicated airspeed. That does not say if it's power off or power on. Some planes, especially with no flaps and gear up, have little difference there; it dpends on where on the wing the flow first starts breaking. If it's not in the propwash, there's little effect, BUT, most stalls begin near the wing root. I have no idea on a Deb. Anyway, If she was in stall buffet, her nose would drop, as it was doing anyway. We both know that there's a huge difference between entering stall conditions and a full stall, ala AF447. In a deb or similar, you are not going to suddenly transition to vertical decent. You'd have to keep pulling back on the stick or yoke, like they did on AF447. The only real difference here is stall buffeting would make it easier to get out, due to more of the door being in the wing shadow (due to effectively increased angle of attack).

 

Also bear the dynamic envelope in mind; the Deb is topping out of a zoom climb, her nose dropping. That's a different dynamic envelope regarding stall than straight-and-level. She's basically already doing a stall recovery.

 

Now, is she turbocharged? Good question! Some Debs were, some weren't. The one I flew wasn't. The narration has never said this one is, so lets assume not, so at 15k, she'd have far less power, but at ten k? The Deb seems (to me anyway) to fly the best for cruise between 7k and 11k, and I don't recall significant power loss in any type of plane below 10k (that's subjective, so take with a grain of salt, especially as it's been a lot of years). I've had planes, even an old Cherokee, over 15k many times, though yeah, they start to labor past 13k. I've even had my SUV (a 4x4 with a 6 cyl engine) over 14k, though I didn't notice a big power drop (but, that's a fuel injected engine.).

 

I should not have applied the 2% to the TAS in this rule of thumb calculation. Correcting, the IAS would then be 58 mph. Now I can not resist throwing in two more factors. The temperatures in Australia would be higher than standard and the air would be thinner making the 2% too low. Secondly the Beechcraft table says power on. Full power would make them look better (as would sea level data) with a lower stall speed at 63 mph The handbook gives power off stall at 74 mph. The story has a power setting of about 75%, The high altitude reduces power available unless it is turbocharged.

 

The temps in Oz... He's at 10,000 feet, so ground temps are little guide. I live at 7000 feet, and my temps are routinely 20 degrees or more cooler than Phoenix, 6000 feet lower. I also remember summer flying and heading upstairs for cooler air. So, how much cooler would it be at 10,000 feet in that climate? I'm not sure, but I do know it'd be a lot cooler than ground level. As a guesstimate, let's use a standard lapse rate:

Altitude Pressure Temp. Density -

(ft) (in. Hg) (F.) slugs per cubic foot

0 29.92 59.0 0.002378

1,000 28.86 55.4 0.002309

2,000 27.82 51.9 0.002242

3,000 26.82 48.3 0.002176

4,000 25.84 44.7 0.002112

5,000 24.89 41.2 0.002049

6,000 23.98 37.6 0.001988

7,000 23.09 34.0 0.001928

8,000 22.22 30.5 0.001869

9,000 21.38 26.9 0.001812

10,000 20.57 23.3 0.001756

11,000 19.79 19.8 0.001701

12,000 19.02 16.2 0.001648

13,000 18.29 12.6 0.001596

14,000 17.57 9.1 0.001545

15,000 16.88 5.5 0.001496

 

That gives us density and temperate guides. Granted, the air temp in summer in Geraldton (which has a Mediteranian type climate, dominated by the onshore flow) is warmer, and the mean high in January is 21.8 c, so 71.24F, and this was close to mid day. Still, the table gives us a guide - a rule of thumb, for lapse rate.

 

So, at 70mph actual, at 75% power, at 10k feet, using the OAT estimation correction of .02, that gives us and indicated airspeed of 58mph, which is 50.5 knots. That's below stall onset, per the manual, which is 51 knots.

I think that's plausible for a breif moment with the nose already dropping, BUT, it's wrong in another way; Basingstoke is a good pilot, he would NOT try this so close to the edge of the envelope - he'd know that the plane could enter full stall and spin, which there would be zero chance of the autopilot revcovering from. He'd want a margin. I think his speed's too low as written. Maybe the actual should be bumped up by 5mph? Or drop the altitude by a thousand or two?

[wildone]

I'm still confused with where I claimed what you are claiming I said CJ

 

You two are gonna make my head explode

[Daddydavek]

Does fiction really have rules anymore? And even if one were to argue that it does, anyone could find dozens of examples to show how the so-called rules are routinely broken, ignored or even mocked.

 

For the sake of the story, readers always have to suspend their belief systems to some extent even in a long drawn out saga that tries to stay internally consistent like CJ's.

 

So in a nutshell: What's the big deal?

[C James]

I'm still confused with where I claimed what you are claiming I said CJ

 

You two are gonna make my head explode

 

You typed the words "I acknowledged it being cliffhanger free" and I thank you for it. Hrmmm, I've been needing a new quote for my siggy, too....

Does fiction really have rules anymore? And even if one were to argue that it does, anyone could find dozens of examples to show how the so-called rules are routinely broken, ignored or even mocked.

 

For the sake of the story, readers always have to suspend their belief systems to some extent even in a long drawn out saga that tries to stay internally consistent like CJ's.

 

So in a nutshell: What's the big deal?

 

Short version, in a nutshell, I'm nuts!

 

You're right; in general, fiction has no rules, per se, on technical accuracy. Many authors take all sorts of liberties with facts, and chalk it up to artistic license. Others also make glaring factual errors, sometime unintentional, such as you see in darn near ever CSI or police type TV show. To a degree, I have used artistic license as well; doing a google news search won't find you any articles on Trevor Carlson, in spite of the fact I've shown characters in the story doing just that. In another case, I was trapped by shoddy research (mine) into an unfixable departure-from-reality scene. I research things like weather (for example, the weather and tides are as depicted if plot relavan; one example is Trevor's first entry to Kalbarri at night in a storm; that was the real weather that day, and real tide times as well.) Now, the huge screw-up; remember when Trevor decided to try a circumnavigation; it was seeing the distant launch of the shuttle Atlantis that triggered his decision. Well, SWS (Stupid writer syndrome) struck, and struck hard. I'd checked launch dates for shuttles, as well as the unmanned launches Jim and Dirk saw, prior to laying out the plot. I even checked the pre-9-11 range safety limits (so when we see Rachel, on Ares, in the prologue, she's within the then-extant but not today's range safety limits). However, I'd checked just one site for the launch data. What I didn't catch is they'd inadvertently displayed 2007 data on the 2006 page (They promptly corrected this when I e-mailed them). However, by the time I knew this, the story was posting and it was too late for me to fix it. So no, Atlantis didn't launch on the day I depicted, and that particular error galls me to the point where I'm ashamed of it.

 

Is it normal for an author to worry abotu such things? Heck no; They generally make stuff up to suite the plot. Creating a fictitious launch, even a fictitious shuttle, with fictitious capabilities in some cases, is nothing.

 

However, as we all know, I have never been sane. Therefor, it's just a thing with me; I like to get the technical details right. The nuclear warhead design in Changing Lanes? Real. Same with a host of other things, such as Trevor's improvised navigation methods when he crossed the Indian Ocean in the wreck of Atlantis. I went for realism there; his methods work in the real world. Did I build an arbelast to try it? yep. Now, for one thing, his method of estimating the effect of the seasonal movements of the sun in the sky to come up with calculated latitude, I wanted it to be very real: something he'd come up with himself. So, I avoided any emergency nav manuals or guides, and tried to think of a way. Well, what Trevor came up with - essentially using his map as a crude slide rule to calculate the sun's apparent latitude at zenith each day - not only works, but works better than anything in any emergency nav manual I've since seen. (their method is to just divide, which gives much large errors near equinox and solstice). I've even had professional navigators write to me about this. Trevor did well indeed. Anyway, that's the level of my obsession with getting facts right. YEs, I am that crazy.

 

Even minor stuff... like the Bellevue Airstrip at the Bellevue gold mine. Did I make that up? Nope... it's at 27°36'35.65"S 120°35'41.05"E

 

So, Ret2AK is right to challenge me on facts; it keeps me on my toes. It is also, in this case, something I should have taken more care with; it's critical to the plot, plus I should darn well know better. I am (or used to be, to be accurate) a pilot. I've flown Debonairs a few times. I've also, as part of emergency jump training, climbed out onto a wing step (on a low wing, slower plane) and jumped. So, I really should have gotten that scene right, because darn it, I've actually done most of it. It bugs me when I screw up, and it looks like I may have here. I think it could have worked as written, but I don't think Basingstoke would have taken her to the razor's edge of a stall like that (opening a door while in stall buffeting may, or may not, totally destabilize the aircraft.). He may well have chosen 5 or 10 mph more airspeed.

 

Anyway, this is just my obsessive nature regarding details. I like to get 'em right.

[Red_A]

Short version, in a nutshell, I'm nuts!

 

You're right; in general, fiction has no rules, per se, on technical accuracy. Many authors take all sorts of liberties with facts, and chalk it up to artistic license. Others also make glaring factual errors, sometime unintentional, such as you see in darn near ever CSI or police type TV show. To a degree, I have used artistic license as well; doing a google news search won't find you any articles on Trevor Carlson, in spite of the fact I've shown characters in the story doing just that. In another case, I was trapped by shoddy research (mine) into an unfixable departure-from-reality scene. I research things like weather (for example, the weather and tides are as depicted if plot relavan; one example is Trevor's first entry to Kalbarri at night in a storm; that was the real weather that day, and real tide times as well.)

 

I CHECKED WEATHER AND TIDES

 

Now, the huge screw-up; remember when Trevor decided to try a circumnavigation; it was seeing the distant launch of the shuttle Atlantis that triggered his decision. Well, SWS (Stupid writer syndrome) struck, and struck hard. I'd checked launch dates for shuttles, as well as the unmanned launches Jim and Dirk saw, prior to laying out the plot. I even checked the pre-9-11 range safety limits (so when we see Rachel, on Ares, in the prologue, she's within the then-extant but not today's range safety limits). However, I'd checked just one site for the launch data. What I didn't catch is they'd inadvertently displayed 2007 data on the 2006 page (They promptly corrected this when I e-mailed them). However, by the time I knew this, the story was posting and it was too late for me to fix it. So no, Atlantis didn't launch on the day I depicted, and that particular error galls me to the point where I'm ashamed of it.

 

CJ IS NOT THE ONLY ONE BECAUSE I CHECKED AND GOT THE SAME DATES AS CJ.

 

Is it normal for an author to worry abotu such things? Heck no; They generally make stuff up to suite the plot. Creating a fictitious launch, even a fictitious shuttle, with fictitious capabilities in some cases, is nothing.

 

However, as we all know, I have never been sane. Therefor, it's just a thing with me; I like to get the technical details right. The nuclear warhead design in Changing Lanes? Real. Same with a host of other things, such as Trevor's improvised navigation methods when he crossed the Indian Ocean in the wreck of Atlantis.I went for realism there; his methods work in the real world. Did I build an arbelast to try it? yep. Now, for one thing, his method of estimating the effect of the seasonal movements of the sun in the sky to come up with calculated latitude, I wanted it to be very real: something he'd come up with himself. So, I avoided any emergency nav manuals or guides, and tried to think of a way. Well, what Trevor came up with - essentially using his map as a crude slide rule to calculate the sun's apparent latitude at zenith each day - not only works, but works better than anything in any emergency nav manual I've since seen. (their method is to just divide, which gives much large errors near equinox and solstice). I've even had professional navigators write to me about this. Trevor did well indeed. Anyway, that's the level of my obsession with getting facts right. YEs, I am that crazy.

i HAD THE TASK OF CHECKING THE NAVIGATIONAL DATA AND I CHECKED THE METHOD AGAINST THE OFFICAL TABLES AND THE METHOD WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR NAVINGATION. THE ASTROLADE(areblst), WHEN i DID MY SHORE BASE PART OF MY STAR NAVIGATION WE USED CHEAP PLASTIC VERSIONS EXACTLY LIKE TREVOR'S YES THEY ARE NOT AS GOOD AS SEXTANTS BUT THEY WORK!

 

Even minor stuff... like the Bellevue Airstrip at the Bellevue gold mine. Did I make that up? Nope... it's at 27°36'35.65"S 120°35'41.05"E

 

So, Ret2AK is right to challenge me on facts; it keeps me on my toes. It is also, in this case, something I should have taken more care with; it's critical to the plot, plus I should darn well know better. I am (or used to be, to be accurate) a pilot. I've flown Debonairs a few times. I've also, as part of emergency jump training, climbed out onto a wing step (on a low wing, slower plane) and jumped. So, I really should have gotten that scene right, because darn it, I've actually done most of it. It bugs me when I screw up, and it looks like I may have here. I think it could have worked as written, but I don't think Basingstoke would have taken her to the razor's edge of a stall like that (opening a door while in stall buffeting may, or may not, totally destabilize the aircraft.). He may well have chosen 5 or 10 mph more airspeed.

 

I HAVE NOT PARACHUTED FROM AN AIRCRAFT, i FIND THE COMFORT OF AN AIRCRAFT SUITS ME BETTER, BUT AS A FIRST APPROXIMATION, WHAT BASSINGSTOKE DID IS POSSIBLE, AND IN A LIGHT AIRCRAFT WHICH IS USED FOR PARACHUTING HAS BEEN DONE IE CLIMB TO REDUCE SPEED AND FORCE OF THE WIND. tHE ONLY WAY TO FULLY CHECK IS TO DO IT. ANY VOLUNTEERS!!!

 

wE HAVE CHECKED THE ROUTE OF THE YACHTS, THE ROUTE OF THE AIRCRAFT, THE CRICKET PITCHES, THE LOCATION OF THE POLICE STATIONS(NOT THE INSIDES), WHERE THERE HAS BEEN DOUBT. DETAILS ARE VAGUE. WHERE ATLANTIS CROSSED LAND DETAILS HAVE BEEN CHANGED

 

THERE ARE BOND TO BE MINOR ERRORS BUT WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM, AND THEY DO NOT EFFECT THE GENERAL PLOT!

 

Anyway, this is just my obsessive nature regarding details. I like to get 'em right.

 

 

[MikeL]

Poor goat.

[C James]

Red-A is the one behind most of the realism in Trevor's voyaging, including the tide data (which I could not find a source for until Red provided it) and a host of other things. I am NOT a blue water yachtsman, so I rely on Red-A a great deal, especially on the technical side.

 

This cannot be said enough (I may seem was remiss in omitting it in the above post, but I was admitting to a screw up, so didn't think it would be very nice of me to do so in that context. ) this story is a team effort, and in the case of technical issues, especially sea related ones, Red_A is the expert, and he's as much a part of the story as I am in those aspects.

 

This is true in other aspects for other team members. Graeme, for example, is behind the Aussie characters having a real feel, in both personality and dialog, and he's also very knowledgeable on Australia in general, and on human reactions in general.

 

One thing I do want to make very clear; if any error creeps through, it is mine, period, full stop.

 

Unless it's a cliffhanger, of course..