I think this course is a quite good intro to the subject of flying and I’m really enjoying it. Having said that, this one particular class was really disappointing. Unless he was experiencing some impairment, it’s almost like the instructor was not prepared for it, or simply didn’t care…
First of all thank you for these videos. I think that there is a mistake @ 27:00: the reason for the formula is not that temperature lapses at 2 and dewpoint at .5: temprerature lapses at 3 and dewpoint at .5. @ 16:00 the dry adiabatic lapse rate is shown as 3 degrees every 1.000 ft and @ 17:20 you can clearly see how it's 3 up to the saturation point and then becomes 2. The air under the clouds is still not saturated and so the dry adiabatic lapse rate holds good there; above the cloud base, vice versa, it's saturated and so the moist lapse rate is applied. As a matter of fact, given T = temperature; D = dewpoint; a = altitude: T(a) = Tinitial - 3.0 °C • a / 1.000 ft D(a) = Dinitial - 0.5 °C • a / 1.000 ft then we have the cloud base when T = D, id est when Tinitial - 3.0 °C • a / 1.000 ft = Dinitial - 0.5 °C • a / 1.000 ft → → Tinitial - Dinitial = 2.5 °C • a / 1.000 ft → → a = (Tinitial - Dinitial)• 1000 ft / 2.5 °C EDIT: I have just heard the correction @27:32 about this...
With all do respect, I would NEVER advice anyone taking a private pilot class from MIT or any other similar school. Imagine all the successful military and commercial pilots who DIDN'T go to these schools to learn how to fly.
Some critical feedback is required at this point for Philip. Yes, you are presenting to mostly MIT/Ivy League students, most of which do not have unlimited funds at this juncture of their lives(do the research on your student body). Using the phrase “whatever” while presenting FAA training should be an automatic disqualification for you to ever teach a course again. Teaching to the 70% passing grade and dismissing the rest should also disqualify you from ever teach students of any topic again. Presenting yourself as a superior intellectual is off-putting to most people. Your degrees clearly did not teach you everything. Bragging about your plane while putting down what 80-90% of what students will train is offensive to them all. Dismissing any plane without a glass cockpit and “long distance” capabilities, such as your plane, is elitist at best. I know many commercial pilots that also fly Paramotor’s, ultralights, experimentals, Light Sport and the dreaded Cessna 172 who would love challenge your definition of a “Real Plane”., as many of them have flown their aircraft across the country and back. Your lack of knowledge or enthusiasm of meteorology should have keep you from teaching this segment, but clearly you needed to bring in your irrelevant “solve the problem” and other off topic tangents. Next time skip them and stick to the pilots 0:09 handbook. PS- Carb heat is supplied by switching/adding inlet air that is diverting through a heat exchanger around the the exhaust pipe the same as cabin heat. It is not “pulled in from someplace safe”. There are and have been 2-stroke aviation engines that are fuel injected, it is not limited to just high end engines/planes. A friend of mine who got his MD once told me this upon graduating in the to 2% of his class, “my diploma says the same thing as the three guys who cheated their way through classes and are at the bottom of the class”. Your lack of ability to teach this topic well would seem to speak to your lack of knowledge of the subject. In all, after watching the first 9 lecture in the series, Im not sure it’s worth my time to watch the rest. And just for the record, my father in law was a PhD who got his masters from Harvard and was the dean of his engineering college, my brother in law has his PhD, my wife is ABD, my father was a design engineer on the P&W engines for the SR-71 and the SST prototype engines, then moved on to Garrett where he worked on the TPE331 and TFE731 engines. I also worked in engineering for Garrett working on gas turbine engine R&D including a turboprop pusher. Having spent my life in and around aviation engineering, I find you difficult to have confidence in.
Look, thank you for the lectures, the slides are good for all I know. But he is the worst, least prepared lecturer I've ever had a reason to listen to, and I have seen my fair share of iv league tenured mediocrity. Again, I do appreciate the free lectures, but please please let the other instructor read them.
I see what you mean, for instance, when he was explaining Coriolis force, he couldn’t explain it in its entirety, & saids “I’d have to go home & think about it”, which leaves us, the audience/learners, to question If his information is correct, & wether we should encode that information in our brains. In other words, if he’s uncertain of the information, then we will be too. Additionally, when he mentions adiabatic lapse, he uses his humor, to tell the the students he wasn’t a chemistry major, but he “thinks” it means…. However, I can tell he constantly updates his lessons/slides & without a doubt knows his information, but to the untrained-eye these things will go missed.
I think this course is a quite good intro to the subject of flying and I’m really enjoying it. Having said that, this one particular class was really disappointing. Unless he was experiencing some impairment, it’s almost like the instructor was not prepared for it, or simply didn’t care…
First of all thank you for these videos.
I think that there is a mistake @ 27:00: the reason for the formula is not that temperature lapses at 2 and dewpoint at .5: temprerature lapses at 3 and dewpoint at .5.
@ 16:00 the dry adiabatic lapse rate is shown as 3 degrees every 1.000 ft and @ 17:20 you can clearly see how it's 3 up to the saturation point and then becomes 2.
The air under the clouds is still not saturated and so the dry adiabatic lapse rate holds good there; above the cloud base, vice versa, it's saturated and so the moist lapse rate is applied.
As a matter of fact, given T = temperature; D = dewpoint; a = altitude:
T(a) = Tinitial - 3.0 °C • a / 1.000 ft
D(a) = Dinitial - 0.5 °C • a / 1.000 ft
then we have the cloud base when T = D, id est when
Tinitial - 3.0 °C • a / 1.000 ft = Dinitial - 0.5 °C • a / 1.000 ft →
→ Tinitial - Dinitial = 2.5 °C • a / 1.000 ft →
→ a = (Tinitial - Dinitial)• 1000 ft / 2.5 °C
EDIT: I have just heard the correction @27:32 about this...
With all due respect, I rather study completely from Tina. She is well prepared.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
And Tina doesn't slurp coffee. 😡
With all do respect, I would NEVER advice anyone taking a private pilot class from MIT or any other similar school. Imagine all the successful military and commercial pilots who DIDN'T go to these schools to learn how to fly.
This was a good lecture, I don't know why a few people are complaining.
Some critical feedback is required at this point for Philip. Yes, you are presenting to mostly MIT/Ivy League students, most of which do not have unlimited funds at this juncture of their lives(do the research on your student body).
Using the phrase “whatever” while presenting FAA training should be an automatic disqualification for you to ever teach a course again.
Teaching to the 70% passing grade and dismissing the rest should also disqualify you from ever teach students of any topic again.
Presenting yourself as a superior intellectual is off-putting to most people. Your degrees clearly did not teach you everything.
Bragging about your plane while putting down what 80-90% of what students will train is offensive to them all.
Dismissing any plane without a glass cockpit and “long distance” capabilities, such as your plane, is elitist at best. I know many commercial pilots that also fly Paramotor’s, ultralights, experimentals, Light Sport and the dreaded Cessna 172 who would love challenge your definition of a “Real Plane”., as many of them have flown their aircraft across the country and back.
Your lack of knowledge or enthusiasm of meteorology should have keep you from teaching this segment, but clearly you needed to bring in your irrelevant “solve the problem” and other off topic tangents. Next time skip them and stick to the pilots 0:09 handbook.
PS- Carb heat is supplied by switching/adding inlet air that is diverting through a heat exchanger around the the exhaust pipe the same as cabin heat. It is not “pulled in from someplace safe”. There are and have been 2-stroke aviation engines that are fuel injected, it is not limited to just high end engines/planes.
A friend of mine who got his MD once told me this upon graduating in the to 2% of his class, “my diploma says the same thing as the three guys who cheated their way through classes and are at the bottom of the class”. Your lack of ability to teach this topic well would seem to speak to your lack of knowledge of the subject.
In all, after watching the first 9 lecture in the series, Im not sure it’s worth my time to watch the rest.
And just for the record, my father in law was a PhD who got his masters from Harvard and was the dean of his engineering college, my brother in law has his PhD, my wife is ABD, my father was a design engineer on the P&W engines for the SR-71 and the SST prototype engines, then moved on to Garrett where he worked on the TPE331 and TFE731 engines. I also worked in engineering for Garrett working on gas turbine engine R&D including a turboprop pusher. Having spent my life in and around aviation engineering, I find you difficult to have confidence in.
nice
Look, thank you for the lectures, the slides are good for all I know. But he is the worst, least prepared lecturer I've ever had a reason to listen to, and I have seen my fair share of iv league tenured mediocrity. Again, I do appreciate the free lectures, but please please let the other instructor read them.
Haha wym
I see what you mean, for instance, when he was explaining Coriolis force, he couldn’t explain it in its entirety, & saids “I’d have to go home & think about it”, which leaves us, the audience/learners, to question If his information is correct, & wether we should encode that information in our brains. In other words, if he’s uncertain of the information, then we will be too. Additionally, when he mentions adiabatic lapse, he uses his humor, to tell the the students he wasn’t a chemistry major, but he “thinks” it means….
However, I can tell he constantly updates his lessons/slides & without a doubt knows his information, but to the untrained-eye these things will go missed.