Please clear up density altitude for me

[AnzacJack]

Yes, that is obvious but I was making that statement relating to our drones. As we don’t rely on fixed wing aerodynamics for lift, the only impact is reduced efficiency of our propellers. (A propeller is an airfoil actually)
I think the question has been answered well and truely, multiple times by multiple people.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Not just props but all airfoils. Fixed wing aircraft have less lift and longer take off distances. More than one private pilot who flew in to Grand Canyon airport on a hot day has found that after taking on a full load of fuel that added to the full passenger and baggage load, the pine trees at the end of the runway now present a major hazard because the plane will not get out of ground effect.

Ummm, it is always a good idea to read all the post before reply so you won't be posting something that people have already stated. Your points have been stated in several post previous to yours. By reading the thread, it saves all of us having to go through multiple comments all saying the same thing from different people.

 

[CAG]

Ummm, it is always a good idea to read all the post before reply so you won't be posting something that people have already stated. Your points have been stated in several post previous to yours. By reading the thread, it saves all of us having to go through multiple comments all saying the same thing from different people.

Thanks for being the thread's monitor and taking me to task for simply stating another example. I did read the thread and simplified a couple of "scientific" responses. Your post adds even more trash to the thread. It did not need to be said or written.

Most of the other posts covered props. My point, which you seemed to have missed in your effort to make your point is that all "airfoils" suffer from density altitude.

The Internet has a name for people who insist on posting the type of response that you posted as responses to several of us who posted in this thread.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Thanks for being the thread's monitor and taking me to task for simply stating another example. I did read the thread and simplified a couple of "scientific" responses. Your post adds even more trash to the thread. It did not need to be said or written.

Most of the other posts covered props. My point, which you seemed to have missed in your effort to make your point is that all "airfoils" suffer from density altitude.

The Internet has a name for people who insist on posting the type of response that you posted as responses to several of us who posted in this thread.

I believe what you stated in your post had already been covered, since we have discussed wing shapes flaps, slats,, props and rotors. We have also covered ground effect, flatlander pilots landing at high altitude, and taking off again with a loaded aircraft from a high altitude airport in summer etc. and I did not miss your point at all..

Therefore, what you wrote has not brought anything new to the table, but I don't mean that in a disparaging way. It was not meant in a "Taking you to task" sort of way nor am I professing to be the thread's monitor. If you had posted something that was new, as in, had not been mentioned or discussed already, there would have been nothing said. I am not the only one to mention to you, that what you wrote had already been stated/covered, nor I believe, am I the only one to think it. Anzacjack wrote to you Quote "I think the question has been answered well and truely, multiple times by multiple people." End quote. Have a good evening.

 

[HighlandsVideo]

Recreational pilots do not require Pt 107 and commercial pilots should be required to know all there is to know about interfacing with manned aviation.

Learn the stuff, or fly for fun only!

 

[CAG]

I am not the only one to mention to you, that what you wrote had already been stated/covered, nor I believe, am I the only one to think it.

I find it interesting that you took the time to repeat what you say others had already said. Is that not what you were castigating me for?

 

[Cymruflyer]

I find it interesting that you took the time to repeat what you say others had already said. Is that not what you were castigating me for?

No, I was not castigating you either. You seemed to think you added something new to the conversation. I just pointed out that everything you stated had already been said, numerous times by various people. What I stated, in your above quoted inclusion, has nothing to do with the OP question. It appeared you still thought you were adding something new and were trying to take me to task, as if I was the only one acting, as you put it, trying to be, "the thread's monitor". I was pointing out that it was not just me, and no one intended to be the thread's monitor. I think enough has been said on the matter so I shall leave this to just quietly go away.

 

[CAG]

You keep repeating what you and others already told me. Give it up and stop being a troll.