The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

[Immanuel Goldstein]

The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training

Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

[...]

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve
heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseum, on the Internet and
the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight
simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy� it is to
operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to
make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky�. But if the intent is
to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task
immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific
geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000
feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an
untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna
around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed
commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a
modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting
experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the
video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions
available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has
to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated
one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the
simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to
approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator
would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course,
one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even
peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even
landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy�, because the pilot has
visual reference cues that exist “outside� the cockpit.

But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a
simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant
destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the
situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual
reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight
and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading,
speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
(Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard� instruments. These
displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated
picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal
and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When
flying “blind�, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled
pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot
translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an
instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.
I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth.
Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR�, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all
you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth,
disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the
world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional
instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they screwed up while
flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were
repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary
exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a
sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off,
followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway.
This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise
by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of
these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards."

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and
incompetence at the controls.�

Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons.�

Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even
worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day
amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.�

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani
Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way
into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and
First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the
cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment
without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot).
One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to
a little guy with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4
fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him
says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have
instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his
neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction
expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them
from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. Although weather
reports state this was not the case, let’s say Hanjour was lucky enough to
experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour
looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground,
at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky
brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the
aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie
silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day),
he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he
was traversing. With this kind of “situational non-awareness�, Hanjour might as
well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a
clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little
point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues.
For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways
and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor),
this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to
his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of
instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground
track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even
figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located
in relation to his position!

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground
reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent
hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would
have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and
say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all�—somehow
managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation
to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times
faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where
the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would
then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his
eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very
familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational
chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight
management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode).
If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished
by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and
practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing
sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men
manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still
wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour
disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its
intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could
get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West
Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path
cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft
is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let’s not
mull over that little point.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77� then suddenly pops up over
Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360
degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour�
allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the
presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly
difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow
couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers
at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner.
Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported
seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that
he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic
controllers, that that was a military plane.�

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon
sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You
see, he found that his “missile� was heading towards one of the most densely
populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass,
including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these
men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the
building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of
the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that
were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing
who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial
jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect
energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and
jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast
alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb
airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world
to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading
(such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above
ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles
located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the
incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final
pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the
Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the
ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its
nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the
ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with
the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible?
Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with
the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the
aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance
of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what
happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have
been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is
entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings,
such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the
Global Hawk.)

The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the
pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have
had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously
found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach� maneuvers at
over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who
could not solo basic training aircraft.

Conclusion
The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight
deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control� of the various
aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they
would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do
was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people
who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the
flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they
had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a
building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out
of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all
this under extremely stressful circumstances.

Complete text:
<http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Thomas Borchert]

Immanuel,

> Complete text:
> <http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>
>

Hilarious site. "Scientific panel", my a**. You guys need to get in
touch with the chemtrail people.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jim Macklin]

Complete an utter BS.



"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in
message ...
| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
Training
|
| Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
|
| Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified
pilot of heavy aircraft.
|
| [...]
|
| What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for
all, because I've
| heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad
nauseum, on the Internet and
| the TV networks-invariably by people who know nothing
substantive about flight
| simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
|
| A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is
how "easy" it is to
| operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate
if the objective is to
| make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky".
But if the intent is
| to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit
of precision, the task
| immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to
navigate to a specific
| geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at
over 500 MPH, 30,000
| feet above the ground the challenges become virtually
impossible for an
| untrained pilot.
|
| And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who
could not fly a Cessna
| around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in
multi-ton, high-speed
| commercial jets on 9/11.
|
| For a person not conversant with the practical
complexities of pilotage, a
| modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing
and disorienting
| experience. These complex training devices are not even
remotely similar to the
| video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the
software versions
| available for home computers.
|
| In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any
level of skill, one has
| to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a
skilled instrument-rated
| one to boot - and be thoroughly familiar with the actual
aircraft type the
| simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary
between aircraft.
|
| The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would
even begin to
| approach the degree of visual realism of a modern
professional flight simulator
| would be during the take-off and landing phases. During
these phases, of course,
| one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out
ahead, and even
| peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past.
Take-offs-even
| landings, to a certain degree-are relatively "easy",
because the pilot has
| visual reference cues that exist "outside" the cockpit.
|
| But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising
altitude in a
| simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route
to some distant
| destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation
techniques), the
| situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually
all external visual
| reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an
array of complex flight
| and navigation instruments to provide situational cues
(altitude, heading,
| speed, attitude, etc.)
|
| In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be
faced with an EFIS
| (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised
of six large
| multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted
"hard" instruments. These
| displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data
into an integrated
| picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress,
not only in horizontal
| and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and
speed as well. When
| flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it
takes a highly skilled
| pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data
intelligently. If one cannot
| translate this information quickly, precisely and
accurately (and it takes an
| instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO
SITUATIONAL AWARENESS.
| I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in
relation to the earth.
| Flight under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or
Instrument Flight Rules.
|
| And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your
instruments, because that's all
| you have!
|
| The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the
instruments in a quick, smooth,
| disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident
records from around the
| world are replete with reports of any number of good
pilots - I.e., professional
| instrument-rated pilots - who 'bought the farm' because
they screwed up while
| flying in IFR conditions.
|
| Let me place this in the context of the 9/11
hijacker-pilots. These men were
| repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple
Cessna-172 - an elementary
| exercise that involves flying this little trainer once
around the patch on a
| sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple
circuit: take-off,
| followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing
back on the runway.
| This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
|
| Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this
most elementary exercise
| by himself.
|
| In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say
about the aptitude of
| these budding aviators:
|
| Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
|
| Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't
live up to our standards."
|
| Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited
English and
| incompetence at the controls."
|
| Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two
lessons."
|
| Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his
mechanical skills were even
| worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm
still to this day
| amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He
could not fly at all."
|
| Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77.
Passenger/hijacker Hani
| Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight,
viciously fights his way
| into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain
Charles F. Burlingame and
| First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to
toss them out of the
| cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a
cramped environment
| without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby
disengaging the autopilot).
| One would correctly presume that this would present
considerable difficulties to
| a little guy with a box cutter-Burlingame was a tough,
burly, ex-Vietnam F4
| fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every
pilot who knows him
| says that rather than politely hand over the controls,
Burlingame would have
| instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour
would have broken his
| neck when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost
natural reaction
| expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.
|
| Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight
deck crew, removes them
| from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's
seat. Although weather
| reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was
lucky enough to
| experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility
Unlimited). If Hanjour
| looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to
his left at the ground,
| at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him,
a murky
| brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface
detail, while the
| aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost
imperceptibly and in eerie
| silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).
|
| In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather
conditions that day),
| he would likely have seen clouds below him completely
obscuring the ground he
| was traversing. With this kind of "situational
non-awareness", Hanjour might as
| well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan-he
wouldn't have had a
| clue as to where, precisely, he was.
|
| After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure
out there's little
| point in looking outside-there's nothing there to give him
any real visual cues.
| For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas,
following freeways
| and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence
of an instructor),
| this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling
environment indeed.
|
| Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to
divert his attention to
| his instrument panel, where he'd be faced with a
bewildering array of
| instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret
his heading, ground
| track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays
before he could even
| figure out where in the world he was, much less where the
Pentagon was located
| in relation to his position!
|
| After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to
first find the target.
|
| It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter
lack of ground
| reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that
for these incompetent
| hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a
daunting task would
| have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known
where to begin.
|
| But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things
beyond all plausibility and
| say that Hanjour-whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't
fly at all"-somehow
| managed to figure out their exact position on the American
landscape in relation
| to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a
speed five times
| faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.
|
| Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need
to figure out where
| the Pentagon was located in relation to his
rapidly-changing position. He would
| then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot
see with his
| eyes-remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).
|
| In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he
would have to be very
| familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even
knew what a navigational
| chart looked like, much less how to how to plug
information into flight
| management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral
navigation automated mode).
| If one is to believe the official story, all of this was
supposedly accomplished
| by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over
unfamiliar (and
| practically invisible) terrain, using complex
methodologies and employing
| sophisticated instruments.
|
| To get around this little problem, the official storyline
suggests these men
| manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets
(NB: This still
| wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But
let's assume Hanjour
| disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew
the aircraft to its
| intended-and invisible-target on instruments alone until
such time as he could
| get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly
back across West
| Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of
Flight 77's flight path
| cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists,
because the aircraft
| is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens
over Ohio, but let's not
| mull over that little point.)
|
| According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then
suddenly pops up over
| Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving
turn at a rate of 360
| degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the
end of which "Hanjour"
| allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot:
He also had the
| presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle
of this incredibly
| difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented
the hapless fellow
| couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on it).
|
| The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the
air traffic controllers
| at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was
a commercial airliner.
| Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at
Dulles who reported
| seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
maneuverability, the way that
| he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us
experienced air traffic
| controllers, that that was a military plane."
|
| And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour
finds the Pentagon
| sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
|
| But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim
kamikaze pilot. You
| see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one
of the most densely
| populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top
military brass,
| including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably
in order to save these
| men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn
and approaches the
| building from the opposite direction and aligns himself
with the only wing of
| the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to
extensive renovations that
| were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction
workers in that wing
| who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the
outside wall of that wing).
|
| I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying
a large commercial
| jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A
discussion on ground effect
| energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction,
wake turbulence, and
| jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the
100,000-lb jetblast
| alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.)
|
| Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to
fly a 200,000-lb
| airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
|
| The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges
any pilot in the world
| to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a
relatively low wing-loading
| (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400
MPH, 20 feet above
| ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.
|
| Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were
several street light poles
| located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were
snapped-off by the
| incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory
during the final
| pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the
craft impacted the
| Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a
757 were placed on the
| ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in
flight profile), its
| nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the
aircraft to impact the
| ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to
have flown in with
| the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some
pilot.
|
| At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight
aerodynamically impossible?
| Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash
sheet, coupled with
| the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply
will not allow the
| aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately
one half the distance
| of its wingspan-until speed is drastically reduced, which,
of course, is what
| happens during normal landings.
|
| In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the
plane could not have
| been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH.
(Such a maneuver is
| entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with
high wing-loadings,
| such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and
Cruise missiles-and the
| Global Hawk.)
|
| The very same navigational challenges mentioned above
would have faced the
| pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that
they, too, would have
| had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps,
too, miraculously
| found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final
approach" maneuvers at
| over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been
executed by pilots who
| could not solo basic training aircraft.
|
| Conclusion
| The writers of the official storyline expect us to
believe, that once the flight
| deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took
control" of the various
| aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in
their windshields as they
| would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows
would have had to do
| was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly
into them. Most people
| who have been exposed only to the official storyline have
never been on the
| flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the
outside world; if they
| had, they'd realize the absurdity of this kind of
reasoning.
|
| In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost
insurmountable
| difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a
200,000-lb airliner into a
| building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds
of miles away and out
| of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at
over 500 MPH - and all
| this under extremely stressful circumstances.
|
| Complete text:
| <http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>
|
|
| --
| Closely Monitored,
|
| Immanuel Goldstein
|
| "The history of the present [US Government] is a history
of repeated injuries
| and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute
| Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."
| - Declaration of Independence
|
| The Pentagon Strike
| <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
|
| The Demolition of WTC Building 7
|
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
|
| "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
| - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
|
| "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a
revolutionary act."
| - Orwell
|
| "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same
| Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their
| right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards
| for their future security."
| - Declaration of Independence

[Peter R.]

Immanuel Goldstein > wrote:

<snip>
> For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage,

If a person is conversant with the practical complexities of dead
reckoning, does that count?


--
Peter

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <Q_YKf.103373$4l5.77233@dukeread05>, Jim Macklin"
> says...
>
>Complete an utter BS.
>
>
>
>"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in
>message ...
>| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
>Training
>|
>| Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006

Major snip

My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved 9/11 didn't happen...
He's delusional....

Chuck S

[Matt Barrow]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" > wrote in message
...
> In article <Q_YKf.103373$4l5.77233@dukeread05>, Jim Macklin"
> > says...
>>
>>Complete an utter BS.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in
>>message ...
>>| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
>>Training
>>|
>>| Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
>
> Major snip
>
> My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved 9/11 didn't
> happen...
> He's delusional....
He trolled to alt.building.construction group saying that airliners crashing
into a building could not bring it down, that it was really a controlled
demolition.

The Construction Engineering types tried to put him right, but as you say;
he's COMPLETELY delusional.
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>> My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved 9/11 didn't
>> happen...
>> He's delusional....
> He trolled to alt.building.construction group saying that airliners crashing
> into a building could not bring it down, that it was really a controlled
> demolition.
>
> The Construction Engineering types tried to put him right, but as you say;
> he's COMPLETELY delusional.


He knows what he knows, which is less than nothing. I guess he forgot to strap
on his tin foil hat when did his calculations... or he forgot to wear the shiny
side out.




--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

[Jim Macklin]

I'm sure he voted for Kerry.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "ChuckSlusarczyk" >
wrote in message
| ...
| > In article <Q_YKf.103373$4l5.77233@dukeread05>, Jim
Macklin"
| > > says...
| >>
| >>Complete an utter BS.
| >>
| >>
| >>
| >>"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote
in
| >>message ...
| >>| The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without
| >>Training
| >>|
| >>| Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
| >
| > Major snip
| >
| > My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved
9/11 didn't
| > happen...
| > He's delusional....
| He trolled to alt.building.construction group saying that
airliners crashing
| into a building could not bring it down, that it was
really a controlled
| demolition.
|
| The Construction Engineering types tried to put him right,
but as you say;
| he's COMPLETELY delusional.
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO
|
|

[Dudley Henriques]

Sorry, dosen't wash with me. I know some of the people personally who
investigated the airborne phase of 9/11 and I have complete faith in their
findings on this issue.
Aside from that, your "theory" is so full of holes if it was a ship it would
be named the TROLL MARU it would sink in ten seconds.
Dudley Henriques



"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in message
...
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>
> Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
> aircraft.
>
> [...]
>
> What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've
> heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseum, on the
> Internet and the TV networks-invariably by people who know nothing
> substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
>
> A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it
> is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the
> objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky".
> But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least
> bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the
> aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles
> away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the
> challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
>
> And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a
> Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton,
> high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
>
> For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a
> modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and
> disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even
> remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even
> the software versions available for home computers.
>
> In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one
> has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled
> instrument-rated one to boot - and be thoroughly familiar with the actual
> aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary
> between aircraft.
>
> The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to
> approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight
> simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these
> phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out
> ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past.
> Take-offs-even landings, to a certain degree-are relatively "easy",
> because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the
> cockpit.
>
> But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a
> simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant
> destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the
> situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external
> visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of
> complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues
> (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
>
> In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
> (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
> multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments.
> These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an
> integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not
> only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time
> and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference
> cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this
> data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
> precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do
> so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't
> have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such
> conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.
>
> And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's
> all you have!
>
> The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick,
> smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident records from
> around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots -
> I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots - who 'bought the farm' because
> they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
>
> Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men
> were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 - an
> elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around
> the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple
> circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a
> landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
>
> Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary
> exercise by himself.
>
> In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say about the
> aptitude of these budding aviators:
>
> Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
>
> Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our
> standards."
>
> Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and
> incompetence at the controls."
>
> Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
>
> Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were
> even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to
> this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not
> fly at all."
>
> Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker
> Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously
> fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain
> Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow
> manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to
> achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke
> and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that
> this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box
> cutter-Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had
> flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather
> than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly
> rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck
> when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural reaction
> expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.
>
> Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes
> them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat.
> Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour
> was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility
> Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or
> off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7
> miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually
> devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was
> moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH
> (about 750 feet every second).
>
> In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that
> day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the
> ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness",
> Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan-he
> wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.
>
> After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there's
> little point in looking outside-there's nothing there to give him any real
> visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas,
> following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting
> presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily
> unsettling environment indeed.
>
> Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his
> attention to his instrument panel, where he'd be faced with a bewildering
> array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his
> heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays
> before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where
> the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!
>
> After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the
> target.
>
> It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground
> reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these
> incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a
> daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have
> known where to begin.
>
> But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all
> plausibility and say that Hanjour-whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't
> fly at all"-somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the
> American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed
> the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by
> themselves before.
>
> Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out
> where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing
> position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot
> see with his eyes-remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).
>
> In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be
> very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a
> navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information
> into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation
> automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was
> supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500
> MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex
> methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.
>
> To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these
> men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This
> still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume
> Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the
> aircraft to its intended-and invisible-target on instruments alone until
> such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him
> to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This
> portion of Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar
> evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly
> disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that
> little point.)
>
> According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over
> Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of
> 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which
> "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He
> also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of
> this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented
> the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on
> it).
>
> The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room,
> all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military
> plane."
>
> And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon
> sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
>
> But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
> You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most
> densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top military
> brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
> to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and
> approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself
> with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to
> extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians
> construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included
> blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
>
> I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion
> on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction,
> wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article
> (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the
> roads.)
>
> Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb
> airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
>
> The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the
> world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low
> wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400
> MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one
> mile.
>
> Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light
> poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by
> the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the
> final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft
> impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757
> were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as
> in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo,
> for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would
> have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the
> Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
>
> At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically
> impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash
> sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices,
> simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than
> approximately one half the distance of its wingspan-until speed is
> drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal
> landings.
>
> In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not
> have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a
> maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high
> wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise
> missiles-and the Global Hawk.)
>
> The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the
> pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too,
> would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too,
> miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final
> approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have
> been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.
>
> Conclusion
> The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the
> flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control"
> of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in
> their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that
> these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the
> buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the
> official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at
> altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize the
> absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
>
> In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
> difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into
> a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away
> and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500
> MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
>
> Complete text:
> <http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>
>
>
> --
> Closely Monitored,
>
> Immanuel Goldstein
>
> "The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated
> injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
> an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
> submitted to a candid world."
> - Declaration of Independence
>
> The Pentagon Strike
> <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
>
> The Demolition of WTC Building 7
> <http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
>
> "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
> - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
> <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
>
> "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
> - Orwell
>
> "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
> provide new Guards for their future security."
> - Declaration of Independence

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>>> My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he proved 9/11 didn't
>>> happen...
>>> He's delusional....
>> He trolled to alt.building.construction group saying that airliners
>> crashing
>> into a building could not bring it down, that it was really a controlled
>> demolition.
>>
>> The Construction Engineering types tried to put him right, but as you
>> say;
>> he's COMPLETELY delusional.
>
>
> He knows what he knows, which is less than nothing. I guess he forgot to
> strap on his tin foil hat when did his calculations... or he forgot to
> wear the shiny side out.
>
Actually, it was the ferrous metal staples he used to attach the foil to his
skull.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Jim Macklin]

Well, at least TRUTH got the rest of us to agree on
something.



"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
> wrote in message
| ...
| > Matt Barrow wrote:
| >>> My feelings exactly,so I guess this guy thinks he
proved 9/11 didn't
| >>> happen...
| >>> He's delusional....
| >> He trolled to alt.building.construction group saying
that airliners
| >> crashing
| >> into a building could not bring it down, that it was
really a controlled
| >> demolition.
| >>
| >> The Construction Engineering types tried to put him
right, but as you
| >> say;
| >> he's COMPLETELY delusional.
| >
| >
| > He knows what he knows, which is less than nothing. I
guess he forgot to
| > strap on his tin foil hat when did his calculations...
or he forgot to
| > wear the shiny side out.
| >
| Actually, it was the ferrous metal staples he used to
attach the foil to his
| skull.
|
|
| --
| Matt
| ---------------------
| Matthew W. Barrow
| Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
| Montrose, CO
|
|
|

[Dan Luke]

Loon.

[babbling snipped]

[Darkwing]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:ur_Kf.103380$4l5.101519@dukeread05...
> I'm sure he voted for Kerry.
>
>

You would think someone named Goldstein would be all for Muslim terrorists
attacking US landmarks to start a war.

-------------------------------------------
DW

[Darkwing]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Immanuel Goldstein > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage,
>
> If a person is conversant with the practical complexities of dead
> reckoning, does that count?
>
>
> --
> Peter

As far as we know they had a Garmin GPS on the dash, that is all you would
need, that a clear day (which they had).

------------------------------------------
DW

[Lou]

Well, that 2 morons the hijackers where able to fool, the flight
instructor trying to make a living, and Immanual Goldstien (obviously
not your real name.)

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 6:40 AM, Thomas Borchert enscribed:
> Immanuel,
>
>> Complete text:
>> <http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>
>>
>
> Hilarious site. "Scientific panel", my a**. You guys need to get in
> touch with the chemtrail people.
>

I am not part of a "group", so why the reference to "you guys"?


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Peter R.]

Darkwing <heducksmailTyahoo.com> wrote:


> As far as we know they had a Garmin GPS on the dash, that is all you would
> need, that a clear day (which they had).

I was not attempting to actually discuss the content of the original post.
Instead, I was making light of the original author's apparent incorrect
usage of the word, "pilotage," given that he claims to be an "aeronautical
engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft."

Reread his original passage and see if you agree.

--
Peter

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 7:45 AM, Matt Barrow enscribed:
> He trolled to alt.building.construction group
>

I have never once posted to alt.building.construction. Unless you have evidence
to the contrary? Anyone reviewing my posting history on Google Groups can easily
see that I am not a troll.

That would make you a liar. As any American judge would say to a jury, "Any
witness that you find has told a single lie, you shall disregard _all_ of their
testimony."


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Jim Macklin]

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of
repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

This would have been the British Government, your history is
in error.



"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in
message ...
| On 2/22/2006 7:45 AM, Matt Barrow enscribed:
| > He trolled to alt.building.construction group
| >
|
| I have never once posted to alt.building.construction.
Unless you have evidence
| to the contrary? Anyone reviewing my posting history on
Google Groups can easily
| see that I am not a troll.
|
| That would make you a liar. As any American judge would
say to a jury, "Any
| witness that you find has told a single lie, you shall
disregard _all_ of their
| testimony."
|
|
| --
| Closely Monitored,
|
| Immanuel Goldstein
|
| "The history of the present [US Government] is a history
of repeated injuries
| and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute
| Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."
| - Declaration of Independence
|
| The Pentagon Strike
| <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
|
| The Demolition of WTC Building 7
|
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
|
| "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
| - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
|
| "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a
revolutionary act."
| - Orwell
|
| "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same
| Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their
| right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards
| for their future security."
| - Declaration of Independence

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 8:05 AM, Jim Macklin enscribed:
> I'm sure he voted for Kerry.
>

How laughable. The American political system is corrupt, and rotting away like a
leprous corpse. Americans still believe they have a "two-party" system, and this
system is used to foment distrust among its own citizens. This has been true
since Woodrow Wilson entered office.

Please refrain from further assumptions about someone you do not know. Frankly,
it makes you appear like an ass. The very act of assumption is what has biased
your thoughts into accepting the ludicrous lies and "conspiracy theory" you have
been told by your government.


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 8:50 AM, Lou enscribed:
> Well, that 2 morons the hijackers where able to fool, the flight
> instructor trying to make a living, and Immanual Goldstien (obviously
> not your real name.)
>

What hijackers?
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm>


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 8:41 AM, Dan Luke enscribed:
> Loon.
>

A wonderful example of avian evolution. Your proof?


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 8:22 AM, Dudley Henriques enscribed:
> I know some of the people personally who investigated the airborne phase of
> 9/11
>

Doesn't everyone?

> Aside from that, your "theory"
>

I did not write the article, therefore it is not my "theory."


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 9:09 AM, Jim Macklin enscribed:
>
> This would have been the British Government, your history is
> in error.
>

The [] symbols are commonly used in writing to specify a change or insertion by
the editor. It seems to fit nicely with current American policies.


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated injuries
and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of WTC Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- Bush on the U.S. Constitution, <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-22, Darkwing <theducksmail> wrote:
> You would think someone named Goldstein would be all for Muslim terrorists
> attacking US landmarks to start a war.

It's a pseudonym. Emmanuel Goldstein was the focus of the Three Minutes
Hate in George Orwell's book, Nineteen Eighty Four. He's using the name
to make a lame political point whilst spouting his ill-educated
conjectures.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dudley Henriques]

"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/22/2006 8:22 AM, Dudley Henriques enscribed:
>> I know some of the people personally who investigated the airborne phase
>> of
>> 9/11
>>
>
> Doesn't everyone?

Actually no..or at least our next door neibhor on the right dosen't if that
helps any. :-)
>
>> Aside from that, your "theory"
>
> I did not write the article, therefore it is not my "theory."

"Theory" in quotes qualifies exactly correct for the context in which it was
used.

Dudley Henriques
>
>
> --
> Closely Monitored,
>
> Immanuel Goldstein
>
> "The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated
> injuries
> and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an
> absolute
> Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a
> candid world."
> - Declaration of Independence
>
> The Pentagon Strike
> <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
>
> The Demolition of WTC Building 7
> <http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
>
> "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
> - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
> <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
>
> "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
> - Orwell
>
> "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> same
> Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is
> their
> right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new
> Guards
> for their future security."
> - Declaration of Independence

[Dudley Henriques]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...

Excuse me, that should read "neighbor". Hurrying and older people are a bad
mix I'm afraid :-)
Dudley Henriques

[anon]

If you are claiming that the lives of the passengers and crews of these
aircraft were not lost and that they are part of a larger conspiracy, I
wouldn't mind putting a bullet in your head.

Among others, you are indicting many that have distinguished themselves
in the defense of this country.

You are an idiot that hasn't taken the time to research the facts,
instead relying on the conclusions of like-minded nut cases that never
were interested in the facts or are just insane.

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...
>

But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude ..., the
situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual
reference cues.



All these years I've been flying and I never noticed that happening on clear
days. . .

GF

[Matt Barrow]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:ur_Kf.103380$4l5.101519@dukeread05...
>> I'm sure he voted for Kerry.
>>
>>
>
> You would think someone named Goldstein would be all for Muslim terrorists
> attacking US landmarks to start a war.
>
Like Chuckie Shummer?

[B a r r y]

> In article >, says...
>
> But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude ..., the
> situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual
> reference cues.

Take off the foggles? <G>

[Thomas Borchert]

Immanuel,

> I am not part of a "group", so why the reference to "you guys"?
>

Well, you seem to be part of a group believing in this bs.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:


>
> That would make you a liar. As any American judge would say to a jury,
> "Any witness that you find has told a single lie, you shall disregard
> _all_ of their testimony."

May disregard, not shall.

[Robert M. Gary]

Would you guys mind moving this off rec.aviation.piloting and
rec.aviation.student? These forums are for actual flying discussions
for pilots. I think you already got your answer from the pilot
community.

-Robert, CFI

[Jim Macklin]

LOL


"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in
message ...
| On 2/22/2006 8:05 AM, Jim Macklin enscribed:
| > I'm sure he voted for Kerry.
| >
|
| How laughable. The American political system is corrupt,
and rotting away like a
| leprous corpse. Americans still believe they have a
"two-party" system, and this
| system is used to foment distrust among its own citizens.
This has been true
| since Woodrow Wilson entered office.
|
| Please refrain from further assumptions about someone you
do not know. Frankly,
| it makes you appear like an ass. The very act of
assumption is what has biased
| your thoughts into accepting the ludicrous lies and
"conspiracy theory" you have
| been told by your government.
|
|
| --
| Closely Monitored,
|
| Immanuel Goldstein
|
| "The history of the present [US Government] is a history
of repeated injuries
| and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute
| Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."
| - Declaration of Independence
|
| The Pentagon Strike
| <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
|
| The Demolition of WTC Building 7
|
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
|
| "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
| - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
|
| "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a
revolutionary act."
| - Orwell
|
| "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same
| Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their
| right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards
| for their future security."
| - Declaration of Independence

[Jim Macklin]

really?


"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in
message ...
| On 2/22/2006 9:09 AM, Jim Macklin enscribed:
| >
| > This would have been the British Government, your
history is
| > in error.
| >
|
| The [] symbols are commonly used in writing to specify a
change or insertion by
| the editor. It seems to fit nicely with current American
policies.
|
|
| --
| Closely Monitored,
|
| Immanuel Goldstein
|
| "The history of the present [US Government] is a history
of repeated injuries
| and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute
| Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
submitted to a candid world."
| - Declaration of Independence
|
| The Pentagon Strike
| <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
|
| The Demolition of WTC Building 7
|
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
|
| "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
| - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
|
| "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a
revolutionary act."
| - Orwell
|
| "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same
| Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their
| right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and
to provide new Guards
| for their future security."
| - Declaration of Independence

[Jim Macklin]

Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi camp.




"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
| ...
| >
| > "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| > news:ur_Kf.103380$4l5.101519@dukeread05...
| >> I'm sure he voted for Kerry.
| >>
| >>
| >
| > You would think someone named Goldstein would be all for
Muslim terrorists
| > attacking US landmarks to start a war.
| >
| Like Chuckie Shummer?
|
|
|

[John Ousterhout]

Nonsense!

In 1999 I had an opportunity to "fly" the 777 Simulator at Boeing. I
was a two-hundred hour Cessna 172 pilot -- strictly VFR. With 30
minutes of "training" and a bit of coaching I was able to "fly" to the
destination and make a successful IFR approach and landing. I believe
an experienced PC Flight Simulator "pilot" could do as well.

Modern Glass cockpits really do make flying much easier -- when
everything works properly. When it doesn't the the pilot, i.e., Systems
Manger, really earns his/her salary.

I don't have any doubts that the September 11th Terrorists did not fly
the airliners into the targets. Hitting three of Four was probably
better luck than they would have predicted, but even a blind pig finds
an occasional truffle. See Occam's Razor.

- John Ousterhout -




Immanuel Goldstein wrote:
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>
> Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of
> heavy aircraft.
>
> What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because
> I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseum, on the
> Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing
> substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
>
> A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy� it
> is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the
> objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open
> sky�. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even
> the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting.
> And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds
> of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground
> the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

[snip]

[kd5sak]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:w03Lf.103892$4l5.63714@dukeread05...
> Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi camp.
>
>
>
>
I remember reading the term used for those "helpers" by the Nazis, I think
it was something close to "Sondercommando". Not real certain of the
spelling, since I believe what I was reading was from a periodical in the
late 50s. Yeah, Sondercommando Schumer does
seem to fit his personality.

Harold Burton

[Richard Lamb]

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> Would you guys mind moving this off rec.aviation.piloting and
> rec.aviation.student? These forums are for actual flying discussions
> for pilots. I think you already got your answer from the pilot
> community.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>
Drop rec.aviation.homebuilt also.

But, but...

That would only leave alt.politics!

[Dan]

kd5sak wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:w03Lf.103892$4l5.63714@dukeread05...
>> Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi camp.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I remember reading the term used for those "helpers" by the Nazis, I think
> it was something close to "Sondercommando". Not real certain of the
> spelling, since I believe what I was reading was from a periodical in the
> late 50s. Yeah, Sondercommando Schumer does
> seem to fit his personality.
>
> Harold Burton
>
>
Sonderkommando were the Jews who worked in the gas chambers and
crematoria. Kapo referred to a position more akin to "trustee." A kapo
was more generally red triangle, political, or green triangle, common
criminal, prisoner.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, kd5sak says...
>
>
>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
>news:w03Lf.103892$4l5.63714@dukeread05...
>> Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi camp.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I remember reading the term used for those "helpers" by the Nazis, I think
>it was something close to "Sondercommando". Not real certain of the
>spelling, since I believe what I was reading was from a periodical in the
>late 50s. Yeah, Sondercommando Schumer does
>seem to fit his personality.

The term Kapo or Capo also seems to come to mind as a term for Jews who aided
the Nazi's.Usually by picking the people from town who would be next to go to
the camps.Many used this position to bully people and relieve them of money
,jewels etc so that he wouldn't pick them. Eventually they got there's .

A sad time

Chuck S

[Darkwing]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Darkwing <heducksmailTyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> As far as we know they had a Garmin GPS on the dash, that is all you
>> would
>> need, that a clear day (which they had).
>
> I was not attempting to actually discuss the content of the original post.
> Instead, I was making light of the original author's apparent incorrect
> usage of the word, "pilotage," given that he claims to be an "aeronautical
> engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft."
>
> Reread his original passage and see if you agree.
>
> --
> Peter

I wasn't bashing you or anything just saying that any idiot can fly a plane
(Heavy or not) to a spot on a decent GPS if you have ANY idea how to fly a
plane. When your on a suicide mission what is the harm in trying?

------------------------------------------
DW

[Jim Macklin]

It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
same error again.


"Dan" > wrote in message
news:iL8Lf.19426$Ug4.7279@dukeread12...
| ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
| > In article
>, kd5sak
says...
| >>
| >> "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in message
| >> news:w03Lf.103892$4l5.63714@dukeread05...
| >>> Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi
camp.
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >> I remember reading the term used for those "helpers" by
the Nazis, I think
| >> it was something close to "Sondercommando". Not real
certain of the
| >> spelling, since I believe what I was reading was from a
periodical in the
| >> late 50s. Yeah, Sondercommando Schumer does
| >> seem to fit his personality.
| >
| > The term Kapo or Capo also seems to come to mind as a
term for Jews who aided
| > the Nazi's.Usually by picking the people from town who
would be next to go to
| > the camps.Many used this position to bully people and
relieve them of money
| > ,jewels etc so that he wouldn't pick them. Eventually
they got there's .
| >
| > A sad time
| >
| > Chuck S
| >
|
| Also known as Judenrats. A sad time indeed, I am 1 of
only 4 left
| from my mother's family.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Lamb]

TRUTH wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>
>
>>It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
>>Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
>>world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
>>same error again.
>
>
>
> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

"How does a wing generate lift?"

Though this seems like a simple enough question, the general public would
probably be amazed to find out that engineers and scientists still debate
just how lift is produced even 100 years after flight became a reality.

In fact, it is quite easy to be drawn into charged debates on the subject,
as I was when trying to answer this question. So, to be fair to the proponents
of each theory, I will discuss each in turn. But first, let us simplify our
discussion slightly by thinking of the wing as only a two-dimensional shape.

Consider the cross-section of a wing created by a plane cutting through the
wing. This two-dimensional cross-sectional shape is called an airfoil (or
aerofoil to our British friends). An example of a common airfoil shape is the
Clark Y.


Bernoulli theory:

The most common explanation of the concept of lift is based upon the Bernoulli
equation, an equation that relates the pressures and velocites acting along
the surface of a wing. What this equation says, in simple terms, is that the
sum of the pressures acting on a body is a constant. This sum consists of two
types of pressures: 1) the static pressure, or the atmospheric pressure at any
point in a flowfield, and 2) the dynamic pressure, or the pressure created by
the motion of a body through the air. Since dynamic pressure is a function of
the velocity of the flow, the Bernoulli equation relates the sum of pressures
to the velocity of the flow past the body. So what this equation tells us is
that as velocity increases, pressure decreases and vice versa.

To understand why the flow velocity changes, we introduce a second relation
called the Continuity equation. What this relationship tells us is that the
velocity at which a flow passes through an area is directly related to the
size of that area. For example, if you blow through a straw, the air will come
out at a certain speed. If you then blow in with the same strength but now
squeeze the end of the straw, the air will come out faster.

So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look again at
the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the bottom is
relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when air
passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller area
than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells us
that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli
equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower pressure.

Thus, a higher pressure exists on the lower surface of an airfoil and a lower
pressure on the upper surface. Whenever such a pressure difference exists in
nature, a force is created in the direction of the lower pressure (since
pressure is defined as force per unit area). Think of it as the upper surface
being sucked upward. This upward force, of course, is lift. It is this theory
that appears in most aerodynamic textbooks, albeit sometimes with incorrect
assumptions applied and conclusions drawn.


Newtonian theory:

A theory currently gaining in popularity and arguably more "fundamental" in
origin is the Newtonian theory, so named because it is said to follow from
Newton's third law of motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction). First, one most realize that any airfoil generating lift deflects
the air flow behind it. Positive lift deflects the air downward, towards the
ground. Thus, the motion of any lifting surface through a flow accelerates
that flow in a new direction. Newton's second law tells us that force is
directly proportional to acceleration (F=ma). Therefore, we must conclude from
Newton's third law that the force accelerating the air downward must be
accompanied by an equal and opposite force pushing the airfoil upward. This
upward force is lift.


Circulation theory:

The most mathematical explanation for lift is the circulation theory.
Circulation can be thought of as a component of velocity that rotates or
swirls around an airfoil or any other shape. In a branch of aerodynamics
called incompressible flow, we can use potential flow relationships to solve
for this circulation for a desired shape. Once this quantity is known, the
force of lift can be solved for using the Kutta-Joukowski theorem that
directly relates lift and circulation. This approach tends to be more
mathematically intense than I wish to get into here, and it's really more of a
method of calculating lift in an ideal flowfield than an explanation of the
physical origins of lift.


Conclusion:

So the reader may be asking which of these theories is correct?
In TRUTH, each is valid in some respect and useful for certain applications,
but the ultimate question is which is the most fundamental explanation.

Mathematicians would surely prefer the circulation theory, which is certainly
a very elegant approach firmly based on mathematical principles, but it fails
to explain what force of nature creates circulation or lift. Many would argue
that the Newtonian explanation is most fundamental since it is "derived" from
Newtonian laws of motion. While this is true to some degree, the theory lacks
an explanation as to why an airfoil deflects the flow downward in the first
place. Even accepting this principle, the idea that an airfoil deflects the
flow and therefore experiences lift also fails to capture the fundamental
tools of nature (pressure and friction) that create and exert that force on
the body.

Proponents of this explanation generally deride the Bernoulli theory because
it relies on less fundamental concepts, like the Bernoulli and Continuity
equations. There is some truth to this complaint, and the theory may be more
difficult for the novice to understand as a result. However, both equations
are derived from Newtonian physics, and I would argue from more fundamental
and more mathematically sound premises than the Newtonian theory.

In the end, I leave it up to the reader to decide.

Attrib:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0005.shtml

[cjcampbell]

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>
> Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.

Actually, he is not. Not in the US, anyway. There is no one by the name
of Sagadevan currently holding a pilot certificate of any kind in the
US, not even a private pilot certificate, or even a student pilot
certificate. He does not appear anywhere in the FAA database.

That might explain why he does not have the faintest idea of what he is
talking about.

100% of the pilots posting here have met these allegations with
absolute derision. What does that tell you about the likelihood of
Sagadevan's claims?

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
TRUTH > wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>
> > It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
> > Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
> > world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
> > same error again.
>
>
> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

No -- but I am familiar with the Baathist/Nazi connection. Baathism
started with some Arab expatriates living in Europe in the 1930s, who
liked what Hitler and the Nazis were doing.

They adopted the ideas and brought them back to their homelands.
Irrational hatred of Jews is one of the hallmarks of Naziism and
Baathism -- they blame Jews for all of their ills and have nothing to
show for themselves.

What is "TRUTH"s connection to Baathism/Naziism ?

[Richard Lamb]

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:

> On 2/22/2006 6:40 AM, Thomas Borchert enscribed:
>
>> Immanuel,
>>
>>> Complete text:
>>> <http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>
>>>
>>
>> Hilarious site. "Scientific panel", my a**. You guys need to get in
>> touch with the chemtrail people.
>>
>
> I am not part of a "group", so why the reference to "you guys"?
>
>
Because YOU brought this crap in here.

[TRUTH]

Richard Lamb > wrote in
nk.net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>>
>>
>>>It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
>>>Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
>>>world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
>>>same error again.
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???
>
> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>
> Though this seems like a simple enough question, the general public
> would probably be amazed to find out that engineers and scientists
> still debate just how lift is produced even 100 years after flight
> became a reality.
>
> In fact, it is quite easy to be drawn into charged debates on the
> subject, as I was when trying to answer this question. So, to be fair
> to the proponents of each theory, I will discuss each in turn. But
> first, let us simplify our discussion slightly by thinking of the wing
> as only a two-dimensional shape.
>
> Consider the cross-section of a wing created by a plane cutting
> through the wing. This two-dimensional cross-sectional shape is called
> an airfoil (or aerofoil to our British friends). An example of a
> common airfoil shape is the Clark Y.
>
>
> Bernoulli theory:
>
> The most common explanation of the concept of lift is based upon the
> Bernoulli equation, an equation that relates the pressures and
> velocites acting along the surface of a wing. What this equation says,
> in simple terms, is that the sum of the pressures acting on a body is
> a constant. This sum consists of two types of pressures: 1) the static
> pressure, or the atmospheric pressure at any point in a flowfield, and
> 2) the dynamic pressure, or the pressure created by the motion of a
> body through the air. Since dynamic pressure is a function of the
> velocity of the flow, the Bernoulli equation relates the sum of
> pressures to the velocity of the flow past the body. So what this
> equation tells us is that as velocity increases, pressure decreases
> and vice versa.
>
> To understand why the flow velocity changes, we introduce a second
> relation called the Continuity equation. What this relationship tells
> us is that the velocity at which a flow passes through an area is
> directly related to the size of that area. For example, if you blow
> through a straw, the air will come out at a certain speed. If you then
> blow in with the same strength but now squeeze the end of the straw,
> the air will come out faster.
>
> So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
> again at the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape.
> While the bottom is relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and
> more curved. Thus, when air passes over an airfoil, that flow over the
> top is squeezed into a smaller area than that airflow passing the
> lower surface. The Continuity equation tells us that a flow squeezed
> into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli equation tells
> us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower pressure.
>
> Thus, a higher pressure exists on the lower surface of an airfoil and
> a lower pressure on the upper surface. Whenever such a pressure
> difference exists in nature, a force is created in the direction of
> the lower pressure (since pressure is defined as force per unit area).
> Think of it as the upper surface being sucked upward. This upward
> force, of course, is lift. It is this theory that appears in most
> aerodynamic textbooks, albeit sometimes with incorrect assumptions
> applied and conclusions drawn.
>
>
> Newtonian theory:
>
> A theory currently gaining in popularity and arguably more
> "fundamental" in origin is the Newtonian theory, so named because it
> is said to follow from Newton's third law of motion (for every action
> there is an equal and opposite reaction). First, one most realize that
> any airfoil generating lift deflects the air flow behind it. Positive
> lift deflects the air downward, towards the ground. Thus, the motion
> of any lifting surface through a flow accelerates that flow in a new
> direction. Newton's second law tells us that force is directly
> proportional to acceleration (F=ma). Therefore, we must conclude from
> Newton's third law that the force accelerating the air downward must
> be accompanied by an equal and opposite force pushing the airfoil
> upward. This upward force is lift.
>
>
> Circulation theory:
>
> The most mathematical explanation for lift is the circulation theory.
> Circulation can be thought of as a component of velocity that rotates
> or swirls around an airfoil or any other shape. In a branch of
> aerodynamics called incompressible flow, we can use potential flow
> relationships to solve for this circulation for a desired shape. Once
> this quantity is known, the force of lift can be solved for using the
> Kutta-Joukowski theorem that directly relates lift and circulation.
> This approach tends to be more mathematically intense than I wish to
> get into here, and it's really more of a method of calculating lift in
> an ideal flowfield than an explanation of the physical origins of
> lift.
>
>
> Conclusion:
>
> So the reader may be asking which of these theories is correct?
> In TRUTH, each is valid in some respect and useful for certain
> applications, but the ultimate question is which is the most
> fundamental explanation.
>
> Mathematicians would surely prefer the circulation theory, which is
> certainly a very elegant approach firmly based on mathematical
> principles, but it fails to explain what force of nature creates
> circulation or lift. Many would argue that the Newtonian explanation
> is most fundamental since it is "derived" from Newtonian laws of
> motion. While this is true to some degree, the theory lacks an
> explanation as to why an airfoil deflects the flow downward in the
> first place. Even accepting this principle, the idea that an airfoil
> deflects the flow and therefore experiences lift also fails to capture
> the fundamental tools of nature (pressure and friction) that create
> and exert that force on the body.
>
> Proponents of this explanation generally deride the Bernoulli theory
> because it relies on less fundamental concepts, like the Bernoulli and
> Continuity equations. There is some truth to this complaint, and the
> theory may be more difficult for the novice to understand as a result.
> However, both equations are derived from Newtonian physics, and I
> would argue from more fundamental and more mathematically sound
> premises than the Newtonian theory.
>
> In the end, I leave it up to the reader to decide.
>
> Attrib:
> http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0005.shtml
>



But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the WTC


from Jones paper:

Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may
wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
on 9-11:
www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law
of Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is
enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still
puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable,
amazing – and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports
failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11
report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower
after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005,
p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

[C.D.Damron]

"> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

Maybe someone can make a Flash animation about it

[kd5sak]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> TRUTH wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>
> Bernoulli theory:
>
> So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
> again at
> the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the bottom
> is
> relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
> air
> passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller
> area
> than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells
> us
> that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli
> equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
> pressure.

I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster) over
the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back of the
airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an aeronautical
engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.

Harold

[Richard Lamb]

TRUTH wrote:

> Richard Lamb > wrote in
> nk.net:

Snipped out the relevant discussion part

>
>
>
>
> But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the WTC
>
>


What made you think that this is rec.WTC.collapse.conspiracy.for.clueless.
ragheads.that.dont.yet.understand.the.mechanics.of .a.bicycle?

Hells bells, boy. We have to start your technical education SOMEwhere.

I thought Bernoulli would be a relevant beginning point.

LOTS of hot air, but no lift...



Richard

[Richard Lamb]

kd5sak wrote:

> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>>>news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>>
>>Bernoulli theory:
>>
>>So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
>>again at
>>the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the bottom
>>is
>>relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
>>air
>>passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller
>>area
>>than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells
>>us
>>that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli
>>equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
>>pressure.
>
>
> I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
> that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster) over
> the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back of the
> airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an aeronautical
> engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.
>
> Harold
>
>
I go ya one better, Harold.

The AIR isn't even moving!
So how does it FLOW anywhere?

Richard

But I did save a bunch of money by switching to Geico...

[Harry K]

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:
> On 2/22/2006 6:40 AM, Thomas Borchert enscribed:
> > Immanuel,
> >
> >> Complete text:
> >> <http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>
> >>
> >
> > Hilarious site. "Scientific panel", my a**. You guys need to get in
> > touch with the chemtrail people.
> >
>
> I am not part of a "group", so why the reference to "you guys"?
>
>
> --


Oh yes you are. You are a member, even if you don't carryi the card,
of that ever growing group known as "Net Kooks"

Harry K

[TRUTH]

Richard Lamb > wrote in
ink.net:

> TRUTH wrote:
>
>> Richard Lamb > wrote in
>> nk.net:
>
> Snipped out the relevant discussion part
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But those statements do not apply to controlled demolitions at the
>> WTC
>>
>>
>
>
> What made you think that this is
> rec.WTC.collapse.conspiracy.for.clueless.
> ragheads.that.dont.yet.understand.the.mechanics.of .a.bicycle?
>
> Hells bells, boy. We have to start your technical education
> SOMEwhere.
>
> I thought Bernoulli would be a relevant beginning point.
>
> LOTS of hot air, but no lift...
>
>
>
> Richard
>



Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific evidence....

[TRUTH]

Orval Fairbairn > wrote in news:orfairbairn-
:

> In article >,
> TRUTH > wrote:
>
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>>
>> > It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
>> > Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
>> > world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
>> > same error again.
>>
>>
>> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???
>
> No -- but I am familiar with the Baathist/Nazi connection. Baathism
> started with some Arab expatriates living in Europe in the 1930s, who
> liked what Hitler and the Nazis were doing.
>
> They adopted the ideas and brought them back to their homelands.
> Irrational hatred of Jews is one of the hallmarks of Naziism and
> Baathism -- they blame Jews for all of their ills and have nothing to
> show for themselves.
>
> What is "TRUTH"s connection to Baathism/Naziism ?



I have no connection, since I am Jewish. (But I am no zionist.) Do you
know that Bush's grandfather was one of those who brought Hitler to
power?

[kd5sak]

"C.D.Damron" > wrote in message
news:G4aLf.784488$x96.666160@attbi_s72...
>
> "> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???
>
> Maybe someone can make a Flash animation about it
>
>I'm not totally conversant with the hows and whys but I understand that
>there is a certain connection between the Nazis and The Bush, Kennedy, and
>Lindburgh families. Lindburgh however, at least partially redeemed himself,
>helping P-38 units in the Pacific greatly extend their planes ranges,
>increasing our air dominance. In addition, as a civilian consultant/advisor
>he also shot down a Jap fighter.(The Army then immediately shipped him
>home) Younger members of the other two families also served honorably and
>meritoriously in WWII. I'm pretty sure the Bush and Kennedys trying to
>garner Marks during the 30s may have changed their minds in the early 40s,
>if not for patriotic reason, perhaps
for public relations concerns.


Harold

[kd5sak]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> kd5sak wrote:
>
>> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
>> nk.net...
>>
>>>TRUTH wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>>>>news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>>>
>>>Bernoulli theory:
>>>
>>>So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
>>>again at
>>>the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the
>>>bottom is
>>>relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
>>>air
>>>passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller
>>>area
>>>than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation
>>>tells us
>>>that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the
>>>Bernoulli
>>>equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
>>>pressure.
>>
>>
>> I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
>> that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster)
>> over the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back
>> of the airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an
>> aeronautical engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.
>>
>> Harold
>>
>>
> I go ya one better, Harold.
>
> The AIR isn't even moving!
> So how does it FLOW anywhere?
>
> Richard

I was aware that the airfoil was moving thru approximately stationary air,
think of it as virtual flow. Then there is the complication brought to the
question by that portion of the wing that gets both virtual air flow and the
actual airflow provided by propwash. I've already stated my lack of
credentials re these questions, I just like sitting in the virtual flow of
information(G)

Harold

[Dan]

Richard Lamb wrote:

>
> "How does a wing generate lift?"

Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes they
do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.

This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jose]

>>So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
>>> again at
>>> the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the bottom
>>> is
>>> relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
>>> air
>>> passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller
>>> area
>>> than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells
>>> us
>>> that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli
>>> equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
>>> pressure.
>
>
> I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
> that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster) over
> the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back of the
> airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an aeronautical
> engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.

The "squeezed into a smaller area" part comes from the classic example
of the effect in a venturi. If a (compressible) fluid flows from a fat
tube into a thin tube and back into a fat tube, it is being "squeezed
into a smaller area" when it's in the thin tube. The pressure in the
thin tube is lower.

As for the wing, a lot is left out of the explanation. Not all things
are equal, and you need to take that into account. For example,
although the path over the top is longer, at the end, the air is not put
back the way it was prior to passage. The air molecules are moving
downards. This is required by the way the trailing edge of the wing is
angled. It didn't start out that way, therefore force must be applied
to the molecules to make this happen. This can only come from the wing,
and that's what holds the wing up.

Symmetric airfoils generate lift too if they are at the proper angle of
attack. Thin symmetric airfoils generate lift, but the path over the
top and bottom is then nearly equal in length.

Hollow airfoils (think just the top surface of the wing, with the bottom
surface and some of the leading edge removed) will also hold a plane
up, and the path over the top and bottom is identical. What is
different (before and after) in all cases is that the air has acquired a
downward velocity, and this has to be balanced by an upward force
applied by the air to the wing.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Richard Lamb]

Dan wrote:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>>
>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>
>
> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes they
> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>
> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Oh My!
I don't think we are in Kansas anymore, Toto.

I believe!
I believe!
I believe!

(klicking the heels of my ruby red sneakers)

[cjcampbell]

kd5sak wrote:
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> >> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
> >
> > Bernoulli theory:
> >
> > So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
> > again at
> > the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the bottom
> > is
> > relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
> > air
> > passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a smaller
> > area
> > than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation tells
> > us
> > that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the Bernoulli
> > equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
> > pressure.
>
> I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
> that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster) over
> the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back of the
> airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an aeronautical
> engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.

You are, but don't feel bad. It is a common misconception even still
taught by some flight instructors. The truth is, there is nothing
connecting molecules of air together. It does not matter that a
molecule above the wing has to travel farther in order to 'catch up' to
one below the wing. It never met the lower molecule and cares nothing
about it. :-)

Airplane wings use the curved upper surface to displace air which,
because it is slightly sticky, follows the surface of the wing. If you
hold a water glass sideways under a stream of water you will see the
water curve around the glass all the way to the bottom. Air flowing
over a wing does the same thing. As you probably learned in basic
physics, though, gases like air maintain a constant total pressure. Air
is being accelerated in one direction over the wing, so pressure is
being increased in a single direction. We call this dynamic pressure.
It is the pressure you feel when you blow on your hand. If dynamic
pressure in one direction is increased and total pressure must remain
constant, then the pressure in all other directions must be decreased.
We call the molecules moving in all these other directions the static
pressure.

It is like cars in a parking lot, all moving in different directions.
If most of them reach a road and start moving in a single direction,
then there must be fewer cars moving in other directions. Since most of
the air particles are being accelerated in a single direction then
there must be fewer of them moving in any other direction. This creates
an area of low pressure above the wing. Air above the wing moves into
this low pressure area and is in turn accelerated behind and down off
the trailing edge of the wing. Newtonian physics tell us that if there
is acceleration in one direction there must be an equal and opposite
reaction in the other. We call that lift. The amount of lift generated
is computed by an equation involving the air density, speed of the
wing, area of the wing, and something called the lift coefficient which
is basically how much air can be displaced by the wing.

Thus, wings generate lift by accelerating air over the top of the wing
and then down off the trailing edge. People don't realize it does this
because they see pictures of air streams taken in wind tunnels, where
the fan continues to blow the air straight backward behind the wing. In
actual flight, however, the wing is simply forcing a huge volume of air
straight down. You can see this when an airplane flies low over water;
the ripples in the water are almost directly below the airplane.

Really, a wing is just a big fan blade, only instead of spinning
around it moves in a straight line. You do not stand at the edge of the
fan to catch the breeze it generates. You stand behind it. You also
know that the air blown by a fan comes from in front of the fan. You
can hold strips of paper in front of a fan and watch them being sucked
toward the fan. Well, the wing is just a fan blade. A great big fan
blade, to be sure, but that is all that it is.

We call it Bernoulli's principle because Bernoulli was the first to
notice that if you accelerate a fluid in one direction that pressure in
the other directions is reduced. One method of accelerating a fluid is
to force it through a tube that narrows, which is what Bernoulli did.
Wings do not really do that, although you commonly see science
popularizers showing air flowing through a Bernoulli tube and then
removing half the tube and calling it a wing. The fact is, air is not
really being compressed in that way at all. It is simply being
accelerated over the top of the wing by the front part of the curved
surface. That is why lift is greatest at the point where the wing is
thickest. Nevertheless, Bernoulli's equations work well for predicting
lift even though the method of accelerating the air is slightly
different than forcing it through a narrow tube. It is the same
principle, just differently implemented.

The Wright Brothers actually found that wings generate somewhat more
lift than would have been first predicted by Bernoulli. Their first
wings were too thick with a greatly exaggerated curve in order to
generate maximum lift. What they discovered through trial and error,
though, was that although such a wing generated a great deal of lift it
also could not generate more by increasing the angle of attack -- the
angle with which it meets the air. Instead, what they got by increasing
angle of attack was complete separation of air flow from the wing and
lift went to 0, what we call a stall. This is one reason the Wrights
never rebuilt the first Flyer after it was destroyed shortly after
making its first flights. They realized that the machine would never be
able to climb very rapidly and that it would always be prone to
suddenly falling out of the sky because of stalls. They considered the
thing to be extremely dangerous and went back to the drawing board.
Also, of course, they destroyed it to keep it out of the hands of
potential competitors like Curtis. A shame, really.

Or, you can just take the simple explanation and say that the air has
to travel further over the wing in order to generate lift. It is wrong,
but it works well enough for laymen.

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>>
>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>
> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
> they
> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>
> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>


Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt. Col.
and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to do their
job, all four planes would have been intercepted.

He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html

Bowman is also running for Congress
http://www.rmbowman.com/

[cjcampbell]

TRUTH wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>
> > It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
> > Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
> > world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
> > same error again.
>
>
> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???

Ah, at last. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. "LIAR" loses the argument
and the thread is ended.

[TRUTH]

"cjcampbell" > wrote in
ups.com:

>
> TRUTH wrote:
>> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>>
>> > It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
>> > Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
>> > world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
>> > same error again.
>>
>>
>> Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???
>
> Ah, at last. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. "LIAR" loses the argument
> and the thread is ended.
>
>


You don't have a clue do you? Another government controlled corporate
CNN/FOX brainwashed person

[Richard Lamb]

TRUTH wrote:

>
> Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific evidence....

Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".


Machine
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to do
something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified seven (7)
basic machines from which all other machines can be constructed.

The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be Constructed

1. the screw
2. the wing nut
3. the wheel and hubcap
4. the big heavy rock
5. the pointed stick
6. the VLSI integrated circuit
7. duct tape


Chronology

The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape, was
invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening, he figured
out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing baby proto-kittens
for fun and profit.

The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine, coincidentally
invented and patented by none other than Leonard Bernstein in 1903. Using a
mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some authorities say 3,141,592,655), it was
the first machine ever built that could successfully peel a tangerine by the
power of thought alone.

See Also

* Creationism
* Intelligent Design
* Telekinesis
* l33t

[Richard Lamb]

TRUTH wrote:

> "cjcampbell" > wrote in
> ups.com:
>
>
>>TRUTH wrote:
>>
>>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote in
>>>news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
>>>>Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
>>>>world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
>>>>same error again.
>>>
>>>
>>>Anyone here familiar with the Bush family/ Nazi connection???
>>
>>Ah, at last. I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. "LIAR" loses the argument
>>and the thread is ended.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> You don't have a clue do you? Another government controlled corporate
> CNN/FOX brainwashed person'


Godwin's Law
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Godwin's Law (also Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an adage in Internet
culture originated by Mike Godwin on Usenet in 1990 that states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

There is a tradition in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is
made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned
the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

It is considered poor form to raise arbitrarily such a comparison with the
motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized codicil that any
such deliberate invocation of Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful.

Contents


* 1 Origin
* 2 Debate and controversy
* 3 Notes
* 4 See also
* 5 External links and references


Origin

Godwin's Law was named after Mike Godwin, an attorney who was legal counsel
for the Electronic Frontier Foundation at the time the law was first
popularized. He has since written a book about free speech and online privacy
called Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age in which he
discusses the origin of Godwin's Law.

Godwin established the law as part of an experiment in memetics, the study of
information transfer. On Usenet there was a trend toward demonizing opponents
in arguments by comparing the position they held to that of Hitler or the
Nazis, in Godwin's own words "a trivialization I found both illogical and
offensive." [1] So, in 1990, Godwin developed the law as a counter-meme and
began posting it in Usenet discussions after such a comparison occurred.

Richard Sexton maintains that Godwin's Law is a formalization of his October
16, 1989, post [2]:

You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the
participents [sic] drags out Hitler and the Nazis.

Strictly speaking, however, Godwin's Law is different from Sexton's statement,
since it does not claim that such a reference or comparison makes a discussion
"old" or, for that matter, that such a reference or comparison means that a
discussion is over.


Debate and controversy

One common objection to the invocation of Godwin's Law is that sometimes using
Hitler or the Nazis is an apt way of making a point. For instance, if one is
debating the relative merits of a particular leader, and someone says
something like, "He's a good leader, look at the way he's improved the
economy," one could reply, "Just because he improved the economy doesn't make
him a good leader. Even Hitler improved the economy." Some would view this as
a perfectly acceptable comparison. One uses Hitler as a well-known example of
an extreme case that requires no explanation to prove that a generalization is
not universally true.

Some would argue, however, that Godwin's Law applies especially to the
situation mentioned above, as it portrays an inevitable appeal to emotion as
well as holding an implied ad hominem attack on the subject being compared,
both of which are fallacious in irrelevant contexts. Hitler, on a semiotic
level, has far too many negative connotations associated with him to be used
as a valid comparison to anything but other despotic dictators. Thus, Godwin's
Law holds even in making comparisons to normal leaders that, on the surface,
would seem to be reasonable comparisons.

Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's Law does
not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to
Hitler or the Nazis might be apt. It is precisely because such a reference or
comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic
overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such
hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to
Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact.


Notes

From a philosophical standpoint, Godwin's Law could be said to exclude
normative (emotional) considerations from a positivist (rational) discussion.
Frequently, a reference to Hitler is used as an evocation of evil. Thus a
discussion proceeding on a positivist examination of facts is considered
terminated when this objective consideration is transformed into a normative
discussion of subjective right and wrong. It is exacerbated by the frequent
fallacy "Hitler did A, therefore A is evil" (Reductio ad Hitlerum.) However,
as noted, the exceptions to Godwin's Law include the invocation of the Hitler
comparison in a positivist manner that does not have a normative dimension.

In general, Godwin's Law does not apply in situations wherein one could
reasonably expect Hitler or Nazis to be mentioned, such as a discussion of
Germany in World War II. Exceptions, of course, may exist and should be
obvious given the preceding discussion.

On December 12, 2005, Godwin's Law was the subject of a question in the UK
television quiz show University Challenge.


See also

* Benford's law of controversy
* Jargon File
* Reductio ad Hitlerum
* Wilcox-McCandlish law of online discourse evolution
* Adages named after people



External links and references
Listen to this article · (info)
Spoken Wikipedia
This audio file was created from an article revision dated 2005-07-01, and
does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles

* Godwin's Law FAQ
* Usenet posting: Mike Godwin restates the Usenet variant of Godwin's Law
(Aug 1991)
* Godwin's Law entry in the Jargon File
* Godwin's Law in Ursine's Jargon Wiki.
* Meme, Counter-meme, Mike Godwin, Wired 2.10, October 1994—Godwin
discusses his Law
* EFF page on Godwin's Law and reformulations
* ADL calls added definition of nazi offensive
* Mike Godwin runs a blog called "Godwin's Law."
* Usenet posting: Richard Sexton's original post (Oct 1989)
* Jurisimprudence: a listing of various fandom and Internet debate laws
similar to Godwin's Law
* Reason magazine, 14 July 2005. "Hands Off Hitler!: It's time to repeal
Godwin's Law".
* Breaking Godwin's Law
* Westgard's Law: a corollary of Godwin's Law regarding the First Amendment

[Dave Doe]

In article om>,
says...
> > Complete an utter BS.
>
> I agree with you but why did you quote it all?
> I don't want to argue or be rude but you repeated all the posrt just to
> add ONE line!

What's complete and utter BS???
:)
--
Duncan

[Jim Macklin]

At some distance above the curved upper surface the air acts
as a wall.


"kd5sak" > wrote in message
. com...
|
| "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
|
nk.net...
| > TRUTH wrote:
| >> "Jim Macklin" >
wrote in
| >> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
| >
| > Bernoulli theory:
| >
| > So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional
airfoil? Look
| > again at
| > the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved
shape. While the bottom
| > is
| > relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more
curved. Thus, when
| > air
| > passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is
squeezed into a smaller
| > area
| > than that airflow passing the lower surface. The
Continuity equation tells
| > us
| > that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster,
and the Bernoulli
| > equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it
creates a lower
| > pressure.
|
| I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller
area". I Understood
| that the flow over the top surface had to travel further
(thus faster) over
| the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to
the back of the
| airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an
aeronautical
| engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.
|
| Harold
|
|

[Jim Macklin]

I always thought that wings and engines moved money downward
and that allowed flight.




"Dan" > wrote in message
news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12...
| Richard Lamb wrote:
|
| >
| > "How does a wing generate lift?"
|
| Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone
believes they
| do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to
do so.
|
| This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Macklin]

So the new arrivals can see and read all the TRUTH and know
that truth is subjective and facts are facts and the two
don't have to meet. But I'll try to remember to snip a
little more. BTW, you should munge your GMail address
before you get 2.5 GB of spam and viruses.



--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


> wrote in message
ups.com...
|> Complete an utter BS.
|
| I agree with you but why did you quote it all?
| I don't want to argue or be rude but you repeated all the
posrt just to
| add ONE line!
|
| Piero
|

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:
>
>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>
>>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
>> they
>> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>>
>> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
> Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt. Col.
> and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to do their
> job, all four planes would have been intercepted.
>
> He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
> http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html
>
> Bowman is also running for Congress
> http://www.rmbowman.com/

As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience with
the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS, they
tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have located
them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down in time to
stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would have
believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event aircraft go
astray every single day, should there be a military response to all of them?

Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process takes
2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and ready
to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac situations
not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and holidays it was
harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.

On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems genning
up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.

Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what action
would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I always thought that wings and engines moved money downward
> and that allowed flight.
>
>
>
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12...
> | Richard Lamb wrote:
> |
> | >
> | > "How does a wing generate lift?"
> |
> | Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone
> believes they
> | do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to
> do so.
> |
> | This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
> |
> | Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
That's how hot air balloons and space shuttles fly.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Paulb6]

Without addressing all the other assumptions of flying it becomes apparent
to me ( a lifelong northern Virginian ) that he has never been to the
Pentagon. It does not sit at the end of a long straight area of any kind. As
I read the reports and saw the area involved he approached parallel to the
Columbia Pike roadway, this road undulates through its entire length prior
to approaching the Pentagon and reaches its highest point just several
football lengths prior to the Pentagon. All the garbage about flying within
20 feet of the ground would be almost impossible with a light plane and
impossible with a heavy aircraft.


"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in message
...
> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>
> Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
>
> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
> aircraft.
>
> [...]
>
> What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've
> heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseum, on the
> Internet and the TV networks-invariably by people who know nothing
> substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.
>
> A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it
> is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the
> objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky".
> But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least
> bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the
> aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles
> away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the
> challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.
>
> And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a
> Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton,
> high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.
>
> For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a
> modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and
> disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even
> remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even
> the software versions available for home computers.
>
> In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one
> has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled
> instrument-rated one to boot - and be thoroughly familiar with the actual
> aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary
> between aircraft.
>
> The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to
> approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight
> simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these
> phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out
> ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past.
> Take-offs-even landings, to a certain degree-are relatively "easy",
> because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the
> cockpit.
>
> But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a
> simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant
> destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the
> situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external
> visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of
> complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues
> (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)
>
> In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS
> (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large
> multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments.
> These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an
> integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not
> only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time
> and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference
> cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this
> data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly,
> precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do
> so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't
> have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such
> conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules.
>
> And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's
> all you have!
>
> The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick,
> smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident records from
> around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots -
> I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots - who 'bought the farm' because
> they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions.
>
> Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men
> were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 - an
> elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around
> the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple
> circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a
> landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.
>
> Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary
> exercise by himself.
>
> In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say about the
> aptitude of these budding aviators:
>
> Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero."
>
> Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our
> standards."
>
> Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and
> incompetence at the controls."
>
> Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons."
>
> Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were
> even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to
> this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not
> fly at all."
>
> Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker
> Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously
> fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain
> Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow
> manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to
> achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke
> and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that
> this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box
> cutter-Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had
> flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather
> than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly
> rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck
> when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural reaction
> expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.
>
> Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes
> them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat.
> Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour
> was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility
> Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or
> off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7
> miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually
> devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was
> moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH
> (about 750 feet every second).
>
> In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that
> day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the
> ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness",
> Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan-he
> wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.
>
> After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there's
> little point in looking outside-there's nothing there to give him any real
> visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas,
> following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting
> presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily
> unsettling environment indeed.
>
> Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his
> attention to his instrument panel, where he'd be faced with a bewildering
> array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his
> heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays
> before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where
> the Pentagon was located in relation to his position!
>
> After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the
> target.
>
> It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground
> reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these
> incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a
> daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have
> known where to begin.
>
> But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all
> plausibility and say that Hanjour-whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't
> fly at all"-somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the
> American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed
> the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by
> themselves before.
>
> Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out
> where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing
> position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot
> see with his eyes-remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).
>
> In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be
> very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a
> navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information
> into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation
> automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was
> supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500
> MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex
> methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.
>
> To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these
> men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This
> still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume
> Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the
> aircraft to its intended-and invisible-target on instruments alone until
> such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him
> to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This
> portion of Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar
> evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly
> disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that
> little point.)
>
> According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over
> Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of
> 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which
> "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He
> also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of
> this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented
> the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on
> it).
>
> The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic
> controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a
> commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers
> at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the
> maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room,
> all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military
> plane."
>
> And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon
> sitting squarely in his sights right before him.
>
> But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot.
> You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most
> densely populated wings of the Pentagon-and one occupied by top military
> brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order
> to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and
> approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself
> with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to
> extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians
> construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included
> blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).
>
> I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large
> commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion
> on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction,
> wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article
> (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the
> roads.)
>
> Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb
> airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.
>
> The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the
> world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low
> wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400
> MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one
> mile.
>
> Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light
> poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by
> the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the
> final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft
> impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757
> were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as
> in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo,
> for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would
> have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the
> Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.
>
> At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically
> impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash
> sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices,
> simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than
> approximately one half the distance of its wingspan-until speed is
> drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal
> landings.
>
> In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not
> have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a
> maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high
> wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise
> missiles-and the Global Hawk.)
>
> The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the
> pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too,
> would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too,
> miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final
> approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have
> been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.
>
> Conclusion
> The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the
> flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control"
> of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in
> their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that
> these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the
> buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the
> official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at
> altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize the
> absurdity of this kind of reasoning.
>
> In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable
> difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into
> a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away
> and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500
> MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.
>
> Complete text:
> <http://physics911.net/sagadevan.htm>
>
>
> --
> Closely Monitored,
>
> Immanuel Goldstein
>
> "The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated
> injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
> an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
> submitted to a candid world."
> - Declaration of Independence
>
> The Pentagon Strike
> <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
>
> The Demolition of WTC Building 7
> <http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
>
> "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
> - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
> <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
>
> "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
> - Orwell
>
> "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
> provide new Guards for their future security."
> - Declaration of Independence

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:
>>
>>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>>> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
>>> they
>>> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>>>
>>> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>> Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
>> Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
>> do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.
>>
>> He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
>> http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html
>>
>> Bowman is also running for Congress
>> http://www.rmbowman.com/
>
> As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
> with
> the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
> operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
> tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
> they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
> located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down in
> time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
> have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
> aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
> response to all of them?
>
> Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
> takes
> 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and ready
> to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
> situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and holidays
> it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.
>
> On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
> genning
> up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.
>
> Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
> action
> would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>



Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?

[Dan Luke]

"cjcampbell" wrote:
in message oups.com...
>
> Immanuel Goldstein wrote:
>> The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>>
>> Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
>>
>> Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy
>> aircraft.
>
> Actually, he is not. Not in the US, anyway. There is no one by the name
> of Sagadevan currently holding a pilot certificate of any kind in the
> US, not even a private pilot certificate, or even a student pilot
> certificate. He does not appear anywhere in the FAA database.
>
> That might explain why he does not have the faintest idea of what he is
> talking about.
>
> 100% of the pilots posting here have met these allegations with
> absolute derision. What does that tell you about the likelihood of
> Sagadevan's claims?

That everyone who doesn't believe in it is a fool or in on the conspiracy.
Everything that he hears or sees will tell him that. He is a kook; that is
how kooks "think."

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>>>> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
>>>> they
>>>> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>>>>
>>>> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
>>> Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
>>> do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.
>>>
>>> He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
>>> http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html
>>>
>>> Bowman is also running for Congress
>>> http://www.rmbowman.com/
>> As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
>> with
>> the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
>> operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
>> tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
>> they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
>> located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down in
>> time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
>> have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
>> aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
>> response to all of them?
>>
>> Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
>> takes
>> 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and ready
>> to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
>> situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and holidays
>> it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.
>>
>> On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
>> genning
>> up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.
>>
>> Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
>> action
>> would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>
>
> Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?

NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or since
9/11 tend to make the news?

Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

Dan > wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:

> TRUTH wrote:
>> Dan > wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:
>>
>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>> Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>>>>> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
>>>>> they
>>>>> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
>>>> Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
>>>> do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.
>>>>
>>>> He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
>>>> http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html
>>>>
>>>> Bowman is also running for Congress
>>>> http://www.rmbowman.com/
>>> As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
>>> with
>>> the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
>>> operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
>>> tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
>>> they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
>>> located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
in
>>> time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
>>> have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
>>> aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
>>> response to all of them?
>>>
>>> Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
>>> takes
>>> 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
ready
>>> to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
>>> situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
holidays
>>> it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.
>>>
>>> On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
>>> genning
>>> up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.
>>>
>>> Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
>>> action
>>> would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?
>
> NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
> how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
since
> 9/11 tend to make the news?
>
> Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
> assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
> have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
> difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
> I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>



According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?

[Tim Ward]

"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> TRUTH wrote:
>
> >
> > Don't understand that at all. Perhaps if you used scientific
evidence....
>
> Grim. Ok, I think we should "start at the very beginning".
>
>
> Machine
> From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
>
> In mechanics, a machine is a technological device that is designed to do
> something cool. Technologists throughout the ages have identified seven
(7)
> basic machines from which all other machines can be constructed.
>
> The Seven (7) Basic Machines from which All Other Machines Can be
Constructed
>
> 1. the screw
> 2. the wing nut
> 3. the wheel and hubcap
> 4. the big heavy rock
> 5. the pointed stick
> 6. the VLSI integrated circuit
> 7. duct tape
>
>
> Chronology
>
> The first compound machine, a big heavy rock covered with duct tape, was
> invented by Og the Cave Person in 500,000 BCE. Later that evening, he
figured
> out a practical use for this peculiar contraption: clubbing baby
proto-kittens
> for fun and profit.
>
> The next important innovation was the Rube Goldberg Machine,
coincidentally
> invented and patented by none other than Leonard Bernstein in 1903. Using
a
> mere 3,141,592,653 parts (note: some authorities say 3,141,592,655), it
was
> the first machine ever built that could successfully peel a tangerine by
the
> power of thought alone.
>
> See Also
>
> * Creationism
> * Intelligent Design
> * Telekinesis
> * l33t
>

Coincidentally, the number of parts in it was also its patent number.

Tim Ward

[Tim Ward]

"kd5sak" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > TRUTH wrote:
> >> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in
> >> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05:
> >
> > Bernoulli theory:
> >
> > So how do these equations relate to our two-dimensional airfoil? Look
> > again at
> > the Clark Y and notice that an airfoil is a curved shape. While the
bottom
> > is
> > relatively flat, the top surface is thicker and more curved. Thus, when
> > air
> > passes over an airfoil, that flow over the top is squeezed into a
smaller
> > area
> > than that airflow passing the lower surface. The Continuity equation
tells
> > us
> > that a flow squeezed into a smaller area must go faster, and the
Bernoulli
> > equation tells us that when a flow moves faster, it creates a lower
> > pressure.
>
> I don't quite understand the "squeezed into a smaller area". I Understood
> that the flow over the top surface had to travel further (thus faster)
over
> the longer curved distance to get from the leading edge to the back of the
> airfoil. I am just a lay person and do not even play an aeronautical
> engineer on TV so I may be totally mistaken.
>
> Harold

All those theories have been discredited anyway. It's invisible magic lift
fairies that do all the real work.

Tim Ward

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Stop replying to this idiot.

[Greg Esres]

<<If a (compressible) fluid flows from a fat tube into a thin tube and
back into a fat tube, it is being "squeezed into a smaller area" when
it's in the thin tube. >>

The Bernoulli equation only applies to *incompressible* flow.

<<This is required by the way the trailing edge of the wing is angled.
>>

What about reflexed airfoils?

[Dan]

TRUTH wrote:
> Dan > wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:
>
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>>>>>> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>
>>>>> Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
>>>>> Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
>>>>> do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.
>>>>>
>>>>> He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
>>>>> http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Bowman is also running for Congress
>>>>> http://www.rmbowman.com/
>>>> As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
>>>> with
>>>> the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
>>>> operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
>>>> tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
>>>> they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
>>>> located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
> in
>>>> time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
>>>> have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
>>>> aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
>>>> response to all of them?
>>>>
>>>> Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
>>>> takes
>>>> 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
> ready
>>>> to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
>>>> situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
> holidays
>>>> it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.
>>>>
>>>> On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
>>>> genning
>>>> up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.
>>>>
>>>> Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
>>>> action
>>>> would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?
>> NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
>> how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
> since
>> 9/11 tend to make the news?
>>
>> Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
>> assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
>> have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
>> difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
>> I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>>
>
>
>
> According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
> 9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
> plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?

FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried
before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything
like scrambled eggs?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[TRUTH]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote in news:11vrmij7iu3hkf9
@news.supernews.com:

> Stop replying to this idiot.
>
>



I try not to, but the Gig 601XL Builder keeps posting over and over. What a
brainwashed lowlife he is ha ha ha

[Jose]

> The Bernoulli equation only applies to *incompressible* flow.

Right. But the Bernoulli principle applies to compressible and
incompressible flow. It is the source of the venturi effect, which
occurs in air, among other places.

> What about reflexed airfoils?

I am not familiar with them. The trailing edge is depicted as pointing
up; does it do so when the wing is at a lifting angle of attack? Is
there an airflow separation near the trailing edge? If air is not being
deflected downwards somewhere, we're back to the lifting fairies. :)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Greg Esres]

<<But the Bernoulli principle applies to compressible and
incompressible flow. >>

True. But your original text suggested that the fluid *had* to be
compressible.

<<The trailing edge is depicted as pointing up; does it do so when the
wing is at a lifting angle of attack?>>

Good question. I don't know. Anyway, remember that there is no
overall downward movement of the air unless there exist wingtip
vortices. This suggests that the important downward momentum of air
happens *after* the air leaves the trailing edge. I'm not certain
that what direction the trailing edge is actually pointing is
critical. I'm skeptical that if you have an airfoil generating
positive lift, just tilting the trailing edge upwards slightly is
going to kill that lift.

Also, although theory (Kutta Condition) says that the air flow leaves
the trailing edge smoothly, my understanding is that in real life, the
rear stagnation point will be somewhat on the top surface of the
airfoil anyway.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 1:09 PM, Jim Macklin wrote:
> Schumer would have been a trustee guard in a Nazi camp.
>

Speaking of camps, Americans shall be herded into their very own camps in the
not so far future. Provided by your very own FEMA.

By the way, any Americans still remember when FEMA suddenly appeared out of thin
air, in 1992, after the Hurricane Andrew disaster hit Florida? Many, many,
unanswered questions by the media _that_ day. LOL!

For what it's worth, the present FEMA has secretly existed since 1979, but the
original FEMA existed long before Carter.

<http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon6.html>


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"The history of the present [Government] is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world."
- Declaration of Independence

The Pentagon Strike
<http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>

The Demolition of Building 7
<http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- US President speaking about the U.S. Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same
Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards
for their future security."
- Declaration of Independence

[Jose]

> But your original text suggested that the fluid *had* to be
> compressible.

Yes, it did suggest that. It shouldn't have. My clumsiness.

> Anyway, remember that there is no
> overall downward movement of the air unless there exist wingtip
> vortices.

An infinitely wide wing has no wingtips. You suggest it could not
provide lift. I've read the "wingtip vortices provide lift" papers, I'm
not convinced that the correlation implies a causation in that
direction. I see it as: the wing causes downwash which provides lift
(action-reaction) and =that= creates vortices. The higher pressure air
underneath the wing has to go somewhere - around (the wingtip) and up
makes sense to me, and that is a vortex.

What happens in the two-dimensional case?

> I'm skeptical that if you have an airfoil generating
> positive lift, just tilting the trailing edge upwards slightly is
> going to kill that lift.

I agree with you. The downward movement of air is being generated over
the entire wing chord, and has some depth to it too. I suspect (without
solving any equations) that tilting the trailing edge upwards slightly
(that's what ailerons do, sort of) does reduce lift, but as the airflow
right underneath the airfoil gets deflected upwards, the air further
away (below) does not, leaving a small lower pressure region just below
the upward pointing trailing edge. The rest of the mass of air below
this small low pressure region continues downwards through its momentum.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Richard Lamb]

Tim Ward wrote:

> All those theories have been discredited anyway. It's invisible magic lift
> fairies that do all the real work.
>
> Tim Ward
>
>
Mary Schaefer's (NASA) "Lift Demons" and "Drag Demons"

...

The Role of Lift Demons and Thrust Pixies in Heavier Than Air Flight
Publication Date: April 2005

Abstract: The role of Lift Demons in aeronautics was first explained in 1994
by Mary Shafer (NASA). Since then, Shafer's work has been explored and
revised. This paper summarises advances in Lift Demon technology over the
last decade.

Keywords: Lift Demons, Thrust Pixies, lemon fondant

Question: How did the secret information on Lift Demons make it into the
public domain? I've been a practising Aircraft Performance Engineer for the
past 26 years and have always tried to explain how aeroplanes fly by using
the official public explanations regarding Bernoulli, airfoils and other
such rot. Civilians just weren't ready for the truth.
In fact, we generally don't speak about the magic directly. Most of our plans
and estimates usually end with the phrase "and then a miracle
happens".

Answer: The science of Lift Demons was declassified in 1994, throwing this
topic wide open for discussion and research.

According to Shafer "Lift is caused by Lift Demons.
These little, invisible demons hold on to the leading and trailing edges of
the aircraft and lift it into the air by flapping their wings (so, in a
reductionist sense, lift is actually caused by feathers). Some of the demons
are a little confused and they hold on backwards, causing drag. The reason
that planes stall at high alpha is that the leading edge demons get scared and
let go when they can't see the ground anymore.

Lift demons have good taste and don't like to look at ugly aircraft, so they
hold on backwards on ugly planes. That's why gliders have so much lift and so
little drag and why F-4s have lots of drag." This, however, did not address
what gives lift to the Lift Demons' wings. Again, according to Shafer
"Feathers. The multiple filaments on feathers trap the air molecules and they
struggle to escape, which causes the action-reaction that we call lift. Bat
wings don't have feathers but they're hairy and that works just about as well
(air molecules are a little claustrophobic)."

It was originally believed that Lift Demons got their lift from smaller Lift
Demons whose lift was, in turn, produced by even smaller Lift Demons leading
to the "Infinite Demons Theory" as proposed by the great Greek
philosopher-scientist Miasma. However, with the revival of scientific
knowledge that eventually ended the Dark Ages, it was realised that this
situation unresolvable according to Zeno's paradox. The "Infinite Demons
Theory" works in many problems of engineering significance, however, real
understanding requires that the ether be introduced into the analysis at
some point. The "Ether Concept" explains why planes fly more efficiently at
higher altitudes. This is an absolute necessity when studying orbital and
interplanetary travel where, it is believed, many of the Lift Demons are
unable to breathe.

As always the Chinese seem to have been there first. "The Genius of China",
tells of one Ko Hung. "Someone asked the Master (Ko Hung) about the
principles of mounting to dangerous heights and travelling into the vast
inane. The Master said "[...] some have made flying cars with wood from the
inner part of the jujube tree, using ox leather straps fastened to returning
blades so as to set the machine in motion. Others have the idea of making
five snakes, six dragons and three oxen to meet the 'hard wind' and ride on
it, not stopping until they have risen to a height of 40 li (about 65,000
feet). The the ch'i [emanation of the sky or perhaps wind] is extremely
hard, so much so that it can overcome the strength of human beings. [...]
Take dragons, for example; when they first rise they go up using the clouds
as steps, and after they attained a height of forty li then they rush
forward effortlessly gliding." The jujube tree device sounds like the
Osprey. Scholars believe that the term "dragon" referred to the Lift Demon
and that the Chinese had harnessed their power before the Western world had
even discovered the Lift Demons' existence.

Lift Demons operate differently on different aircraft types. They get dizzy
holding onto a spinning prop and become disorientated, thus more of them
face the wrong direction which increases the drag. Lift Demons have to be
magically bound to jet engines and an Airbus propulsion engineer explained
"It takes an average of three day's solid chanting and ritual to get one of
those 'engine' things to work. If us witches stopped our hard work, there'd
be planes dropping out of the sky all over the place. We should never have
let you lot find out about being able to fly, it's been nothing but trouble
ever since."

Recognition of Lift Demons has also solved one of aviation's oldest puzzles:
Gremlins. There appears to be a connection between Gremlins and Lift Demons.
Gremlins may be Lift Demons that have, in some way, turned against the
pilot. Instead of assisting him in his task of keeping the machine in the
air, they do the opposite. The reason may be that, after reading about the
Bernoulli/Newton dichotomy, they have become confused.

Much has been written about Gremlins, dating back to WWII. Gremlins have been
known to run towards the nose of an aircraft, causing it to dive into the
sea, showing that they have at least some knowledge of the principles of
flight. These days, most planes carry a full complement of In-Flight Gremlins;
although they must be carefully managed, their presence generally inhibits
the transformation of rogue Lift Demons into Gremlins.

Further study of Lift Demons was carried out by an aero-industry weights
engineer who submitted the following scientific paper in 2004 to celebrate
the anniversary of Shafer's ground-breaking article:

"There are still people in this company who think we weigh aircraft to find
out how much they weigh, not to calculate stresses. Of course we need to
know how much the thing weighs. How are we ever going to know how many
Thrust Pixies we need to get the thing off the ground if we don't know the
weight? Or should that be "Lift Demons"? Pixies have largely fallen into
disrepute - something about Bernoulli not being representative in unbounded
conditions and cause and effect being transposed in the Newtonian model.

In fact the use of Lift Demons on civil aircraft programmes is generally not
that good an idea. The Demon binding contract tends to specify payment in
blood or souls. This is readily achievable with aircraft of military
function, but frowned upon in civilian circles as they may attempt to
acquire payment outside of the terms of their binding contract. Lift Demons
are not used on Elf bombers. We don't talk about Lift [Thrust] Pixies too
often as it seems to upset the self-loading cargo [passengers]. Pixies
require payment in cakes, flowers or nice thoughts.

These are readily sourced either from the in-flight catering, or provided
cost-free by the passengers. Clearly this would not work well within an
operational military environment. Air force cooking is not renowned for the
"light and fluffy texture" that Thrust Pixies demand, the availability of
flowers might be problematic in desert operations, and nice thoughts may
also be hard to find during times of active operations.

There is also a scalability issue. While one rampant Lift Demon would have
few problems supporting a fighter aircraft (particularly if there is an
immediate prospect of blood), it'll struggle to achieve level controlled
flight of a 560 tonne Airbus A380. Use of more than one Lift Demon on the
same flight vehicle is contra-indicated (they squabble and eat each other).
Communities of Thrust Pixies can be encouraged to work together on the same
aircraft by the provision of advanced technologies such as Lemon fondant
icing, variegated tulips or in-flight romantic comedies. Ryanair once
requested Leprachauns be installed in place of Lift [Thrust] Pixies, but
Leprechauns have a mission statement which indicates their desire for
monetary gain, and their willingness to search all over the world for it.

This makes Lift Leprechauns expensive to keep (gold vs. lemon fondant
icing), and makes it difficult to establish a regular route network as the
Lift Leprechauns don't like to continuously visit the same locations. By
law, aircraft also have to have a full complement of In-Flight Gremlins, but
these are generally not a problem unless you feed the Wingtip Vortex Faeries
after midnight."

His article shows that we've moved on a great deal since 1994. It has been
known for some time that Lift Demons are best suited to military uses. In
spite of suggestions that Pixies have fallen into disrepute, outside of
military aviation it is Lift Demons that are considered passé - they have
notoriously short attention spans and the ones used on Harriers have
problems discriminating between air and water.

Inbreeding in pursuit of the ultimate high performance Lift Demon may have
been the cause. In civil aviation, the way ahead still lies with Thrust
Pixies, large amounts of lemon fondant icing and in-flight Hugh Grant movies.
Many instances of civil planes mysteriously falling out of the sky can be
traced to (a) cessation of happy thoughts/lack of lemon fondant for the pixies
(resulting in "Pixie Fatigue" or even "catastrophic pixie failure") or to
(b) a large amount of happy thoughts/gateau mountain at ground level
distracting the pixies from their task. Thrust Pixies dislike
Marmite/Vegemite (yeast extract) and since such spreads can cause unhappy
thoughts in some passengers, airline caterers are careful to avoid these.

A note on Catastrophic Pixie Failure: Temporary pixie problems resulting in
turbulence or sudden loss of altitude causes unhappy thoughts in the
passengers (which is why cabin staff and pilots alway play down such
occurrences). The resulting loss of happy thoughts causes further Pixie
failure, worsening the situation.

This makes passengers have even more unhappy thoughts and the Pixies become
more fatigued; some may even leave the aircraft. Unless counter-acted by large
lemon fondant reserves, Pixie Failure reaches catastrophic proportions and the
aircraft is doomed.

Modern aircraft designers use Lift Fairies and avoid the whole controversy
regarding the used of Lift Demons on civil aircraft programmes. Coming from
a less benevolent cast, Lift Fairies are less dependent on nice thoughts or
cakes. Fairies tend to less concerned with good and evil and hence make
better dual use aircraft. Another major headache today is how to get 707
Lift Fairies at a reasonable price. Many of the older aircraft-specific
fairies have become rare, if not unavailable. Aircraft numbering relates to
the type and quantity of Lift Demons or Lift Fairies needed. For example a
C-130 requires 130 "C class" Lift Demons while an Airbus A380 uses 380 "A"
class Thrust Pixies. Aero engineers have a scale of values (proprietary
information, not available in the public domain) allowing them to substitute
different numbers of Pixies and Demons with different lifting abilities,
thus making best use of the available surfaces.

There was short-lived interest in breeding a generic, or at least dual-use,
"Thrust Demon" but the blood-loving Lift Demons ate the gateau-loving Thrust
Pixies. In vitro techniques failed because their genietic [sic] material is
incompatible so there are no hybrid Thrust Demons. DNA sequencing has
allowed us to distinguish between many castes of Lift Demon, Thrust Fairy
etc. For example due credit should be given to the inelegantly named Fart
Fairies without whose bean eating and gas production, no machine could power
itself from the earth's surface. The shy Turbine Winder-Rounder Gnomes hide
inside those so-called engine nacelles from the public and indulge their
serious kerosene drinking problems. Why else would the engines be called
Gnome engines? Leading-Edge Leeries give the extra little push that keeps
the nose up. The unfortunate tendency for RAF Harriers to crash into the sea
has led to speculation that Harriers are equipped with Sirens or that the
crashes resulted from an ill-advised experiment in using Water Nymphs (these
are better suited to submarine propulsion). In any case, only export
versions of the Harrier are likely to use Sirens, while those for the
British domestic market use Banshees leased from the Irish.

Thrust Pixies are adequate for civil aircraft, while Lift Demons were good
in military applications in years past, but modern Naval Aviation is
currently all Angel-powered. The very best ones are, of course, Blue Angels.
This is why they report their altitude as "angels twenty" or such. In
addition, many Navy pilots claim that black air has no lift, which means
they can get all night in to supplement their daytime naps between meals.
This shows that Angels and Naval Lift Demons are strictly diurnal.
Genetically engineered, military-tolerant Thrust Pixies may be what is
needed. Thrust Demons might also have applications in getting Air Force
maritime patrol aircraft to stop reaching "prudent limit of endurance" by 2
p.m. (local time) every Friday just after reporting a "possible intruder"
submarine in the exercise area, and not be restored to flying status until 9
a.m. Monday, thus leaving the ships to stay out over the weekend looking for
the "intruder".

There are no Anti-Gravity Demons so a different approach has to be taken in
this field of research. Current research into inertia-free propulsion has
shown great promise through the use of properly modified felines. Butter is
spread evenly over the felines back. When the creature is tossed lightly
into the air, the third law of universal fate dictates that it must land
butter side down. However this does not occur due to the intervention of the
feline landing axiom (feet first). The above conflicting forces result in a
stable hover. The subject felines have demonstrated the ability to control
their own velocity at will. The only loose ends delaying the full
commercialisation of this process is the matter of persuading the felines to
(a) work in teams; (b) not lick off the butter and (c) follow a flight plan.

As there seems to be a deficiency in feline herding instincts, any
suggestions would be appreciated by the researchers involved.

[Greg Esres]

<<An infinitely wide wing has no wingtips. You suggest it could not
provide lift. >>

Heck no. It just does so with no *net* downward momentum of air. In
other words, the upward momentum ahead of the wing is equal to the
downward momentum at the rear of the wing.

<<I've read the "wingtip vortices provide lift" papers, >>

I'm not proposing that.

<<the wing causes downwash which provides lift (action-reaction) and
=that= creates vortices. >>

Infinite wings have no downwash, yet provide lift. By *definition*,
downwash is caused by wingtip vortices.

<<The higher pressure air underneath the wing has to go somewhere -
around (the wingtip) and up makes sense to me, and that is a vortex. >>

Except when you don't have wingtips. ;-)

[Jose]

> Heck no. It just does so with no *net* downward momentum of air. In
> other words, the upward momentum ahead of the wing is equal to the
> downward momentum at the rear of the wing.

What upward momentum? The air starts out still, and infinitely wide
wing comes flying through it, when all is done air has to have been
deflected downwards, at the very least to satisfy Newton.

Behind the wing, air is moving downwards, there is higher pressure below
the wing's path, and lower pressure above the wing's path. The air will
recover, as the pressure equalizes (eventually pushing down on the
earth's surface and up into the lower pressure region)

> Infinite wings have no downwash, yet provide lift. By *definition*,
> downwash is caused by wingtip vortices.

Well, then an infinite wing ought to have something that is not called
downwash, but keeps Newton happy. Call it downflow, call it pressure
bounce.. but it's something.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Greg Esres]

<<What upward momentum? The air starts out still, and infinitely wide
wing comes flying through it, >>

As the wing approaches, the air starts moving up, eagerly anticipating
the meeting. Called "upwash".

<<Well, then an infinite wing ought to have something that is not
called
downwash, but keeps Newton happy. Call it downflow, call it pressure
bounce.. but it's something.>>

Newton is happy. The high pressure air on the bottom of the airfoil
pushes on the airfoil, the airfoil pushes back

Anyway, I'm just the messenger. The idea that there is no net downward
momentum of infinite airfoils is stated in a number of aerodynamics
books.

[Jose]

> As the wing approaches, the air starts moving up, eagerly anticipating
> the meeting. Called "upwash".

Not disputing, just trying to learn... but... the way I see it (and I'm
not an aeronautical engineer)

.... why does the air start moving up? AFAIK, lifting fairies don't push
the air around; that's not in their contract. :)

The way I see it, the high pressure air below the wing causes air to be
displaced out from below the wing, and some of that pushes out ahead of
the wing, pusing the air in front of the wing up out of the way. So,
before the wing itself meets the air, the air is in an upwashing state.
Then the leading edge meets the upwashing air and gains some lift from
momentum transfer...

However, in front of the upwashing air, the air is undisturbed. This is
the initial state of the air - upwashing is somehow caused by the wing's
approach.

When the wing passes through the air, the air is forced downward as it
follows the wing's angle of attack, since it can't go through the wing.

After the wing has passed, the downward moving air slows down (to a
stop?) as it compresses the air below it, helping to create the upwash
in front of the wing.

In another scenario, what happens in a long ducted fan? The blades are
just wings going round and round providing lift in the direction of the
duct, the duct prevents wingtip vortices, and air gets sucked in one end
and pushed out the other end. Is this not analogous to a wing "pushing
air down"?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article et>, Richard Lamb
says...

>According to Shafer "Lift is caused by Lift Demons.
>These little, invisible demons hold on to the leading and trailing edges of
>the aircraft and lift it into the air by flapping their wings (so, in a
>reductionist sense, lift is actually caused by feathers).

First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by feathers is a
known scientific fact and I can prove it .

Take a 10 # Canada goose and it will fly very nicely. Now pluck all the feathers
and then watch this now naked Goose do high speed taxi's with it's little naked
wings flapping wildly. The Goose sans feathers cannot fly so the answer is
obvious to those who take the time the think about it. The average goose has 2
pounds of feathers so therefore for every pound of feathers you can lift 5# of
goose. Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to
prove this phenomena.

We can start small with say an Ultralight version with a gross weight of 600#.
We would need only about 120 # of feathers. We will need to fund this all
important project so I'll be accepting donations...cash only .

Later well do a project on how speed is caused ,you'll be amazed how it works.A
small clue is electromagnetic plasma pulses rectified by an alum pyramid shaped
hat. Don't forget to send money ...

Lift Faries?? Pure bunk!! It's feathers my boy feathers!!

Count Clipper

[Richard Isakson]

"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by feathers is
a
> known scientific fact and I can prove it .

I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift" threads but this is
nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is magic. A well known fact.
Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is just an attempt to avoid
being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.

Rich

[Anthony W]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by feathers is a
> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
>
> Take a 10 # Canada goose and it will fly very nicely. Now pluck all the feathers
> and then watch this now naked Goose do high speed taxi's with it's little naked
> wings flapping wildly. The Goose sans feathers cannot fly so the answer is
> obvious to those who take the time the think about it. The average goose has 2
> pounds of feathers so therefore for every pound of feathers you can lift 5# of
> goose. Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to
> prove this phenomena.
>
> We can start small with say an Ultralight version with a gross weight of 600#.
> We would need only about 120 # of feathers. We will need to fund this all
> important project so I'll be accepting donations...cash only .
>
> Later well do a project on how speed is caused ,you'll be amazed how it works.A
> small clue is electromagnetic plasma pulses rectified by an alum pyramid shaped
> hat. Don't forget to send money ...
>
> Lift Faries?? Pure bunk!! It's feathers my boy feathers!!
>
> Count Clipper

Have you been drinking muzzle loader again???

Tony

[Montblack]

("ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote)
> Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to prove
> this phenomena.


So, after the test flight, how do you get down from your mechanical goose?


Montblack
Minnesota State Bird - The Common Loon

[Greg Esres]

<<upwashing is somehow caused by the wing's approach.>>

On one level you can say it's a consequence of the bound vortex around
the wing. Not satisfying? I agree, but that's about as far as most
aerodynamics books go in providing an intuitive answer.

<<In another scenario, what happens in a long ducted fan? Is this
not analogous to a wing "pushing air down"?>>

You aren't the first to pose that question and it's a good one. Here
are some things which are unsupported by anything that I've read:
There is at least one dis-analogy (new word) that I can think of.
With a wing, it creates a low pressure area and then is gone; whatever
happens to that low pressure area is irrelevant. The air that rushes
into it has no effect on the wing. A fan, however, creates a
permanent low pressure area in front of the airplane, which creates a
flow from front to back which doesn't exist for a wing.

[Highflyer]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05...
> It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
> Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
> world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
> same error again.
>

We are making the same error again. If you look at the political tactics
used by the Nazis in their rise to power, some of them ring a bell in a
recent presidential campaign.

1. Attendees at Nazi rally were carefully screened and only Nazi supporters
were allowed in.

Bush political speechs had a screened audience and only known Bush
supporters were allowed to attend.

2. Hitler pointed at jews and gypsies as the source of all the problems in
the world of the third reich.

Bush points at "terrorists"

3. The Nazi party evaded the German Democratic constitution and evaded the
law to protect citizens from jews and gypsies.

Bush evades the law and eavesdrops on american citizens when the only
reason to evade the law is to keep the courts from knowing who and how many
people he is eavesdropping on and what he is doing with the information.

4. The Nazi propaganda minister proved the validity of the "big lie." If
you lie blatantly enough and often enough and do so on all of the public
media a significant portion of the population will believe the lie.

Bush always tell the truth even when he contradicts himself. Right.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

( don't call me guys. someone may be listening after this post! :-)

[Highflyer]

"Greg Esres" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> <<An infinitely wide wing has no wingtips. You suggest it could not
> provide lift. >>
>
> Heck no. It just does so with no *net* downward momentum of air. In
> other words, the upward momentum ahead of the wing is equal to the
> downward momentum at the rear of the wing.
>

Disagree. There is a *net* downward momentum of air. Otherwise there is no
lift. However the downward momentum for any finite section of the infinite
wing is infinitesimal. Note, however, that even though in Calculus 100 we
assume that an infinitesimal is approximately equal to zero and can be
ignored, it is only approximately to zero and only very very near zero.

While zero times any number is still zero, almost zero times infinity is
NOT zero. Ergo, the downwash is not zero either.



> <<I've read the "wingtip vortices provide lift" papers, >>
>
> I'm not proposing that.
>
> <<the wing causes downwash which provides lift (action-reaction) and
> =that= creates vortices. >>
>
> Infinite wings have no downwash, yet provide lift. By *definition*,
> downwash is caused by wingtip vortices.

No. wingtip vortices are caused by downwash. Infinite wings don't have
wingtip vortices because they don't have ends, not because they don't have
downwash.

Highflyer
Highflight Aviation Services
Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )

[Jeff]

"Richard Isakson" > wrote in
:

> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
>> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by
>> feathers is
> a
>> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
>
> I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift" threads but this is
> nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
> already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is magic. A well known
> fact. Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is just an
> attempt to avoid being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.
>
> Rich
>
>

Ostriches just don't have enough feathers to fly. As demonstrated by the
Canada Goose, one pound of feathers lifts five pounds. An average 250
pound ostrich needs 50 pounds of feathers to fly.

[Immanuel Goldstein]

On 2/22/2006 11:07 AM, Robert M. Gary wrote:
> A local pilot at our airport who owns a small Cessna 210 went to Boeing
> 737 school a few years back. He was able to shoot approaches to mins
> and fly quite nicely without any heavy iron training outside of some
> books and manuals he picked up. Of course, the work gets harder when
> the instructor starts to simulate things failing. Airline pilots are
> grossly over paid 99% of the time and grossly under paid 1% of the
> time. As long as everything is working its pretty easy.
>

Thank you, Robert. This is exactly the reason I chose these groups for my
_original_ post. I have a couple of follow-up questions.

The local pilot you mentioned was already _quite_ capable of flying a Cessna
210, before attempting a 737. Would someone with little or no flight experience
be able to fly a 737, 747, or 757, and also make steep dives and sharp turns?

Standard Boeing commercial aircraft have locks on the cockpit doors. How
difficult would it be break one down?

What are the chances that 8 trained pilots and co-pilots, with military
backgrounds, could be physically overpowered by a few thugs with box-cutters?


--
Closely Monitored,

Immanuel Goldstein

"It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
- US President speaking about the US Constitution,
<http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>

"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
- Orwell

[Thomas Borchert]

Immanuel,

> Would someone with little or no flight experience
> be able to fly a 737, 747, or 757, and also make steep dives and sharp turns?

Irrelevant, since the terrorists were trained. And little training is enough
for the easy flying they did.

>
> Standard Boeing commercial aircraft have locks on the cockpit doors. How
> difficult would it be break one down?

Only now they have those.

> What are the chances that 8 trained pilots and co-pilots, with military
> backgrounds, could be physically overpowered by a few thugs with box-cutters?

It's not a matter of overpowering, it's a matter of airline policy regarding
hijackings before 9/11. That policy was: If someone comes into the cockpit with
a boxcutter held to the throat of a flight attendant, you give in to their
demands. And for the flight attendants, the policy was: If they threaten you,
you give them access to the cockpit.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Canal builder]

On 24/2/06 5:58 am, in article ,
"Montblack" > wrote:

> ("ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote)
>> Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to prove
>> this phenomena.
>
>
> So, after the test flight, how do you get down from your mechanical goose?
>
Surely everybody knows you don't get down off a goose, you get down off a
duck (eider for preference). :)

[Dan]

Highflyer wrote:
> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:uX8Lf.104268$4l5.39451@dukeread05...
>> It was sad and never should have been allowed to happen.
>> Some people knew what was planned, many escaped, but the
>> world was unwilling to stop Hitler. Hope we don't make the
>> same error again.
>>
>
> We are making the same error again. If you look at the political tactics
> used by the Nazis in their rise to power, some of them ring a bell in a
> recent presidential campaign.
>
> 1. Attendees at Nazi rally were carefully screened and only Nazi supporters
> were allowed in.
>
> Bush political speechs had a screened audience and only known Bush
> supporters were allowed to attend.
>
> 2. Hitler pointed at jews and gypsies as the source of all the problems in
> the world of the third reich.
>
> Bush points at "terrorists"
>
> 3. The Nazi party evaded the German Democratic constitution and evaded the
> law to protect citizens from jews and gypsies.
>
> Bush evades the law and eavesdrops on american citizens when the only
> reason to evade the law is to keep the courts from knowing who and how many
> people he is eavesdropping on and what he is doing with the information.
>
> 4. The Nazi propaganda minister proved the validity of the "big lie." If
> you lie blatantly enough and often enough and do so on all of the public
> media a significant portion of the population will believe the lie.
>
> Bush always tell the truth even when he contradicts himself. Right.
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
> ( don't call me guys. someone may be listening after this post! :-)
>
>
>
I have just lost a great deal of respect for you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Canal builder wrote:
>
>
> On 24/2/06 5:58 am, in article ,
> "Montblack" > wrote:
>
>> ("ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote)
>>> Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to prove
>>> this phenomena.
>>
>> So, after the test flight, how do you get down from your mechanical goose?
>>
> Surely everybody knows you don't get down off a goose, you get down off a
> duck (eider for preference). :)
>

Would that be akin to a sympathy pluck?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Isakson
says...
>
>"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
>> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by feathers is
>a
>> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
>
>I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift" threads but this is
>nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
>already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is magic. A well known fact.
>Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is just an attempt to avoid
>being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.

An Ostrich has a poor feather to weight ratio ,that's the reason it can't fly.A
few more pounds of feathers and he'd soar like a Goose! It's logical.

If it's magic, then Penn and Teller would be Superman and Superboy .It's the
feathers being plagiarized by the magicians trying to start a conspiracy to
prevent the burning at the stake.Whew! By the way ,did you ever notice that
when someone is being burnt at the stake the smoke, ash and sometimes bits of
paper go up? I think I discovered another form of flight without feathers.
Vertical flight. Feathers give horizontal flight.

I can for see a time when men with a huge fire coming out from behind their
butts could go as far as the moon in vertical flight.

Chuck (I'm a part time seer) S

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Montblack says...
>
>("ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote)
>> Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to prove
>> this phenomena.
>
>
>So, after the test flight, how do you get down from your mechanical goose?

Please don't try to turn this discussion into something silly by asking that
question.We're talking about flight not unflight! Why would you want to get down
?

Charles Joseph Robert Slusarczyk MD mighty Dandy sometimes known as the fac
totem but still better known as Hoowl the wolf....

[Richard Lamb]

Highflyer wrote:
snip
>
> No. wingtip vortices are caused by downwash. Infinite wings don't have
> wingtip vortices because they don't have ends, not because they don't have
> downwash.
>
> Highflyer
> Highflight Aviation Services
> Pinckneyville Airport ( PJY )
>
>

Say what?

[Jose]

> An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY.

Oh, come now. You need to apply mathematical and scientific reasoning.
It's already been experimentally established that it takes two pounds
of feathers to lift ten pounds of Canada goose. An ostrich weighs much
more than ten pounds, but does not have a commensurate amount of
feathers. Feathers are not magical, they operate by strict scientific
principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't even make a
fruit fly.

If you want to convince me that it's not feathers, do some experiments.
Attach a pound of feathers for every five pounds of ostrich, and toss
the ostriches out of an airplane. Do this a statistically significant
number of times, and then we'll talk turkey.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Richard Lamb]

Hey, HF, Dan, Both of youse guys, listen up!

Youse guys drag doze two loons back in here, I'm agonna
tink I'm Dick Cheney and da two of youse look like Quayle to me!

Got it?

Tony Soprano

[Richard Lamb]

Hey, Hf, Dan, Both of youse guys, Listen up.

Youse guys drag dose two loons back in heah,
I'ma gonna tink I'm Dick Cheney, and da two of youse
look like Quayle ta me.

I would suggest dat youse guys drop da alt.politics
offen youse postins.

Now, youse guys got dat?


Tony Soprano

[Richard Lamb]

Jose wrote:

>> An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY.
>
>
> Oh, come now. You need to apply mathematical and scientific reasoning.
> It's already been experimentally established that it takes two pounds
> of feathers to lift ten pounds of Canada goose. An ostrich weighs much
> more than ten pounds, but does not have a commensurate amount of
> feathers. Feathers are not magical, they operate by strict scientific
> principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't even make a
> fruit fly.
>
> If you want to convince me that it's not feathers, do some experiments.
> Attach a pound of feathers for every five pounds of ostrich, and toss
> the ostriches out of an airplane. Do this a statistically significant
> number of times, and then we'll talk turkey.
>
> Jose
OhMyGod! Shades of WKRP in Cincinnati!

[Richard Lamb]

I just got my new Chevy Blazer, and returned to the dealer the next day,
complaining that I couldn't figure out how the radio worked.

The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated. "Watch this!" he
said, "Nelson! The radio replied, "Ricky or Willie?" "Willie!"...and On The
Road Again came from the speakers.

I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say, Beethoven!"
I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said, "Beatles!" I'd get one of
their awesome songs.

One day, a couple ran a red light and nearly creamed my new car, but I
swerved in time to avoid them. "Chicken**** Assholes!" I yelled.

The French National Anthem began to play, sung by Jane Fonda and Michael
Moore, backed up by John Kerry on guitar, Al Gore on drums and Bill Clinton
on sax....

Man!, I LOVE this car!

Richard

[Greg Esres]

<<There is a *net* downward momentum of air.>>

I have several aerodynamics books that say differently.

<<Otherwise there is no lift.>>

If there is a pressure difference between the top and bottom, you will
have lift. Your airfoil is blisssfully unaware of the air with which
it has no contact.

<<No. wingtip vortices are caused by downwash. Infinite wings don't
have wingtip vortices because they don't have ends, not because they
don't have downwash.>>

Again, I have many aerodynamics books that say differently. Even
Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators.


On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 01:22:36 -0600, "Highflyer" > wrote:

>Disagree. There is a *net* downward momentum of air. Otherwise there is no
>lift. However the downward momentum for any finite section of the infinite
>wing is infinitesimal. Note, however, that even though in Calculus 100 we
>assume that an infinitesimal is approximately equal to zero and can be
>ignored, it is only approximately to zero and only very very near zero.
>
>While zero times any number is still zero, almost zero times infinity is
>NOT zero. Ergo, the downwash is not zero either.
>

[Drew Dalgleish]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:08:27 GMT, Richard Lamb
> wrote:

>Hey, HF, Dan, Both of youse guys, listen up!
>
>Youse guys drag doze two loons back in here, I'm agonna
>tink I'm Dick Cheney and da two of youse look like Quayle to me!
>
>Got it?
>
>Tony Soprano

Youse mean like dis

http://www.toonedin.com/cheney.html

[Doug]

Obviously it IS impossible. After all, they did it with three of them
and they ALL CRASHED!!!!

[Al]

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it sounds like a
duck...

AL


"Immanuel Goldstein" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/22/2006 8:41 AM, Dan Luke enscribed:
>> Loon.
>>
>
> A wonderful example of avian evolution. Your proof?
>
>
> --
> Closely Monitored,
>
> Immanuel Goldstein
>
> "The history of the present [US Government] is a history of repeated
> injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of
> an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be
> submitted to a candid world."
> - Declaration of Independence
>
> The Pentagon Strike
> <http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm>
>
> The Demolition of WTC Building 7
> <http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html#building7>
>
> "It's just a god-damned piece of paper!"
> - Bush on the U.S. Constitution,
> <http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12142005.html>
>
> "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act."
> - Orwell
>
> "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
> same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it
> is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
> provide new Guards for their future security."
> - Declaration of Independence

[Jim Macklin]

>> So, after the test flight, how do you get down from your
>> mechanical goose?
>>
> Surely everybody knows you don't get down off a goose, you
> get down off a
> duck (eider for preference). :)
>
Eddie Bauer uses goose down. Jack Bauer never ever sleeps
and saves the world every 24 hours. Aunt Bea learned how to
fly and soloed on Andy Griffith [a really good episode], but
she usually cooked birds.
I heard that fast airplanes go so fast because the aluminum
is afraid of noise, the more noise the harder the aluminum
tries to get away.

Penguins have feathers and can't fly because the air is too
thin, but they can fly in water. Humans don't have feathers
and can't even fly in water. I did see a video of a guy who
jumped out of a helicopter wearing a batsuit and flew down a
mountain
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/photogallery/Videos/2006-batsuit.wmv
and it looked very cold. Maybe cold makes people fly?


How do you get down from a horse? Some people fall off.


"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
nk.net...
| Jose wrote:
|
| >> An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T
FLY.
| >
| >
| > Oh, come now. You need to apply mathematical and
scientific reasoning.
| > It's already been experimentally established that it
takes two pounds
| > of feathers to lift ten pounds of Canada goose. An
ostrich weighs much
| > more than ten pounds, but does not have a commensurate
amount of
| > feathers. Feathers are not magical, they operate by
strict scientific
| > principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't
even make a
| > fruit fly.
| >
| > If you want to convince me that it's not feathers, do
some experiments.
| > Attach a pound of feathers for every five pounds of
ostrich, and toss
| > the ostriches out of an airplane. Do this a
statistically significant
| > number of times, and then we'll talk turkey.
| >
| > Jose
| OhMyGod! Shades of WKRP in Cincinnati!

[Richard Lamb]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:

> In article et>, Richard Lamb
> says...
>
>
>>According to Shafer "Lift is caused by Lift Demons.
>>These little, invisible demons hold on to the leading and trailing edges of
>>the aircraft and lift it into the air by flapping their wings (so, in a
>>reductionist sense, lift is actually caused by feathers).
>
>
> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by feathers is a
> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
>
> Take a 10 # Canada goose and it will fly very nicely. Now pluck all the feathers
> and then watch this now naked Goose do high speed taxi's with it's little naked
> wings flapping wildly. The Goose sans feathers cannot fly so the answer is
> obvious to those who take the time the think about it. The average goose has 2
> pounds of feathers so therefore for every pound of feathers you can lift 5# of
> goose. Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to
> prove this phenomena.
>
> We can start small with say an Ultralight version with a gross weight of 600#.
> We would need only about 120 # of feathers. We will need to fund this all
> important project so I'll be accepting donations...cash only .
>
> Later well do a project on how speed is caused ,you'll be amazed how it works.A
> small clue is electromagnetic plasma pulses rectified by an alum pyramid shaped
> hat. Don't forget to send money ...
>
> Lift Faries?? Pure bunk!! It's feathers my boy feathers!!
>
> Count Clipper
>

Well, Chuck, I have to admit, you almost had me won over.

At near 10 stone, I'd need to collect only 40 pounds of (pretty!) feathers and
I'd be able to fly just like Peter Pan. Finally, a life long dream realized!

Researching through my technical library, I came across an ancient documentary
film - "Those Magnificent Men And Their Flying Machines".
In the opening sequence, Red Skelton attempted feathered flight.

Fortunately, for the squeamish souls among us, this tragedy was filmed in a
very long shot. But that shot DOES allow us to measure the L/D directly from
the filmed evidence.

The result was a dismal .01:1 glide ratio...

Well, back to the drawing board...

Richard

[Montblack]

("ChuckSlusarczyk" somehow found the keyboard)
> I can for see a time when men with a huge fire coming out from behind
> their butts could go as far as the moon in vertical flight.


"Behind their butts" is similar to "talking behind someone's back" ...which
is essentially IN FRONT OF THEM - if you get right down to it.

Therefore "a huge fire coming out from behind their butts" is really ...OMG!

Um, this has already proven not to work ...25 years ago at college - and
only when I pee'd.


Montblack
Not the hook! Not the hook!

"Give her some marmalade...give her some toast"
- Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Doug" > writes:

> Obviously it IS impossible. After all, they did it with three of them
> and they ALL CRASHED!!!!

Four.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[george]

Jose wrote:
> > An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY.
>
> Oh, come now. You need to apply mathematical and scientific reasoning.
> It's already been experimentally established that it takes two pounds
> of feathers to lift ten pounds of Canada goose. An ostrich weighs much
> more than ten pounds, but does not have a commensurate amount of
> feathers. Feathers are not magical, they operate by strict scientific
> principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't even make a
> fruit fly.
>
> If you want to convince me that it's not feathers, do some experiments.
> Attach a pound of feathers for every five pounds of ostrich, and toss
> the ostriches out of an airplane. Do this a statistically significant
> number of times, and then we'll talk turkey.

It's all skyhooks.
and turkeys flying ? snort grunt whistle. coffee runs out nose new
keyboard aaaargh
Where I work there are turkeys and they don't fly :-)

[Richard Isakson]

"Richard Lamb" wrote ...
> At near 10 stone, I'd need to collect only 40 pounds of (pretty!) feathers
and
> I'd be able to fly just like Peter Pan. Finally, a life long dream
realized!

Richard,

As further proof that Chuck's theory doesn't work, I tried an experiment
this morning. I took a pillow off my bed. It is mostly feathers, after
all. To give it a proper test, I hiked up the Ebey's Landing Bluff Trail to
the edge of the cliff. Having great faith in Chuck and fully expecting my
pillow to soar up over my head, I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
Nope. It went staight down. Splat! Right into the Puget Sound.

Thanks to Chuck, I'll be sleeping on a soggy pillow tonight!

Rich

[Jose]

> I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
> Nope. It went staight down. Splat!

Did you put the feathers on the =outside= of the pillow? They have to
be outside, in the airflow, to provide any lift at all.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Morgans]

"Dan" > wrote > >
>
> Would that be akin to a sympathy pluck?

After reading this thread, it has gone down to the depths of reediculous.

Yoo all are plucking nuts, me thinks! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[george]

Dan wrote:
> Canal builder wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 24/2/06 5:58 am, in article ,
> > "Montblack" > wrote:
> >
> >> ("ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote)
> >>> Therefore I propose that we build a man carrying mechanical Goose to prove
> >>> this phenomena.
> >>
> >> So, after the test flight, how do you get down from your mechanical goose?
> >>
> > Surely everybody knows you don't get down off a goose, you get down off a
> > duck (eider for preference). :)
> >
>
> Would that be akin to a sympathy pluck?
>

with all these cracks some-one will start leaking :-))

Congratulations ma'am you have met the mechanical goose

[Doug]

Four.

Well there you go!

[Montblack]

("Morgans" wrote)
> Not only that, I'll bet he didn't give the pillow any directions, as to
> which direction to fly.


From Roxanne (1987)
Steve Martin and Daryl Hannah

Chris McConnell: Your breasts, they're like melons. No, no, they're like
pillows. Can I fluff your pillows?

Chris McConnell: What am I afraid of her for? She's no rocket scientist.
C.D. Bales: Well, actually, she is a rocket scientist.


Monrblack

[Morgans]

> > I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
> > Nope. It went staight down. Splat!
>
> Did you put the feathers on the =outside= of the pillow? They have to
> be outside, in the airflow, to provide any lift at all.

Not only that, I'll bet he didn't give the pillow any directions, as to
which direction to fly. The pillow thought it was *supposed* to fly
straight down!
--
Jim in NC

[JJS]

"Jose" > wrote in message t...
snip
Feathers are not magical, they operate by strict scientific
> principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't even make a fruit fly.
>
snip

Fruit flies have feathers?




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Dan]

JJS wrote:
> "Jose" > wrote in message t...
> snip
> Feathers are not magical, they operate by strict scientific
>> principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't even make a fruit fly.
>>
> snip
>
> Fruit flies have feathers?
>

If flies didn't have wings would they be called walks?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Tim Ward]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
> If you want to convince me that it's not feathers, do some experiments.
> Attach a pound of feathers for every five pounds of ostrich, and toss
> the ostriches out of an airplane. Do this a statistically significant
> number of times, and then we'll talk turkey.

"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"

Tim Ward

[Newps]

Tim Ward wrote:

>
> "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"
>


Wild turkeys can fly, he should have used those.

[Jim Macklin]

Bailey or Jennifer?

My vote would be Bailey Quarters


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
|
|
| Tim Ward wrote:
|
| >
| > "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"
| >
|
|
| Wild turkeys can fly, he should have used those.

[Newps]

Jim Macklin wrote:

> Bailey or Jennifer?
>
> My vote would be Bailey Quarters

No question.

[Harry K]

Newps wrote:
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
> >
> > "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"
> >
>
>
> Wild turkeys can fly, he should have used those.

Even -I- can fly using Wild Turkey, or think so anyhow.

Harry K

[Harry K]

Morgans wrote:
> > > I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
> > > Nope. It went staight down. Splat!
> >
> > Did you put the feathers on the =outside= of the pillow? They have to
> > be outside, in the airflow, to provide any lift at all.
>
> Not only that, I'll bet he didn't give the pillow any directions, as to
> which direction to fly. The pillow thought it was *supposed* to fly
> straight down!
> --
> Jim in NC

No, no! The feathers were from Oz and the pillow really was flying.

Harry K

[Jose]

>> Feathers are not magical, they operate by strict scientific
>> principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't even make a fruit fly.
> Fruit flies have feathers?

Feathered fruit flies. Fruit flies like a banana.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Bailey or Jennifer?

Bailey. No contest.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Tim Ward]

"Harry K" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Morgans wrote:
> > > > I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
> > > > Nope. It went staight down. Splat!
> > >
> > > Did you put the feathers on the =outside= of the pillow? They have to
> > > be outside, in the airflow, to provide any lift at all.
> >
> > Not only that, I'll bet he didn't give the pillow any directions, as to
> > which direction to fly. The pillow thought it was *supposed* to fly
> > straight down!
> > --
> > Jim in NC
>
I suspect the problem is that the pillow was filled with "down" feathers.
You need "up" feathers.
Tim Ward
> No, no! The feathers were from Oz and the pillow really was flying.
>
> Harry K
>

[Anthony W]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
>>
>> "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly!"
>>
>
>
> Wild turkeys can fly, he should have used those.

The only wild turkey I'm experienced with pours not flies.

Tony

[Morgans]

"Harry K" > wrote
>
> No, no! The feathers were from Oz and the pillow really was flying.


Are you sure it was not "lying?
--
Jim in NC

[Ernest Christley]

Richard Isakson wrote:
> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
>
>>First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by feathers is
>
> a
>
>>known scientific fact and I can prove it .
>
>
> I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift" threads but this is
> nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
> already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is magic. A well known fact.
> Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is just an attempt to avoid
> being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.
>
> Rich
>
>

Oh, stop it! Stop it! Stop it! This is all pure nonsense and has
nothing to do with MANNED flight. We all know that it is MONEY that
keeps airplanes in the air. I have a whole stack if bills as proof.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Ernest Christley]

Immanuel Goldstein wrote:
> On 2/22/2006 8:05 AM, Jim Macklin enscribed:
>
>> I'm sure he voted for Kerry.
>>
>
> How laughable. The American political system is corrupt, and rotting
> away like a leprous corpse. Americans still believe they have a
> "two-party" system, and this system is used to foment distrust among its
> own citizens. This has been true since Woodrow Wilson entered office.
>
> Please refrain from further assumptions about someone you do not know.
> Frankly, it makes you appear like an ass. The very act of assumption is
> what has biased your thoughts into accepting the ludicrous lies and
> "conspiracy theory" you have been told by your government.
>
>

Your right. Our political system is corrupt. The only thing worse is
everything else that has ever been tried. Our government lies to us,
but so does so-called 'aeronautical engineers' that propose that
airplanes can't fly in ground effect or that terrorist aren't
intelligent enough to carry a friggin' handheld GPS.

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Dan]

Ernest Christley wrote:
> Richard Isakson wrote:
>> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
>>
>>> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is caused by
>>> feathers is
>>
>> a
>>
>>> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
>>
>>
>> I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift" threads but this is
>> nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
>> already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is magic. A well known
>> fact.
>> Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is just an attempt to
>> avoid
>> being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>
> Oh, stop it! Stop it! Stop it! This is all pure nonsense and has
> nothing to do with MANNED flight. We all know that it is MONEY that
> keeps airplanes in the air. I have a whole stack if bills as proof.
>

I can prove you are wrong. It's PAID bills that get men off the
ground. See how long you will fly if you decide to stop paying the bills.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Lamb]

Tim Ward wrote:
>>
> I suspect the problem is that the pillow was filled with "down" feathers.
> You need "up" feathers.
> Tim Ward
g.
>>

OOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo........

Now there s a man who knows his aerodynamics!

Richard

[Jim Macklin]

I think we have stumbled on something here. The Wright
brothers took many years to build their flying machine and
for the time, lots of money. But the amount was so low that
it isn't even reported, still we can assume that it was more
than the cost of a normal vacation from Ohio to the Atlantic
coast. They flew a few feet off the ground at less than
running speed.
WWI increased spending and the airplanes flew higher and
faster.
WWII spent a lot more money and the airplanes flew even
higher, faster and further.
During the Cold War airplanes got VERY expensive and some
airplanes cost two billion dollars each. This very airplane
can fly around the world, drop bombs and fly home. In each
case, it costs a lot of money.
These new expensive airplanes don't even look like
conventional airplanes, but again, without the money of the
government they don't fly.
Maybe flight is just a government conspiracy to spend money?



"Dan" > wrote in message
news:gYULf.27316$Ug4.25466@dukeread12...
| Ernest Christley wrote:
| > Richard Isakson wrote:
| >> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
| >>
| >>> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is
caused by
| >>> feathers is
| >>
| >> a
| >>
| >>> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
| >>
| >>
| >> I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift"
threads but this is
| >> nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's
feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
| >> already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is magic.
A well known
| >> fact.
| >> Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is just
an attempt to
| >> avoid
| >> being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.
| >>
| >> Rich
| >>
| >>
| >
| > Oh, stop it! Stop it! Stop it! This is all pure
nonsense and has
| > nothing to do with MANNED flight. We all know that it
is MONEY that
| > keeps airplanes in the air. I have a whole stack if
bills as proof.
| >
|
| I can prove you are wrong. It's PAID bills that get men
off the
| ground. See how long you will fly if you decide to stop
paying the bills.
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> I think we have stumbled on something here. The Wright
> brothers took many years to build their flying machine and
> for the time, lots of money. But the amount was so low that
> it isn't even reported, still we can assume that it was more
> than the cost of a normal vacation from Ohio to the Atlantic
> coast. They flew a few feet off the ground at less than
> running speed.
> WWI increased spending and the airplanes flew higher and
> faster.
> WWII spent a lot more money and the airplanes flew even
> higher, faster and further.
> During the Cold War airplanes got VERY expensive and some
> airplanes cost two billion dollars each. This very airplane
> can fly around the world, drop bombs and fly home. In each
> case, it costs a lot of money.
> These new expensive airplanes don't even look like
> conventional airplanes, but again, without the money of the
> government they don't fly.
> Maybe flight is just a government conspiracy to spend money?
>
>
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:gYULf.27316$Ug4.25466@dukeread12...
> | Ernest Christley wrote:
> | > Richard Isakson wrote:
> | >> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
> | >>
> | >>> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift is
> caused by
> | >>> feathers is
> | >>
> | >> a
> | >>
> | >>> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
> | >>
> | >>
> | >> I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift"
> threads but this is
> | >> nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's
> feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
> | >> already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is magic.
> A well known
> | >> fact.
> | >> Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is just
> an attempt to
> | >> avoid
> | >> being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.
> | >>
> | >> Rich
> | >>
> | >>
> | >
> | > Oh, stop it! Stop it! Stop it! This is all pure
> nonsense and has
> | > nothing to do with MANNED flight. We all know that it
> is MONEY that
> | > keeps airplanes in the air. I have a whole stack if
> bills as proof.
> | >
> |
> | I can prove you are wrong. It's PAID bills that get men
> off the
> | ground. See how long you will fly if you decide to stop
> paying the bills.
> |
> | Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

What really disturbs me is that almost makes sense. You missed the
part about cup holders. The prices really got out of hand when cup
holders were invented. Are you sure your not one of "them?"

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Macklin]

Cup holders allowed drinking in flight and that in turn
required "draining the pilot's sump" more often in flight.
This required relief tubes, but then women started flying
and that requires the potty. The potty requires plumbing
and that means plumbers. More money "down the drain" [pun
intended] and then the government started buying toilet
seats and we all heard what THAT cost.


Maybe we could try to build a jet engine that burned paper
trash instead of petroleum products. This could save a lot
of oil and several steps in the process of flight, they
could just directly burn money.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Dan" > wrote in message
news:CrYLf.27326$Ug4.19353@dukeread12...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > I think we have stumbled on something here. The Wright
| > brothers took many years to build their flying machine
and
| > for the time, lots of money. But the amount was so low
that
| > it isn't even reported, still we can assume that it was
more
| > than the cost of a normal vacation from Ohio to the
Atlantic
| > coast. They flew a few feet off the ground at less than
| > running speed.
| > WWI increased spending and the airplanes flew higher and
| > faster.
| > WWII spent a lot more money and the airplanes flew even
| > higher, faster and further.
| > During the Cold War airplanes got VERY expensive and
some
| > airplanes cost two billion dollars each. This very
airplane
| > can fly around the world, drop bombs and fly home. In
each
| > case, it costs a lot of money.
| > These new expensive airplanes don't even look like
| > conventional airplanes, but again, without the money of
the
| > government they don't fly.
| > Maybe flight is just a government conspiracy to spend
money?
| >
| >
| >
| > "Dan" > wrote in message
| > news:gYULf.27316$Ug4.25466@dukeread12...
| > | Ernest Christley wrote:
| > | > Richard Isakson wrote:
| > | >> "ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote ...
| > | >>
| > | >>> First honest thing I've read in this thread. Lift
is
| > caused by
| > | >>> feathers is
| > | >>
| > | >> a
| > | >>
| > | >>> known scientific fact and I can prove it .
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >> I hate to get involved in these "what causes lift"
| > threads but this is
| > | >> nonsense. An ostrich after all, with all it's
| > feathers, CAN'T FLY. I
| > | >> already stated a couple weeks ago that flight is
magic.
| > A well known
| > | >> fact.
| > | >> Such silliness as "feathers" and "lift demons" is
just
| > an attempt to
| > | >> avoid
| > | >> being burnt at the stake by the fearful masses.
| > | >>
| > | >> Rich
| > | >>
| > | >>
| > | >
| > | > Oh, stop it! Stop it! Stop it! This is all pure
| > nonsense and has
| > | > nothing to do with MANNED flight. We all know that
it
| > is MONEY that
| > | > keeps airplanes in the air. I have a whole stack if
| > bills as proof.
| > | >
| > |
| > | I can prove you are wrong. It's PAID bills that get
men
| > off the
| > | ground. See how long you will fly if you decide to
stop
| > paying the bills.
| > |
| > | Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
| >
| >
|
| What really disturbs me is that almost makes sense. You
missed the
| part about cup holders. The prices really got out of hand
when cup
| holders were invented. Are you sure your not one of
"them?"
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jose]

> I can prove you are wrong. It's PAID bills that get men off the ground. See how long you will fly if you decide to stop paying the bills.

But there is no net movement of money. It's the money vortex that
provides lift.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Richard Isakson
says...

>As further proof that Chuck's theory doesn't work, I tried an experiment
>this morning. I took a pillow off my bed. It is mostly feathers, after
>all. To give it a proper test, I hiked up the Ebey's Landing Bluff Trail to
>the edge of the cliff. Having great faith in Chuck and fully expecting my
>pillow to soar up over my head, I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
>Nope. It went staight down. Splat! Right into the Puget Sound.
>
>Thanks to Chuck, I'll be sleeping on a soggy pillow tonight!

Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided to see why you got the
result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded research project and
made many new scientific discovery's such as:

-Pillows are not Gooses
-Gooses have feathers
-Pillows have down
-Gooses feathers are outside
-Pillows down is inside
-Gooses have down that is in under the feathers
-Gooses are hard to catch ...alive
-Pillows are easy to catch
-Gooses bite...hard
-Pillows are soft
-Gooses keep you awake
-Pillows make you sleepy
-Gooses get grumpy
-Pillows are calm

After obtaining this data I decided to pull all the feathers off a Goose and
leave the down attached.The Goose didn't seem happy, maybe I could get a
research grant to determine if the Gooses get grumpy because they are half naked
or because they're cold.But that's a whole nuther topic. I then proceeded to the
Clark ave bridge (altitude about 75') and pitched this unhappy Goose off to see
him fly .He didn't and boy he was really mad when I went down to
retrieve him.
Then it became obvious that feathers are for flying and down is for "down".
After the first test I thought that possibly I was in an area of high gravity so
I went to where gravity is less ...the airport. Everyone knows airports are
built in low gravity areas.But that's another topic in itself as to how I
discovered that.I then went to the top of the highest hangar and threw the Goose
off. He failed to fly again and was REALLY ****ed off at me.

So therefore it is logical to conclude that Gooses have 2 types of feathers ,one
for flying and one for landing.Pillows are filled with the "down" feathers
..That's why your pillow went "down" when you launched it. This is an example of
why this type of testing must be conducted by experts.

More research must be done so please send money so this very important research
can continue. I'd also like to get a stunt double for the Goose as well. Now I'm
off to see if the reports of an aviator looping,rolling and spinning a cow are
true!!

See ya

Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor) S






-

[Jose]

> On one level you can say it's a consequence of the bound vortex around
> the wing. Not satisfying? I agree, but that's about as far as most
> aerodynamics books go in providing an intuitive answer.

Ok, how about looking at it this way:

Consider the earth and an atmosphere consisting of one air molecule.
(Let's not get into the fact that there's really no such thing as an
"air" molecule, and yet leave the actual choice of gas... uh... in the air)

The molecule starts out motionless (say) a hundred miles above the
earth. Gravity pulls the two of them together, they accelerate towards
each other until the molecule bounces (perfectly) on the surface of the
earth, whereupon both the earth and the molecule return to their
original position and resume the dance. This is air pressure at its
simplest. Momentum is conserved; the total momentum (earth and air
molecule) is always a zero vector sum. The momentum of the air
increases as it accelerates downward, and when it bounces it transfers
its momentum to the earth. The earth does likewise. No net movement of
air.

If a wing is suspended some distance above the earth, it will also begin
to freefall and acquires momentum downwards (the earth is pulled towards
the wing too and acquires an equal but opposite momentum upwards). In
order to remain aloft, the wing grabs an air molecule and flings it
downwards with great gusto, that is, with a momentum equal to what the
wing had acquired. This is sufficient to cancel out its downward
velocity. This air molecule now has an excess momentum which it
transfers to the earth upon impact, cancelling the earth's motion
towards the wing. Net momentum is zero, but as it bounces back up, it
pushes the earth back down where it belongs. Earth has acquired a
downward momentum, the molecule now has an upwards momentum. The
molecule bounces back towards the wing, transfers its excess upwards
momentum to the wing, and pushes the wing back up where it belongs.

At this point the earth is moving down and the wing is moving up.
Gravity slows them down to zero just as they reach their original point.

No net movement of air.

Air pressure works this way to keep the earth away from the wing.
Overall, there is no net movement of air. However, as far as the wing
is concerned, it is flinging air molecules downwards, where there is no
room for it. This increases pressure underneath the wing, and that
pressure manifests itself in upwards motion of the air which helps to
support the wing.

The higher pressure area is in front of the wing because the wing has to
push air away from it in order to pass through it.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Then it became obvious that feathers are for flying and down is for "down".
> [...]
> So therefore it is logical to conclude that Gooses have 2 types of feathers ,one
> for flying and one for landing.

There is more to it than that. Not only does flying require up and
down, they have to be in the right place or the craft will be unstable.
This is why most conventional aircraft have a tail that pushes down,
to counteract the wings that push up. Push-ups are tiring, and after
doing push-ups I have to lie down. If a plane had to do that all the
time we'd never get anywhere, so the down and the up are both put on the
plane. The down is on the tail (when you fall down, you fall on your
tail) and the up is on the wings.

Canard aircraft have only "up" surfaces, which is why only unstable
people fly them. They were obviously designed by unstable people, since
the name "canard" means duck, which is what you should do when you
encounter one of them. Real ducks, of course, have down and up, very
similar to gooses and geese. When they are on the ground, walk up to a
goose and watch its head. It goes down and up.

One of the ways airlines thought of for saving money was to eliminate
the pillows they give to passengers. I guess they figured that if they
had less down, their up would be more efficient. Of course this didn't
happen, which is typical of the results when a bean counter plays the
part of aeronautical engineer. The first effect was that the passengers
became unstable, and then the airline became unstable.

Down is very important for flying - not just for landing.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Gaquin]

"TRUTH" > wrote in message
>
> ..... Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower
> on 9-11:

>
> ......But then - and this I'm still
> puzzling over - this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we
> understand this strange behavior, without explosives?

God, what a simpleton. Every floor of that tower had about thirty tons of
sheetrock installed (loose estimate - might only be 20 tons). Immediately
upon the collapse initiation, that stuff is pulverized and spews that same
30 tons per floor of gypsum dust in all directions. My [then] 14 year-old
son figured that out about 20 seconds after watching the video for the first
time.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jose says...
>
>> Then it became obvious that feathers are for flying and down is for "down".
>> [...]
>>So therefore it is logical to conclude that Gooses have 2 types of feathers ,one
>> for flying and one for landing.
>
>There is more to it than that. Not only does flying require up and
>down, they have to be in the right place or the craft will be unstable.
> This is why most conventional aircraft have a tail that pushes down,
>to counteract the wings that push up. Push-ups are tiring, and after
>doing push-ups I have to lie down. If a plane had to do that all the
>time we'd never get anywhere, so the down and the up are both put on the
>plane. The down is on the tail (when you fall down, you fall on your
>tail) and the up is on the wings.
>
>Canard aircraft have only "up" surfaces, which is why only unstable
>people fly them. They were obviously designed by unstable people, since
>the name "canard" means duck, which is what you should do when you
>encounter one of them. Real ducks, of course, have down and up, very
>similar to gooses and geese. When they are on the ground, walk up to a
>goose and watch its head. It goes down and up.
>
>One of the ways airlines thought of for saving money was to eliminate
>the pillows they give to passengers. I guess they figured that if they
>had less down, their up would be more efficient. Of course this didn't
>happen, which is typical of the results when a bean counter plays the
>part of aeronautical engineer. The first effect was that the passengers
>became unstable, and then the airline became unstable.
>
>Down is very important for flying - not just for landing.
>
>Jose

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article >, Jose says...

>There is more to it than that. Not only does flying require up and
>down, they have to be in the right place or the craft will be unstable.
> This is why most conventional aircraft have a tail that pushes down,
>to counteract the wings that push up. Push-ups are tiring, and after
>doing push-ups I have to lie down. If a plane had to do that all the
>time we'd never get anywhere, so the down and the up are both put on the
>plane. The down is on the tail (when you fall down, you fall on your
>tail) and the up is on the wings.
Major snip for brevity.

Well Jose you just provided additional areas of needed research and that more
money must be spent on my "research" projects:-)

I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the proper ratio
and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should be "on
the bottom". I should be able to perform effortless push up's with it and then
go outside and go fly around a bit to cool off.

Chuck (el Pollo loco) S

[Greg Esres]

<<In order to remain aloft, the wing grabs an air molecule and flings
it downwards with great gusto, that is, with a momentum equal to what
the wing had acquired. >>


Here's a thought experiment:

You have a vertical, hollow cylinder that contains a vaccum. You have
a circular disk in the cylinder that has a diameter equal to that of
the cylinder and provides an airtight seal against the cylinder walls.

You inject some gas into the cylinder below the disk. The disk will
rise until the pressure reduces to equal the weight of the disk. At
this point, the system is in equilibrium. What momentum transfer is
required at this point to maintain the weight of the disk?

[Richard Lamb]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
>
>
> Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided to see why you got the
> result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded research project and
> made many new scientific discovery's such as:
>
> -Pillows are not Gooses
> -Gooses have feathers
> -Pillows have down
> -Gooses feathers are outside
> -Pillows down is inside
> -Gooses have down that is in under the feathers
> -Gooses are hard to catch ...alive
> -Pillows are easy to catch
> -Gooses bite...hard
> -Pillows are soft
> -Gooses keep you awake
> -Pillows make you sleepy
> -Gooses get grumpy
> -Pillows are calm
>

snipped out the complicated part to avoid getting lost again

> See ya
>
> Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor) S
>


I got it, Chuck.

Tim's eloquent theorem showed me the error of my ways.

Richard

still trying to figure out the Helium but tho...

[george]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article >, Jose says...
>
> >There is more to it than that. Not only does flying require up and
> >down, they have to be in the right place or the craft will be unstable.
> > This is why most conventional aircraft have a tail that pushes down,
> >to counteract the wings that push up. Push-ups are tiring, and after
> >doing push-ups I have to lie down. If a plane had to do that all the
> >time we'd never get anywhere, so the down and the up are both put on the
> >plane. The down is on the tail (when you fall down, you fall on your
> >tail) and the up is on the wings.
> Major snip for brevity.
>
> Well Jose you just provided additional areas of needed research and that more
> money must be spent on my "research" projects:-)
>
> I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the proper ratio
> and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should be "on
> the bottom". I should be able to perform effortless push up's with it and then
> go outside and go fly around a bit to cool off.
>
I always feel sorry for drakes.

No matter what they do they can't get up for down :-)

[Jose]

> You inject some gas into the cylinder below the disk. The disk will
> rise until the pressure reduces to equal the weight of the disk. At
> this point, the system is in equilibrium. What momentum transfer is
> required at this point to maintain the weight of the disk?

The disk is constantly transferring momentum to the air below it, which
is transferring it right back after bouncing off of the floor. The disk
gets the momentum to transfer by beginning to fall down (due to gravity)
and that increases the pressure (the cumulative force of all the gas
molecules crashing into the disk).

If you remove gravity, the disk will start to accelerate upwards from
the pressure, due to transfer of momentum from the gas to the disk,
which is not counteracted by gravity. If the disk is massless, then the
same thing will happen.

If the temperature is lowered, the disk will fall because the molecules
will not have sufficient (thermal motion) momentum to counteract the
disk's force. The falling disk will impart momentum to the gas
molecules (increasing the temperature, or momentum per collision) and
will compress the gas in the cylinder (increasing the pressure, or
number of collisions per area) until equilibrium is once again attained,
at a lower altitude.

If the hollow cylinder has no bottom but is infinitely long, and the
disk still somehow has weight, then the disk will simply fall, imparting
its momentum to the gas molecules (which won't become compressed since
the volume is not increasing, and whose increase in temperature will be
dissipated over an infinite supply of gas. A terminal velocity will be
reached which will depend on the gas density.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the proper ratio
> and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should be "on
> the bottom".

You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals. Such
simple sounding theories are usually wrong, and in this case you have
neglected forward motion, which provides many secondary effects. This
is why the down part of an airplane is at the BACK, not the BOTTOM. The
airplane is travelling through the air, and the first thing the air gets
is the up, and the last thing it gets is the down. Of course, as far as
the air is concerned, it's backwards (plane goes up, air goes down, at
least for a while). That's what makes the vortex.

Money is needed primarily to achieve forward motion. While an airplane
on the ground will consume a certain amount of money, flying it consumes
far more. You put some in at the beginning, and the bills come =after=
the flight. This is what causes the money vortex, which is exactly
analogous to the air vortex that holds the wing up. It is impossible to
put all the money in one place and have the airplane fly.

It is just as impossible to put the up and the down where it seems they
"should" go and get the plane to fly. Only a rocketship can do that,
and there is a =lot= of down coming out of the bottom, and a lot of up
where the top is. But there's no sideways motion (at least there
shouldn't be!)

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 20:23:55 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals.

I hope you're going to cut and paste this all together and put it on a
Web site somewhere. Decades from now, persons yet unborn will be
asking, "Does anybody have a link . . .?

Don

[Greg Esres]

<<The disk is constantly transferring momentum to the air below it,
which is transferring it right back after bouncing off of the floor.
>>

There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force on
either the air or the disk. The molecules next to the disk have a
pressure equal to the weight of the disk below it and the actual disk
above it. There is no net force and thus no momentum change.

Momentum = mass * velocity, and the vertical velocity of the air and
the disk are zero.

[Jim Macklin]

There is the question of gliders and airplanes. Airplanes
don't need any help to get it up and glider pilots need help
to get it up. But once they get it up, glider pilots have
more skill at keeping it up.


"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
nk.net...
| ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
| >
| >
| > Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided
to see why you got the
| > result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded
research project and
| > made many new scientific discovery's such as:
| >
| > -Pillows are not Gooses
| > -Gooses have feathers
| > -Pillows have down
| > -Gooses feathers are outside
| > -Pillows down is inside
| > -Gooses have down that is in under the feathers
| > -Gooses are hard to catch ...alive
| > -Pillows are easy to catch
| > -Gooses bite...hard
| > -Pillows are soft
| > -Gooses keep you awake
| > -Pillows make you sleepy
| > -Gooses get grumpy
| > -Pillows are calm
| >
|
| snipped out the complicated part to avoid getting lost
again
|
| > See ya
| >
| > Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor)
S
| >
|
|
| I got it, Chuck.
|
| Tim's eloquent theorem showed me the error of my ways.
|
| Richard
|
| still trying to figure out the Helium but tho...

[george]

Dan wrote:
> TRUTH wrote:
> > Dan > wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:
> >
> >> TRUTH wrote:
> >>> Dan > wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:
> >>>
> >>>> TRUTH wrote:
> >>>>> Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Richard Lamb wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
> >>>>>> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
> >>>>>> they
> >>>>>> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
> >>>>> Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
> >>>>> do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
> >>>>> http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bowman is also running for Congress
> >>>>> http://www.rmbowman.com/
> >>>> As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
> >>>> with
> >>>> the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
> >>>> operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
> >>>> tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
> >>>> they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
> >>>> located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
> > in
> >>>> time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
> >>>> have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
> >>>> aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
> >>>> response to all of them?
> >>>>
> >>>> Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
> >>>> takes
> >>>> 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
> > ready
> >>>> to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
> >>>> situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
> > holidays
> >>>> it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.
> >>>>
> >>>> On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
> >>>> genning
> >>>> up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
> >>>> action
> >>>> would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?
> >> NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
> >> how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
> > since
> >> 9/11 tend to make the news?
> >>
> >> Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
> >> assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
> >> have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
> >> difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
> >> I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
> > 9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
> > plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?
>
> FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried
> before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything
> like scrambled eggs?
>
strewth watches to many WW2 BoB type films.
The kerosine taste would put me off scrambled jets

[Richard Lamb]

Jose wrote:
>> I am now constructing a push up outfit with feathers on top in the
>> proper ratio
>> and down on the bottom. Hmmm sounds like that's just where down should
>> be "on
>> the bottom".
>
>
> You see, this is why science should be left to the professionals. Such
> simple sounding theories are usually wrong, ...

snipped the expensive part
>
> Jose

Occom's Razor, Jose.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[Dan]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Cup holders allowed drinking in flight and that in turn
> required "draining the pilot's sump" more often in flight.
> This required relief tubes, but then women started flying
> and that requires the potty. The potty requires plumbing
> and that means plumbers. More money "down the drain" [pun
> intended] and then the government started buying toilet
> seats and we all heard what THAT cost.
>
>
> Maybe we could try to build a jet engine that burned paper
> trash instead of petroleum products. This could save a lot
> of oil and several steps in the process of flight, they
> could just directly burn money.
>
>
>
The oil companies will be knocking at your door soon :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article >, Richard Isakson
> says...
>
>> As further proof that Chuck's theory doesn't work, I tried an experiment
>> this morning. I took a pillow off my bed. It is mostly feathers, after
>> all. To give it a proper test, I hiked up the Ebey's Landing Bluff Trail to
>> the edge of the cliff. Having great faith in Chuck and fully expecting my
>> pillow to soar up over my head, I give that pillow a good strong toss ...
>> Nope. It went staight down. Splat! Right into the Puget Sound.
>>
>> Thanks to Chuck, I'll be sleeping on a soggy pillow tonight!
>
> Richard, as I was lamenting your tale of woe I decided to see why you got the
> result you did . So I embarked on a non federally funded research project and
> made many new scientific discovery's such as:
>
> -Pillows are not Gooses
> -Gooses have feathers
> -Pillows have down
> -Gooses feathers are outside
> -Pillows down is inside
> -Gooses have down that is in under the feathers
> -Gooses are hard to catch ...alive
> -Pillows are easy to catch
> -Gooses bite...hard
> -Pillows are soft
> -Gooses keep you awake
> -Pillows make you sleepy
> -Gooses get grumpy
> -Pillows are calm
>
> After obtaining this data I decided to pull all the feathers off a Goose and
> leave the down attached.The Goose didn't seem happy, maybe I could get a
> research grant to determine if the Gooses get grumpy because they are half naked
> or because they're cold.But that's a whole nuther topic. I then proceeded to the
> Clark ave bridge (altitude about 75') and pitched this unhappy Goose off to see
> him fly .He didn't and boy he was really mad when I went down to
> retrieve him.
> Then it became obvious that feathers are for flying and down is for "down".
> After the first test I thought that possibly I was in an area of high gravity so
> I went to where gravity is less ...the airport. Everyone knows airports are
> built in low gravity areas.But that's another topic in itself as to how I
> discovered that.I then went to the top of the highest hangar and threw the Goose
> off. He failed to fly again and was REALLY ****ed off at me.
>
> So therefore it is logical to conclude that Gooses have 2 types of feathers ,one
> for flying and one for landing.Pillows are filled with the "down" feathers
> .That's why your pillow went "down" when you launched it. This is an example of
> why this type of testing must be conducted by experts.
>
> More research must be done so please send money so this very important research
> can continue. I'd also like to get a stunt double for the Goose as well. Now I'm
> off to see if the reports of an aviator looping,rolling and spinning a cow are
> true!!
>
> See ya
>
> Chuck(fly writer,scientist, alchemist and witch doctor) S

Chuck, um, ask Moller how to get gummint grants to pursue your
research. You may be onto something.

As for the aviator looping, spinning and rolling a cow must you bring
Zoom into this?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

george wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> TRUTH wrote:
>>> Dan > wrote in news:T3kLf.23569$Ug4.20610@dukeread12:
>>>
>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:qDhLf.22857$Ug4.13336@dukeread12:
>>>>>
>>>>>> TRUTH wrote:
>>>>>>> Dan > wrote in news:ICaLf.19925$Ug4.16290@dukeread12:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "How does a wing generate lift?"
>>>>>>>> Actually they don't. Aircraft only fly because everyone believes
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> do. Once enough people start doubting they will cease to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is my conspiracy theory and I'm sticking to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan, what do you thing of Dr Robert Bowman? He's a retired USAF Lt.
>>>>>>> Col. and Nasa rocket scientist. He says if NORAD were left alone to
>>>>>>> do their job, all four planes would have been intercepted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He can be seen in this video, about halfway through:
>>>>>>> http://www.911busters.com/DC_Truth/index.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bowman is also running for Congress
>>>>>>> http://www.rmbowman.com/
>>>>>> As an engineering type he would have had very limited experience
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the operational side of the USAF. On the other hand I was on the
>>>>>> operational side and I highly doubt a) anyone tied NORAD's hands were
>>>>>> tied, b)that NORAD was looking for attacking flights within CONUS,
>>>>>> they tend to look outward for that, c) that alert aircraft would have
>>>>>> located them and had been able to receive orders to shoot them down
>>> in
>>>>>> time to stop all 3 strikes. Let's face it, not too many people would
>>>>>> have believed what was about to occur ever would. In any event
>>>>>> aircraft go astray every single day, should there be a military
>>>>>> response to all of them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Aircraft sitting alert are thoroughly preflighted. This process
>>>>>> takes
>>>>>> 2 or 3 hours. I have seen helicopters and C-130s preflighted and
>>> ready
>>>>>> to go in less than an hour, but those were emergency medevac
>>>>>> situations not involving arming the aircraft. On weekends and
>>> holidays
>>>>>> it was harder to gen up aircrews than aircraft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On normal duty days such as 9-11 you would have had problems
>>>>>> genning
>>>>>> up aircrews due to training, crew rest, additional duties etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could any of the aircraft been intercepted? Possibly, but what
>>>>>> action
>>>>>> would be taken? Could all 4 have been intercepted? Highly unlikely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Before 9/11 how many times a year (approx) did NORAD scramble jets?
>>>> NORAD never did, they don't own any jets. BTW, did you ever notice
>>>> how military aircraft sent to check out wayward aircraft before or
>>> since
>>>> 9/11 tend to make the news?
>>>>
>>>> Back to your attempt at misdirection let's do a hypothetical and
>>>> assume NORAD requests a dozen interceptions in 2000. Every one would
>>>> have been to chase a single aircraft. 9/11 had 4 errant airplanes. What
>>>> difference does how many intercepts were called for before or since?
>>>> I'll answer that for you: it makes no difference at all.
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> According to CBS news, NORAD scrambled jets 57 times the year before
>>> 9/11. Why didn't the FAA call NORAD to scramble jets after the first
>>> plane "hijacked"? Why did they wait for the third to be hijacked?
>> FAA has no authority over NORAD. Maybe FAA hadn't been too worried
>> before then. I have never had scrambled jets, do they taste anything
>> like scrambled eggs?
>>
> strewth watches to many WW2 BoB type films.
> The kerosine taste would put me off scrambled jets
>

In all fairness to the whacko who started all this, when I sat nuke
alert in the late 1970s they still announced "scramble, scramble,
scramble" over the P.A. when launching.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jose]

> There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force

.... averaged over a whole bunch of molecules, yes. But considering each
molecule separately, there certainly =is= momentum change at each
collsision.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article <X07Mf.34630$Ug4.15600@dukeread12>, Dan says...

> Chuck, um, ask Moller how to get gummint grants to pursue your
>research. You may be onto something.


He would be the guy to ask :-)

> As for the aviator looping, spinning and rolling a cow must you bring
>Zoom into this?

I didn't you did :-) But no matter, now that I've explained flight I'm off to
find out what happens if you put insulated windows in backwards. Do they then
let the heat in during the summer and the cold in during the winter? Send money
for that reasearch as well

Cheers

Chuck (Wax on, Wax off) S

[Jose]

>
> Occom's Razor, Jose.

Yes, but Occam's razor needs to work with theories that explain the
facts. Fact is, the down on an airplane =is= laterally separated from
the up, and airplanes fly only when they move forward.

If Occam's razor were so simple, we wouldn't have million dollar grants.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Don Tuite]

On 25 Feb 2006 19:50:00 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
> wrote:

>I didn't you did :-) But no matter, now that I've explained flight I'm off to
>find out what happens if you put insulated windows in backwards.

You do know about the newlyweds who didn't know the difference between
KY Jelly and window putty?

(Scroll down.)




















All their windows fell out.

Son

[Jim Macklin]

Worse, the plumbers union.


"Dan" > wrote in message
news:1Z6Mf.34567$Ug4.25620@dukeread12...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| > Cup holders allowed drinking in flight and that in turn
| > required "draining the pilot's sump" more often in
flight.
| > This required relief tubes, but then women started
flying
| > and that requires the potty. The potty requires
plumbing
| > and that means plumbers. More money "down the drain"
[pun
| > intended] and then the government started buying toilet
| > seats and we all heard what THAT cost.
| >
| >
| > Maybe we could try to build a jet engine that burned
paper
| > trash instead of petroleum products. This could save a
lot
| > of oil and several steps in the process of flight, they
| > could just directly burn money.
| >
| >
| >
| The oil companies will be knocking at your door soon :)
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Macklin]

Or KY and BenGay Ouch



"Don Tuite" > wrote in
message ...
| On 25 Feb 2006 19:50:00 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
| > wrote:
|
| >I didn't you did :-) But no matter, now that I've
explained flight I'm off to
| >find out what happens if you put insulated windows in
backwards.
|
| You do know about the newlyweds who didn't know the
difference between
| KY Jelly and window putty?
|
| (Scroll down.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| All their windows fell out.
|
| Son

[Dan]

ChuckSlusarczyk wrote:
> In article <X07Mf.34630$Ug4.15600@dukeread12>, Dan says...
>
>> Chuck, um, ask Moller how to get gummint grants to pursue your
>> research. You may be onto something.
>
>
> He would be the guy to ask :-)
>
>> As for the aviator looping, spinning and rolling a cow must you bring
>> Zoom into this?
>
> I didn't you did :-) But no matter, now that I've explained flight I'm off to
> find out what happens if you put insulated windows in backwards. Do they then
> let the heat in during the summer and the cold in during the winter? Send money
> for that reasearch as well
>
> Cheers
>
> Chuck (Wax on, Wax off) S
>


If you put them in upside down with the outdoors look inverted?
Remember to tip your cow according to services rendered.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Lamb]

I'd like to take a moment and wander off into fantasy land here...
For what it's worth?

In respect to whatever bizarre principles are really at work holding
an airplane up in the sky, I think some of us only are only seeing
the "down" side.

I'd like, for a moment, to address the "up" side.

We can easily imagine a column of air that extends from the bottom
side of the wing - all the way to the ground.
Very Newtonian.

Sure, the high pressure under the wing PUSHES UP on the wing.

But at the same time the low pressure above the wing PULLS UP on it.

And I suspect that "pulling up" part is a little harder to visualize.
What, for instance, is it pulling AGAINST?

There doesn't seem to be anything solid up there to pull against.
Except a lot of empty sky?

Theory:
This is my over simplified "localized pressure field" theory.

In flight our wing is "compressing" the air under it (down), while
at the same time "stretching" the air above it (also down).
(Both are allowed by the compressibility of subsonic gassious fluids)
The combined reaction is, of course, Lift (UP).

These pressure fields, while strong near the wing are proportionally lower
as we get farther from the wing surface (unlike a simple spring network).

I think of it as the pressure field being spread out over a larger volumn,
rather than being dissipated in a smaller column.

This also might address the question of what happened to the "momentum"
imparted to the air that we might expect if we only consider the down
side. The two pressure fields pretty well cancel each other out after
the wing has passed by.

Stalls:
At some value of high alpha, the low pressure ABOVE the wing exceeds
the shear value (viscosity) of air, and the flow "tears" loose.

For fat airfoils this happens much further aft that for thin airfoils,
which tend to separate nearer the leading edge.


Psychic Hotline:
Why does the air flow start to rise BEFORE it meets the wing?

If we look at an idealized flow diagram in a text book, (which usually
implies that the air is moving and the wing is stationary!?) we notice
that there is a high pressure area right at the leading edge of the wing.
Think of it as impact pressure.

Combine this with the low pressure area above and high pressure below and
we can see why the air seems to start rising BEFORE it gets to the wing.

Scope:
Now, how far these forces extend above and below the wing depends on
several factors - weight, CL, velocity of the wing, etc.

In straight and level flight, the wing generates as much lift as the
aircraft weighs. (Lift = weight)

So?
Higher speed, lower CL -> smaller pressure field disturbance?
Lower speed, higher CL -> higher pressure field disturbance?
(PER unit volumn / time)
The net work is the same same though. Lift = Weight

Tip Vortices:
Wing tip vortices are a direct result of these two pressure areas.
The high pressure below and the low pressure above tend to pull the air
_around_ the wing tip, inducing the circulation for the vortex.

This also rolls back into the question of why the vortex is a lot stronger
at low speeds. There is simply a much higher pressure difference between
the top and bottom fields.

And explains why winglets can help to reduce the vortex size, and the
induced drag that comes along with them.

Ground Effect:
As we get down to within a wing span or so of the ground, and the higher
pressure on the bottom side actually does come into contact with the ground,
said high pressure area under the wing gets trapped and is noticibly stronger.

Anyone who has tried to plant a Taylorcraft a little too fast knows this
*problem* intimately!


Summation:
This is, obviously, NOT the final word in aerodynamic phenonomnon, and
I offer it only as a (hopefully) useful picture of the forces in play.

I've ignored a lot of other obvious stuff - like Drag (because it's such a -
DRAG!), circulation theory, etc.

Like I said, "for what it's worth".

Richard

Disclaimer: All puns are the sole responsibility of the author and do
not imply any such foolish thoughts on behalf of the management...

[Richard Lamb]

Bryan Martin wrote:
> The low pressure above the wing never pulls up on the wing at all, it just
> doesn't push down as hard as the high pressure below so the net force is up.
> Suction is not the opposite of pressure, suction doesn't really exist at
> all, it is merely a term used to describe a lower pressure.
>
>
I'm going to gently disagree, Bryan.

If the pressure above the wing is below ambient, it sucks...

[UltraJohn]

Richard Lamb wrote:

> Bryan Martin wrote:
>> The low pressure above the wing never pulls up on the wing at all, it
>> just doesn't push down as hard as the high pressure below so the net
>> force is up. Suction is not the opposite of pressure, suction doesn't
>> really exist at all, it is merely a term used to describe a lower
>> pressure.
>>
>>
> I'm going to gently disagree, Bryan.
>
> If the pressure above the wing is below ambient, it sucks...
If it looks like a potato, smells like a potato and taste like a potato it
probably isn't a Tomato!
;-)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-24, Greg Esres > wrote:
><<There is a *net* downward momentum of air.>>
>
> I have several aerodynamics books that say differently.
>
><<Otherwise there is no lift.>>
>
> If there is a pressure difference between the top and bottom, you will
> have lift. Your airfoil is blisssfully unaware of the air with which
> it has no contact.

But air acts as a fluid. The airfoil certainly DOES have an effect on
air that it has no contact.
If you think there is no downward movement of air from an airfoil, stand
underneath a hovering helicopter some day. Or behind the propellor of a
plane - the prop is also an airfoil.

You might be able to get lift out of an airfoil in an enclosed tube with
no downward movement of the air, but that won't happen in the real
world.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Richard Lamb]

UltraJohn wrote:

> Richard Lamb wrote:
>
>
>>Bryan Martin wrote:
>>
>>>The low pressure above the wing never pulls up on the wing at all, it
>>>just doesn't push down as hard as the high pressure below so the net
>>>force is up. Suction is not the opposite of pressure, suction doesn't
>>>really exist at all, it is merely a term used to describe a lower
>>>pressure.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm going to gently disagree, Bryan.
>>
>>If the pressure above the wing is below ambient, it sucks...
>
> If it looks like a potato, smells like a potato and taste like a potato it
> probably isn't a Tomato!
> ;-)

Oh, of course he's technically right, Big Guy.

I'm just trying to drag this out of the Dark Side into the Light and
bring our attention to the top side of our sublime curves...

There is a LOT going on up there that I feel is getting overlooked
by concentrating on the bottom.

Spoilers to mess things up.

French Ticklers for the boundary layer (turbulators).

Vacuum (oops!) driven boundary layer control, even!

LOTS of interesting stuff!

Richard

[Greg Esres]

<<But considering each molecule separately, there certainly =is=
momentum change at each collsision.>>

True, because that's what pressure is. Ok, let's say we drop the
temperature down to absolute zero. Now there's NO momentum change.
:-) Ok, while true, we're getting away from the conditions under
which lift is generated, so it's unrealistic.

You're right that pressure itself is a momentum change, but that
doesn't appear to be what the momentum change advocates are, ah,
advocating. Now, after thinking about it for a while, I have no idea
what they mean. The idea of taking a mass of air and "throwing it
down" makes a nice, intutive image, but I can't quantify it.

However, the pressure change below the wing isn't downwash.

[Greg Esres]

<<And I suspect that "pulling up" part is a little harder to
visualize. What, for instance, is it pulling AGAINST?>>

The reason it's hard to visualize is that Bryan is correct; there is
no "suction force." If the pressure above and below the wing are
ambient, there is no net force because the two forces cancel. If you
lower the pressure above, the ambient pressure below the wing pushs
the wing upwards.

While a "suction force" is a useful fiction, like centrifugal force,
it can confuse an analysis if its origin is not understood.


<<Stalls:
At some value of high alpha, the low pressure ABOVE the wing exceeds
the shear value (viscosity) of air, and the flow "tears" loose.>>

Stalls happen because the air flow over the top of the wing run into
an increasing pressure along the back half of the wing, which slows
down the air. At some point, the air will move backwards The flow is
said to be "separated" at this point.

The "suction force" concept might be confusing the issue here too.

<<As we get down to within a wing span or so of the ground, and the
higher >pressure on the bottom side actually does come into contact
with the ground, said high pressure area under the wing gets trapped
and is noticibly stronger.>>

Perhaps, but that suggests that Ground Effect is an increase in lift,
when in reality it's an decrease in drag.

[[email protected]]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Bryan Martin wrote:
> > The low pressure above the wing never pulls up on the wing at all, it just
> > doesn't push down as hard as the high pressure below so the net force is up.
> > Suction is not the opposite of pressure, suction doesn't really exist at
> > all, it is merely a term used to describe a lower pressure.
> >
> >
> I'm going to gently disagree, Bryan.
>
> If the pressure above the wing is below ambient, it sucks...

In a episode of _Star Trek:The Next Generation_ Riker, Data and
others are exploring a delelict. Riker, after listiening to a voice
recording
says that evidently one of the crew opened an airlock door and was
sucked outside into space. Data said, "Blown out". Riker asked,
"'What?". Data Replied "Blown out. They were blown out. It is a
common mistake."

Data was right.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-02-24, Greg Esres > wrote:
> ><<There is a *net* downward momentum of air.>>
> >
> > I have several aerodynamics books that say differently.
> >
> ><<Otherwise there is no lift.>>
> >
> > If there is a pressure difference between the top and bottom, you will
> > have lift. Your airfoil is blisssfully unaware of the air with which
> > it has no contact.
>
> But air acts as a fluid. The airfoil certainly DOES have an effect on
> air that it has no contact.
> If you think there is no downward movement of air from an airfoil, stand
> underneath a hovering helicopter some day. Or behind the propellor of a
> plane - the prop is also an airfoil.
>
> You might be able to get lift out of an airfoil in an enclosed tube with
> no downward movement of the air, but that won't happen in the real
> world.
>

In the real world airplanes have flown with pressure sensors
on the wings, confirming lift from the Bernojuli effect in actual
flight.

This does NOT disprove the notion that there is localized downward
flow from some parts of the aircraft. However, there is no NET flow
of air down or up from airplane wings or helicopter blades. Otherwise,

ambient pressure at ground level would steadily increase as more
and more aircraft pushed the air down...

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<The disk is constantly transferring momentum to the air below it,
> which is transferring it right back after bouncing off of the floor.
> >>
>
> There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force on
> either the air or the disk. The molecules next to the disk have a
> pressure equal to the weight of the disk below it and the actual disk
> above it. There is no net force and thus no momentum change.

Pressure never equals weight for the same reason that voltage
never equals power.

To be precise, the upward force the disk is the difference
in the pressure below the disk less the pressure above, multiplied
by the area of the disk. The downward force is the weight of
the disk which is the product of the mass of the disk times
the local acceleartion due to gravity. The disk stops moving when
the two forces are equal.

>
> Momentum = mass * velocity, and the vertical velocity of the air and
> the disk are zero.

Force is defined as the time rate of change of momentum. Therefor
when the disk is neither accelerating nor changing mass there is
no force acting on it.

So what holds it up? ;-)

--

FF

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-02-27, > wrote:
> In the real world airplanes have flown with pressure sensors
> on the wings, confirming lift from the Bernojuli effect in actual
> flight.

Bernoulli's equations and Newton's are not mutually exclusive or somehow
additive - they are just looking at different aspects of the same thing
and both explain 100% of lift.

> This does NOT disprove the notion that there is localized downward
> flow from some parts of the aircraft. However, there is no NET flow
> of air down or up from airplane wings or helicopter blades. Otherwise,
>
> ambient pressure at ground level would steadily increase as more
> and more aircraft pushed the air down...

But this seems a bit irrelevant. When I go to and from work in my car,
there is no net movement by my car either, since when I get home I park
it in the same place. But in the discussion of whether my car got me to
work or not this is irrelevant. Either that or I'm paying for fuel and
merely imagining I go to work :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Greg Esres]

<<To be precise, the upward force the disk is the difference in the
pressure below the disk less the pressure above, >>

You're correct; equating pressure with force is a convenience to
simply discussions; it's a bit sloppy.

<<Force is defined as the time rate of change of momentum. Therefor
when the disk is neither accelerating nor changing mass there is
no force acting on it. >>

That's not a definition, it's an equation. *If* you have a change in
momentum, it's proportional to the NET forces acting on it.

[[email protected]]

Highflyer wrote:
>
> ...
>
> No. wingtip vortices are caused by downwash. Infinite wings don't have
> wingtip vortices because they don't have ends, not because they don't have
> downwash.
>

Wingtip vortices are caused by the pressure differential between the
lower and upper wing surface. The air moves from the lower to the
upper, around the wingtip. Wingtip vortices reduce lift because
they cause the pressure below the wingtip to be lower and above the
wingtip to be higher, than at points further inbound.

Conservation of angular momemtum causes the air to continue swirling
after the aircraft has passed. Once the pressure changes caused by
the passage of the aircraft have died out and the pressure restored to

ambient the net downward flow from the entire aircraft is equal to net
upward flow from the entire aircraft, provided the aircraft is in level
flight.
If the aircraft is climbing or diving the only net flow is that cuased
by the
displacement of the volume of the aircraft.

Those last two sentences are key.

Infinite wings lack wingtip vortices because they lack wingtips.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Dylan Smith wrote:
> On 2006-02-27, > wrote:
> > In the real world airplanes have flown with pressure sensors
> > on the wings, confirming lift from the Bernojuli effect in actual
> > flight.
>
> Bernoulli's equations and Newton's are not mutually exclusive or somehow
> additive - they are just looking at different aspects of the same thing
> and both explain 100% of lift.

I'm not sure what hyou mean by this. One supposes that Bernouli's
equaitons are derived using Newtoniam mechanics and the
ideal gas law (it has been a long time since I took fluid mechanics
but don't see that there is anything else to work with). For that
matter
the ideal gas law can (probably) be derived using Newtonian mechanics.

Is that what you meant?

>
> > This does NOT disprove the notion that there is localized downward
> > flow from some parts of the aircraft. However, there is no NET flow
> > of air down or up from airplane wings or helicopter blades. Otherwise,
> > ambient pressure at ground level would steadily increase as more
> > and more aircraft pushed the air down...
>
> But this seems a bit irrelevant. When I go to and from work in my car,
> there is no net movement by my car either, since when I get home I park
> it in the same place. But in the discussion of whether my car got me to
> work or not this is irrelevant. Either that or I'm paying for fuel and
> merely imagining I go to work .

Precisely. Flow is irrelevent.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Greg Esres wrote:
> <<To be precise, the upward force the disk is the difference in the
> pressure below the disk less the pressure above, >>
>
> You're correct; equating pressure with force is a convenience to
> simply discussions; it's a bit sloppy.
>
> <<Force is defined as the time rate of change of momentum. >>...
>
> That's not a definition, it's an equation.

Again, to be precise, that is the equation which defines force IF
you work in a aystem in which mass and acceleration are previously
defined. In physics, definitions usually are equations.

--

FF

[Jose]

> Either that or I'm paying for fuel and
> merely imagining I go to work :-)

Maybe you're imagining that you're getting something done.

<g,d,rlh> Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> You're right that pressure itself is a momentum change, but that
> doesn't appear to be what the momentum change advocates are, ah,
> advocating.

They (and I too) are talking about local effects. It's fine to say no
=net= downard motion, of course there is no net downward motion - the
earth gets in the way, and the increasing pressure pushes the air back up.

Suppose the earth wasn't really there... we have an infinite field of
air in all directions, and no gravity. A airplane comes through. It
will (at the proper AOA) experience lift, and will accelerate upwards
(upwards being defined wrt the wings on a cessna, downwards being
defined wrt the wings on a piper). Newton requires that air be
accelerated downwards.

If we introduce plane gravity (that is, gravity that magically only
attracts airplanes and leaves air molecules alone), then this gravity
will pull the airplane down, and will prevent it from accelerating
upwards. However, air will still have to be accelerated downwards to
keep the airplane from succumbing to gravity. There will be localized
high pressure below the wing, and localized low pressure above the wing,
and there will be a vortex as the air rushes around the wingtips, but
the air that is accelerated downwards will not have anything to stop it
(except other air, which molecule by molecule accepts the transfer of
momentum).

If we let gravity work on the air molecules too, then there will also be
a gravitationally induced acceleration of air downwards, since there is
nothing to stop it. The air will be in free fall (and pretty soon the
airplane will not be able to keep up).

It's only when you put the earth itself in the picture that it all comes
together. With a hard surface below the air, (momentum from) molecules
that have been "thrown down" by the wing will get transferred to the
earth, and the air molecules will bounce back upwards again. THIS
causes the pressure that feeds the upwash (and helps keep the earth from
accelerating upwards towards the airplane). If we let the system
stabilize, the air molecules will pile up near the earth, and be sparser
further up.

> However, the pressure change below the wing isn't downwash.

If there is a technical meaning to that word, I am not using it that way.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Al]

Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
Fruit Flies Like a Banana...


Al


"JJS" <jschneider@remove socks cebridge.net> wrote in message
...
>
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
> snip
> Feathers are not magical, they operate by strict scientific
>> principles and an insufficient amount of feathers won't even make a fruit
>> fly.
>>
> snip
>
> Fruit flies have feathers?
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
> Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
> =----

[Richard Lamb]

Al wrote:
> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>
Grouch Marx!

[Osiris88]

Bryan Martin wrote:
> I don't know if it was the first time, but it happened once back in the
> early '80s in, I think, Arizona. I believe it was a PSA DC-9. A disgruntled
> ex-employee snuck a gun on board and forced his way into the cockpit and
> shot the flight crew and then dove the plane into the ground. Of course in
> that case the hijacker had a real weapon and about the only thing that might
> have stopped him was someone else with a gun. Then of course there is the
> case of the FedEx DC-10 where the crew barely managed to prevent a nut case
> soon to be ex-employee from doing the same.
>
> The 9-11 hijackers weren't even armed. No mater what anybody says, a box
> cutter is not a weapon.

I am not disagreeing with the other stuff you wrote but a box cutter is
indeed a very dangerous weapon in the wrong hands and you could easily
kill a person with one swing, not to mention multiple attacks.
I wonder, if 911 was an inside job and nobody takes box cutters
seriously, why wouldn't the perpetrators plant other weapons in the
planes so the story would be more believable?

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > You're right that pressure itself is a momentum change, but that
> > doesn't appear to be what the momentum change advocates are, ah,
> > advocating.
>

Wrong. Momentum change is momentum. The time rate of momentum
change is Force. Neither is pressure.

> They (and I too) are talking about local effects. It's fine to say no
> =net= downard motion, of course there is no net downward motion - the
> earth gets in the way, and the increasing pressure pushes the air back up.
>
> Suppose the earth wasn't really there... we have an infinite field of
> air in all directions, and no gravity. A airplane comes through. It
> will (at the proper AOA) experience lift, and will accelerate upwards
> (upwards being defined wrt the wings on a cessna, downwards being
> defined wrt the wings on a piper). Newton requires that air be
> accelerated downwards.

Why does Newton require that air be accelerated downwards?

>
> If we introduce plane gravity (that is, gravity that magically only
> attracts airplanes and leaves air molecules alone), then this gravity
> will pull the airplane down, and will prevent it from accelerating
> upwards. However, air will still have to be accelerated downwards to
> keep the airplane from succumbing to gravity. There will be localized
> high pressure below the wing, and localized low pressure above the wing,
> and there will be a vortex as the air rushes around the wingtips, but
> the air that is accelerated downwards will not have anything to stop it
> (except other air, which molecule by molecule accepts the transfer of
> momentum).
>
> If we let gravity work on the air molecules too, then there will also be
> a gravitationally induced acceleration of air downwards, since there is
> nothing to stop it. The air will be in free fall (and pretty soon the
> airplane will not be able to keep up).
>
> It's only when you put the earth itself in the picture that it all comes
> together. With a hard surface below the air, (momentum from) molecules
> that have been "thrown down" by the wing will get transferred to the
> earth, and the air molecules will bounce back upwards again. THIS
> causes the pressure that feeds the upwash (and helps keep the earth from
> accelerating upwards towards the airplane). If we let the system
> stabilize, the air molecules will pile up near the earth, and be sparser
> further up.

What color is the sky on your planet?

>
> > However, the pressure change below the wing isn't downwash.
>
> If there is a technical meaning to that word, I am not using it that way.
>

OK.

--

FF

[Jose]

> Wrong. Momentum change is momentum. The time rate of momentum
> change is Force. Neither is pressure.

What I wrote (or intended to write) is that pressure is manifested by
many momentum changes. Each molecule that collides with a wall
transfers momentum to that wall, and the net force caused by all those
momentum changes (over time) manifests itself as pressure, (which is
force divided by area). The essential point is that pressure arises
from momentum transfer on a molecular level.

> Why does Newton require that air be accelerated downwards?

To counterbalance the wing being accelerated upwards due to lift. The
wing is at an AOA which generates lift.

>> If we let the system
>> stabilize, the air molecules will pile up near the earth, and be sparser
>> further up.
>
> What color is the sky on your planet?

Blue. Why? Do you not concur with the observation that on Earth the
air is denser near the ground, and less dense at higher altitudes?

Gravity is what holds the earth's atmosphere in place.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[cjcampbell]

wrote:
> Dylan Smith wrote:
> > On 2006-02-24, Greg Esres > wrote:
> > ><<There is a *net* downward momentum of air.>>
> > >
> > > I have several aerodynamics books that say differently.
> > >

I guess that depends on what you mean by "net" downward movement. Air
does move downward from an airfoil. There is no difference between a
fan blade and wing.

> > ><<Otherwise there is no lift.>>
> > >
> > > If there is a pressure difference between the top and bottom, you will
> > > have lift. Your airfoil is blisssfully unaware of the air with which
> > > it has no contact.
> >

Define 'contact' and 'aware.'

> > But air acts as a fluid. The airfoil certainly DOES have an effect on
> > air that it has no contact.
> > If you think there is no downward movement of air from an airfoil, stand
> > underneath a hovering helicopter some day. Or behind the propellor of a
> > plane - the prop is also an airfoil.
> >
> > You might be able to get lift out of an airfoil in an enclosed tube with
> > no downward movement of the air, but that won't happen in the real
> > world.
> >
>
> In the real world airplanes have flown with pressure sensors
> on the wings, confirming lift from the Bernojuli effect in actual
> flight.
>

In the real world there are many photographs of huge canyons carved in
layers of cloud and smoke as airplanes fly over them, as well as
photographs of ripples and spray in water below them. The downward
deflection of air is caused by the low pressure area above the wing, so
of course the Bernoulli effect is confirmed. The downward flow of air
is predicted by Bernoulli.

> This does NOT disprove the notion that there is localized downward
> flow from some parts of the aircraft. However, there is no NET flow
> of air down or up from airplane wings or helicopter blades. Otherwise,
>
> ambient pressure at ground level would steadily increase as more
> and more aircraft pushed the air down...

No it would not, once the aircraft was out of ground effect. The
downward flow dissipates rapidly after the aircraft has passed.
Otherwise you could say that all the air is being sucked out of the
space above airplanes and nothing is moving in to replace it, so that
eventually everything above heavily travelled altitudes will become a
vacuum. Are you saying that a fan will eventually increase the ambient
pressure on one side of the room and leave a vacuum on the other side?
It would make half of my living room kind of uncomfortable, wouldn't
it? Air moves in from the sides and quickly equalizes the air pressure.

[Richard Lamb]

Bryan Martin wrote:


Bryan,

Ex-nay!

Or wander over to alt.politics to feed the loons...

I brought up this whole Bernouli mess just to get
rid of these guys.

It worked quite well.

Now don't screw it up again!

Richard

[Dan]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Bryan Martin wrote:
>
>
> Bryan,
>
> Ex-nay!
>
> Or wander over to alt.politics to feed the loons...
>
> I brought up this whole Bernouli mess just to get
> rid of these guys.
>
> It worked quite well.
>
> Now don't screw it up again!
>
> Richard

Isn't a Bernouli what an Arab wears?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Macklin]

Italian?



"Dan" > wrote in message
news:CqZMf.55312$Ug4.33718@dukeread12...
| Richard Lamb wrote:
| > Bryan Martin wrote:
| >
| >
| > Bryan,
| >
| > Ex-nay!
| >
| > Or wander over to alt.politics to feed the loons...
| >
| > I brought up this whole Bernouli mess just to get
| > rid of these guys.
| >
| > It worked quite well.
| >
| > Now don't screw it up again!
| >
| > Richard
|
| Isn't a Bernouli what an Arab wears?
|
| Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Dan]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Italian?
>
>
>
> "Dan" > wrote in message
> news:CqZMf.55312$Ug4.33718@dukeread12...
> | Richard Lamb wrote:
> | > Bryan Martin wrote:
> | >
> | >
> | > Bryan,
> | >
> | > Ex-nay!
> | >
> | > Or wander over to alt.politics to feed the loons...
> | >
> | > I brought up this whole Bernouli mess just to get
> | > rid of these guys.
> | >
> | > It worked quite well.
> | >
> | > Now don't screw it up again!
> | >
> | > Richard
> |
> | Isn't a Bernouli what an Arab wears?
> |
> | Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>

Drat, wasted a pun :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > Wrong. Momentum change is momentum. The time rate of momentum
> > change is Force. Neither is pressure.
>
> What I wrote (or intended to write) is that pressure is manifested by
> many momentum changes. Each molecule that collides with a wall
> transfers momentum to that wall, and the net force caused by all those
> momentum changes (over time) manifests itself as pressure, (which is
> force divided by area). The essential point is that pressure arises
> from momentum transfer on a molecular level.

IOW, the causual basis for macroscopic gas laws is governed
by statistical mechanics. Agreed.

>
> > Why does Newton require that air be accelerated downwards?
>
> To counterbalance the wing being accelerated upwards due to lift. The
> wing is at an AOA which generates lift.
>

I think you are refering to Newton's third law, often stated as: "For
every
action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

For an aircraft in level flight, the upwards acceleration due to lift
is
counterbalanced by the downward acceleration due to gravity.
This satisfies Newton's third law.

For a wing in level flight, the vertical component of momentum is
zero. Therefor, conservation of momentum requires that the vertical
componenet of momentum of the air also be zero. The wing imparts
as much upward momentum to the air as it does downward momentum.

The pressure differential through the wing, from bottom to top,
integrated
over the wing area, provides an upward force for a wing in level
flight.

The downwash behind the aircraft, which is counterbalanced by a more
diffuse upwash around it, is real but not relevent to the issue of
lift.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

cjcampbell wrote:
> wrote:
> > Dylan Smith wrote:
> > > On 2006-02-24, Greg Esres > wrote:
> > > ><<There is a *net* downward momentum of air.>>
> > > >
> > > > I have several aerodynamics books that say differently.
> > > >
>
> I guess that depends on what you mean by "net" downward movement. Air
> does move downward from an airfoil. There is no difference between a
> fan blade and wing.

For a fan in open air the momentum of the air moving through the
fan is equal and opposite to the momentum of the air moving around
the fan to replace the air removed from the front of the fan. There is
no net momentum change in the air. For ducted flow that returns the
air to the front fo the fan, the net momentum is also zero. Net flow
and
net momentum through any closed loop is zero--else the 'loop'
is not 'closed'.

Followjng a wing in level flight, the downward momentum of the
air in the downwash is equal and opposite to the upward momentum
of the air to either side that moves up to replace the air that washes
down. There is no net momentum change in the air.

> > > ...
> >
> > In the real world airplanes have flown with pressure sensors
> > on the wings, confirming lift from the Bernojuli effect in actual
> > flight.
> >
>
> In the real world there are many photographs of huge canyons carved in
> layers of cloud and smoke as airplanes fly over them,

Cool! Got any links to some? How about pictures of airplanes
flying just below the ceiling?

> as well as
> photographs of ripples and spray in water below them. The downward
> deflection of air is caused by the low pressure area above the wing, so
> of course the Bernoulli effect is confirmed. The downward flow of air
> is predicted by Bernoulli.
>
> > This does NOT disprove the notion that there is localized downward
> > flow from some parts of the aircraft. However, there is no NET flow
> > of air down or up from airplane wings or helicopter blades. Otherwise,
> >
> > ambient pressure at ground level would steadily increase as more
> > and more aircraft pushed the air down...
>
> No it would not, once the aircraft was out of ground effect. The
> downward flow dissipates rapidly after the aircraft has passed.

'Dissipation' is flow. If you include that dissipation into your
sum, there is no net flow. Otherwise, as stated above, the
ambient pressure at ground level would steadily increase and,
as you note below, the pressure higher up woudl steadily drop.

> Otherwise you could say that all the air is being sucked out of the
> space above airplanes and nothing is moving in to replace it, so that
> eventually everything above heavily travelled altitudes will become a
> vacuum.

Precisely my point. The downwash hypothesis sucks. It _is_
quite intuitive, it makes a lot of sense, but nature is not bound
by intuition or common sense.

> Are you saying that a fan will eventually increase the ambient
> pressure on one side of the room and leave a vacuum on the other side?

Are you saying that if there is net flow from one side of the room
to the other the pressure of both sides will stay the same?

> It would make half of my living room kind of uncomfortable, wouldn't
> it? Air moves in from the sides and quickly equalizes the air pressure.

Precisely. There is no net flow.

--

FF

[Al]

Richard you give away your age. Only an "Old Fart" would know that.

Al


"Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Al wrote:
>> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>>
> Grouch Marx!

[george]

Richard Lamb wrote:
> Al wrote:
> > Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
> > Fruit Flies Like a Banana...

Do all fruit flies have bannana ratings ?
:-)

[Dan]

Al wrote:
> Richard you give away your age. Only an "Old Fart" would know that.
>
> Al
>
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> Al wrote:
>>> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>>>
>> Grouch Marx!
>
>

Not quite, he misspelled Groucho.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Richard Lamb]

Sez one old fart to another???

Al wrote:
> Richard you give away your age. Only an "Old Fart" would know that.
>
> Al
>
>
> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>Al wrote:
>>
>>>Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>>>
>>
>> Grouch Marx!
>
>
>

[Dan]

george wrote:
> Richard Lamb wrote:
>> Al wrote:
>>> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>
> Do all fruit flies have bannana ratings ?
> :-)
>

Only visual banana rules in most cases. I heard the IBR are a tad
tough.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jose]

> I think you are refering to Newton's third law, often stated as: "For
> every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Yes.

> For an aircraft in level flight, the upwards acceleration due to lift
> is counterbalanced by the downward acceleration due to gravity.
> This satisfies Newton's third law.

Yes.

> For a wing in level flight, the vertical component of momentum is
> zero.

No.

That is, on a microscopic scale, no. The wing is constantly
freefalling, then being bounced back up by impact with air molecules.
Averaged over all the molecules, yes, the net is zero (the wing flies)
but on a microscopic scale, the wing is in constant brownian motion.
This implies momentum transfer, and following the momentum on a
microscopic scale is instructive.

> The wing imparts
> as much upward momentum to the air as it does downward momentum.

This is where I disagree. Upward momentum gets imparted, but not
(directly) by the wing. Rather, it is imparted by the ground, mediated
through other air molecules. Of course this wouldn't happen if the wing
didn't pass through and throw the air down to begin with, but the ground
is what ultimately imparts the upwards momentum.

> The pressure differential through the wing, from bottom to top,
> integrated
> over the wing area, provides an upward force for a wing in level
> flight.

That's the shortcut. Where does this pressure differential come from -
that is the question.

> The downwash behind the aircraft, which is counterbalanced by a more
> diffuse upwash around it, is real but not relevent to the issue of
> lift.

I disagree here too. It's important in seeing the entire picture.

The wing is ultimately being supported by the ground, the same way
somebody standing on a stool is ultimately supported by the ground.

Well, ok, a slightly different way, but only in detail.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> OK, I'll buy this. I should remind everyone that I am still
> talking about an infinite wing, having no induced drag.

I claim that my statement is generally true, and does not require an
infinite wing, just an infinite air field (as per the example I'm
developing).

>> However, air will still have to be accelerated downwards to
>> keep the airplane from succumbing to gravity.
>
>
> No it won't. Now we have no acceleration of the plane
> upwards. It's true that the wing must still throw air down,
> but now it's catching the air that is rising ahead of the
> wing, and throwing it down at a speed that exactly matches
> the rising speed of the air. Thus, the net downward speed
> of the air is zero and the wing leaves undisturbed air
> behind it..

Yes, it will.

The rising air in front of the wing doesn't rise by magic. It doesn't
rise before the wing does its thing (though it may rise before the wing
gets there); it rises =because= the wing is doing its thing, which is
throwing the air down (where it pushes the other air aside, and that
other air has to go somewhere).

Think about it. There's no earth, just this "magic plane gravity" which
pushes the airplane down. Something has to push up on the plane to keep
it in the air. The air can't push up (the way the runway can) because
the air is fluid - it smooshes out of the way and lets the plane
through. The only way the air can push up is by being thrown down -
accelerated at a rate that matches the acceleration due to "magic plane
gravity".

A wing not only keeps the plane away from the earth, it keeps the earth
away from the plane. If you could measure the total forces on the earth
due to everything on top of it (essentially making the earth a giant
bathroom scale), the reading would not change when an airplane takes
off. Even though the plane is not touching the earth, it is throwing
air down at the earth, and that impact registers as weight.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> 'Dissipation' is flow. If you include that dissipation into your
> sum, there is no net flow. Otherwise, as stated above, the
> ambient pressure at ground level would steadily increase and,
> as you note below, the pressure higher up woudl steadily drop.

But the ambient pressure at ground level =does= increase, by an amount
equal to the weight of the airplane (divided by the surface area of the
earth). This remains true for as long as the airplane is being
"supported" by the air.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[cjcampbell]

wrote:
> >
> > In the real world there are many photographs of huge canyons carved in
> > layers of cloud and smoke as airplanes fly over them,
>
> Cool! Got any links to some? How about pictures of airplanes
> flying just below the ceiling?
>

The most famous photo is one that you can see on this site here:
http://adamone.rchomepage.com/index4.htm
He has the caption wrong, though. The Citation never flew through the
cloud, only over it.

Pictures of airplanes flying just below the ceiling are an interesting
idea, but I have not seen any. Usually the ceiling is fairly ill
defined and ragged anyway.

[Ernest Christley]

Jose wrote:
>>
>> Occom's Razor, Jose.
>
>
> Yes, but Occam's razor needs to work with theories that explain the
> facts. Fact is, the down on an airplane =is= laterally separated from
> the up, and airplanes fly only when they move forward.
>
> If Occam's razor were so simple, we wouldn't have million dollar grants.
>
> Jose

OK, Jose (just had to say that one) explain delta wings.

http://ernest.isa-geek.org

--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > I think you are refering to Newton's third law, often stated as: "For
> > every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
>
> Yes.
>
> > For an aircraft in level flight, the upwards acceleration due to lift
> > is counterbalanced by the downward acceleration due to gravity.
> > This satisfies Newton's third law.
>
> Yes.
>
> > For a wing in level flight, the vertical component of momentum is
> > zero.
>
> No.

Please show us your arithmetic. Suppose a 1500 lb airplane is
flying horizontally at 120 mph at 5000 feet above MSL. What
are the vertical and horizontal components of the momentum
of that aircraft?

>
> That is, on a microscopic scale, no. The wing is constantly
> freefalling, then being bounced back up by impact with air molecules.
> Averaged over all the molecules, yes, the net is zero (the wing flies)
> but on a microscopic scale, the wing is in constant brownian motion.
> This implies momentum transfer, and following the momentum on a
> microscopic scale is instructive.
>

OK, show us your arithmetic.

> > The wing imparts
> > as much upward momentum to the air as it does downward momentum.
>
> This is where I disagree. Upward momentum gets imparted, but not
> (directly) by the wing. Rather, it is imparted by the ground, mediated
> through other air molecules.

The ground is stationary. How does the stationary ground impart
momentum to anything?

> Of course this wouldn't happen if the wing
> didn't pass through and throw the air down to begin with, but the ground
> is what ultimately imparts the upwards momentum.
>
> > The pressure differential through the wing, from bottom to top,
> > integrated
> > over the wing area, provides an upward force for a wing in level
> > flight.
>
> That's the shortcut. Where does this pressure differential come from -

Bernouli effect.

> that is the question.
>
> > The downwash behind the aircraft, which is counterbalanced by a more
> > diffuse upwash around it, is real but not relevent to the issue of
> > lift.
>
> I disagree here too. It's important in seeing the entire picture.

Well, yes it is part of the entire picture. Its just not relevent to
the
issue of lift, which is only part of the picture.

--

FF

[Jeff]

Dan > wrote in news:L_1Nf.55333$Ug4.44233@dukeread12:

> george wrote:
>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>> Al wrote:
>>>> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>>>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>>
>> Do all fruit flies have bannana ratings ?
>> :-)
>>
>
> Only visual banana rules in most cases. I heard the IBR are a tad
> tough.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

The scarcity of tiny instrument training hoods or banana simulators makes
it even more difficult.

[Jose]

> OK, show us your arithmetic.

First, do you agree that air is made of individual molecules separated
by a lot of space compared to the size of the molecules themselves?
Then do you accept that a wing is in freefall during all the (very brief
but very numerous) time in between molecular collisions? (If not, what
holds it up when it is not in contact with any air molecules?)

If so, then during the time it is in freefall, it acquires a downward
velocity. Small, no doubt, but nonzero. The next molecular impact
pushes it back up. On the average they will sum to a net zero vertical
motion. Is this the arithmetic you want to see?

> The ground is stationary. How does the stationary ground impart
> momentum to anything?

The ground is not stationary. Like the wing, the ground is jiggling
around in brownian motion. Such motion is greatly overwhelmed in
quantity by other things, but it is nonzero. Gravity pulls the ground
towards the airplane just as strongly as it pulls the airplane towards
the ground. This is the same effect as the one that gives high tides on
the side of the earth that is away from the moon.

>>Where does this pressure differential come from -
>
> Bernouli effect.

That's the shortcut. Where does the Bernoulli effect come from - on a
molecular level? That's what I'm addressing. The Bernoulli effect is a
shortcut for doing the calculation in bulk (where it makes the most
sense if you want a numerical answer) but it all comes from molecular
collisions.

> Its just not relevent to the
> issue of lift, which is only part of the picture.

We disagree here. Both explanations are true as far as they go, but it
is important to see just how far they go (or don't go). The Beruoulli
effect does not explain, for example, how the earth ultimately supports
the aircraft, nor how the upwash starts (for example, suppose there were
a vertical column of vacuum separated from the air by a very strong
piece of cellophane. A wing travels through the vacuum and penetrates
this cellophane. The air behind the cellophane does not rise up to meet
the wing - it has no idea there's a wing coming. Once the wing has
entered the air, that rising motion will start, but why?

That's the question to which I am applying my molecular model.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Richard Lamb]

Richard Lamb wrote:

> Sez one old fart to another???
>
> Al wrote:
>
>> Richard you give away your age. Only an "Old Fart" would know that.
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>> "Richard Lamb" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>
>>> Al wrote:
>>>
>>>> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>>>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Grouch Marx!
>>
>>
>>
>>
Well _I_ really do know how to spell it.
and now, my spell checker does too... :)

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
fredfighter wrote:
>
> >Please show us your arithmetic. Suppose a 1500 lb airplane is
> >flying horizontally at 120 mph at 5000 feet above MSL. What
> >are the vertical and horizontal components of the momentum
> >of that aircraft?
>
> > > That is, on a microscopic scale, no. The wing is constantly
> > > freefalling, then being bounced back up by impact with air molecules.
> > > Averaged over all the molecules, yes, the net is zero (the wing flies)
> > > but on a microscopic scale, the wing is in constant brownian motion.
> > > This implies momentum transfer, and following the momentum on a
> > > microscopic scale is instructive.
> >
> > OK, show us your arithmetic.
>
> First, do you agree that air is made of individual molecules separated
> by a lot of space compared to the size of the molecules themselves?

Yes.

> Then do you accept that a wing is in freefall during all the (very brief
> but very numerous) time in between molecular collisions? (If not, what
> holds it up when it is not in contact with any air molecules?)

Yes.

>
> If so, then during the time it is in freefall, it acquires a downward
> velocity. Small, no doubt, but nonzero.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. I'll allow as the vertical
component of velocity decreases during that time, for a positive up
coordinate system and a plane in (macroscopic) level flight.

Do you agree that in each collision momentum is transferred to the
air molecule that is equal and opposite to the momentum transferred
to the wing?

> The next molecular impact
> pushes it back up. On the average they will sum to a net zero vertical
> motion. Is this the arithmetic you want to see?

No, I want you to calculate the horizontal and vertical componenets
of momentum for the example I gave, or any other reasonable example
of a fixed wing airplane in horizontal flight.

> ...
>
> That's the shortcut. Where does the Bernoulli effect come from - on a
> molecular level? That's what I'm addressing. The Bernoulli effect is a
> shortcut for doing the calculation in bulk (where it makes the most
> sense if you want a numerical answer) but it all comes from molecular
> collisions.

I agreed quite some time ago that the theoretical basis for
macroscopic gas laws is to be found in statistical mechanics.

On a macroscopic level, the vertical component of momentum of the
wing is zero. Therefor on a macroscopic level, the sum of the
momenta transferred to the air molecules, integrated over all of
the air molecules must also be zero by Newton's third law.

Right?

For an airplane in straight level flight there is no net momentum
transfer in the vertical direction, between the air and the airplane,
just like there is no net vertical force acting on the airplane.

--

FF

[Jose]

>> If so, then during the time it is in freefall, it acquires a downward
>> velocity. Small, no doubt, but nonzero.
>
> Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. I'll allow as the vertical
> component of velocity decreases during that time, for a positive up
> coordinate system and a plane in (macroscopic) level flight.

Ok. (I was sloppy - it doesn't "acquire a downward velocity", it really
"endures a downward acceleration", which depending on the initial
vertical velocity may or may not end up with the plane going downward.)
So we are saying the same thing here.

> Do you agree that in each collision momentum is transferred to the
> air molecule that is equal and opposite to the momentum transferred
> to the wing?

Yes I do. This is what I call "throwing the air down". That downward
momentum will remain with the air (dissipated across many other
molecules as it keeps colliding, but never disappearing) until it is
transferred to the earth, which has been accelerating upwards in the
same fashion.

> I agreed quite some time ago that the theoretical basis for
> macroscopic gas laws is to be found in statistical mechanics.

Ok.

> On a macroscopic level, the vertical component of momentum of the
> wing is zero.

Yes.

> Therefor on a macroscopic level, the sum of the
> momenta transferred to the air molecules, integrated over all of
> the air molecules must also be zero by Newton's third law.
>
> Right?

Only in a nonaccelerated frame. We are dealing with an accelerated
frame. Consider a rocketship hovering over the moon. The (macroscopic)
vertical component of its momentum is zero also. However it has to
continually throw down rocket exhaust to stay there. So, without
looking at the rest of the picture, your conclusion about momentum is
flawed.

In the case of the wing, the momentum is transferred a few times... once
when the wing hits the air molecule (throwing the air down), again when
that molecule hits the earth and bounces back (throwing the earth away
from the wing), and then again when that air molecule (or its proxy)
hits the wing on the way back up.

Think about a person sitting on a stool. No momentum transfer (or so it
would seem). But then think about a person supporting himself by
dribbling a basketball. There is a lot of momentum transfer, but no
=net= change. The reason there is no net change is that the basketball
keeps pushing the earth away too.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:

fredfighter wrote:

> > > >Please show us your arithmetic. Suppose a 1500 lb airplane is
> > > >flying horizontally at 120 mph at 5000 feet above MSL. What
> > > >are the vertical and horizontal components of the momentum
> > > >of that aircraft?
....

> >> If so, then during the time it is in freefall, it acquires a downward
> >> velocity. Small, no doubt, but nonzero.
> >
> > Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. I'll allow as the vertical
> > component of velocity decreases during that time, for a positive up
> > coordinate system and a plane in (macroscopic) level flight.
>
> Ok. (I was sloppy - it doesn't "acquire a downward velocity", it really
> "endures a downward acceleration", which depending on the initial
> vertical velocity may or may not end up with the plane going downward.)

Right, but don't forget that the downward acceleration is constant
without regard to the velocity of the aircraft.

> So we are saying the same thing here.
>
> > Do you agree that in each collision momentum is transferred to the
> > air molecule that is equal and opposite to the momentum transferred
> > to the wing?
>
> Yes I do. This is what I call "throwi> ng the air down". That downward
> momentum will remain with the air (dissipated across many other
> molecules as it keeps colliding, but never disappearing) until it is
> transferred to the earth, which has been accelerating upwards in the
> same fashion.

Do you agree that the net momentum transfered to the Earth by the
air molecules is equal and opposite to the net momentum transferred
to the wing by the air molecules?

Do you agree, therefor that there is no net momentum transfered to
the air?

>
> > I agreed quite some time ago that the theoretical basis for
> > macroscopic gas laws is to be found in statistical mechanics.
>
> Ok.
>
> > On a macroscopic level, the vertical component of momentum of the
> > wing is zero.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Therefor on a macroscopic level, the sum of the
> > momenta transferred to the air molecules, integrated over all of
> > the air molecules must also be zero by Newton's third law.
> >
> > Right?
>
> Only in a nonaccelerated frame. We are dealing with an accelerated
> frame. Consider a rocketship hovering over the moon. The (macroscopic)
> vertical component of its momentum is zero also. However it has to
> continually throw down rocket exhaust to stay there.

Instead, let's consider a wing in level flight.

> So, without
> looking at the rest of the picture, your conclusion about momentum is
> flawed.
>
> In the case of the wing, the momentum is transferred a few times... once
> when the wing hits the air molecule (throwing the air down), again when
> that molecule hits the earth and bounces back (throwing the earth away
> from the wing),

At which ponit the Earth throws the air molecule back up so that the
net momemtum transferred to the air molecule is zero (averaged over
the entire atmosphere)

> and then again when that air molecule (or its proxy)
> hits the wing on the way back up.

Which again transferes an equal and opposite momentum to the
molecule which again is transferrred to the Earth leaving no net
transfer
of momentum to the air.

>
> Think about a person sitting on a stool. No momentum transfer (or so it
> would seem). But then think about a person supporting himself by
> dribbling a basketball. There is a lot of momentum transfer, but no
> =net= change. The reason there is no net change is that the basketball
> keeps pushing the earth away too.

And there is no net transfer of momentum to the basketball. This is
clear as the average velocity of the basketball is zero, even though
the average speed is non-zero.

Think of the example we had earlier of a piston supported by air
pressure in a cylinder. The momenta transferred by air molecules
to the piston is equal and opposite to the momenta transfered by the
air molecules to the bottom of the cylinder. There is no net transfer
of momentum to the air.

--

FF

[Jose]

> Do you agree that the net momentum transfered to the Earth by the
> air molecules is equal and opposite to the net momentum transferred
> to the wing by the air molecules?

Yes.

> Do you agree, therefor that there is no net momentum transfered to
> the air?

Overall, yes. Similarly, there is no net momentum transferred to the
basketball when it is being used to support a (very fast) dribbler. But
that is not to say that there is no momentum transfer. The basketball
certainly moves around. I do agree that the net overall is zero. The
air does not pile up permanently.

> At which ponit the Earth throws the air molecule back up so that the
> net momemtum transferred to the air molecule is zero (averaged over
> the entire atmosphere)

Yes.

> [it hits the wing on the way up]
> Which again transferes an equal and opposite momentum to the
> molecule which again is transferrred to the Earth leaving no net
> transfer of momentum to the air.

Yes.

Overall, there is no net (or "permanent") transfer of momentum to the
air. The air is an intermediary, keeping the wing and the earth apart.
There is certainly =energy= transfer to the air (mv^2/2), and there is
a lot of momentum transfer =back=and=forth= with the air, but I will
agree that the net is zero. The air is sort of a catalyst - ending up
unchanged as it transfers momentum to the earth and then transfers it
back from the earth to the wing.

So.. after all that, I think we are in agreement - there is no =net=
(permanent) vertical momentum transfer to the air, but there is locally
momentum transferred to the air, which carries it to the earth and uses
it to neutralize the momentum the earth has acquired being attracted to
the plane, in doing so it acquires momentum in the opposite direction
and transfers it to the wing, ending the cycle and leavint the air ready
to act as momentum messenger again.

It carries momentum messages both ways, they (overall) cancel out, but
do keep the earth and the wing separated.

===

In addition, the wing is throwing air forwards, due to its AOA and its
own forward motion. (this acts as drag, counteracted by the engine).
The air thrown forwards increases the pressure in front of the wing,
that plus the air thrown down makes the air pressure in front of and
below the wing higher, causing the air to rise in front of the wing.
This rising air helps lift the wing; this is the source of induced drag.
Some of the rising air spills around the wingtips, causing vortices.
The vortices are not the cause of lift, they are an inescapable side
effect of lift.

Concur?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> OK, Jose (just had to say that one) explain delta wings.
>
> http://ernest.isa-geek.org

Oh, that's a tough one. Looking at the CAD drawings, I was at first
inclined towards the helicopter methods (it's ugly; the earth repels it)
but the composite of several deltas belies that simpleminded conclusion.
It resembles a bird in flight, maybe the air can be fooled into
thinking feathers are on their way... but that requires the air to do
the lifting. We know this can't be true. Obviously some out-of-the-box
thinking is in order. Fortunately I'm up to the task; people have been
trying to put me back in my box for ages.

I am drawn to the 200 mph cruise speed; this is pretty fast for a single
engine prop plane. Maybe we are thinking this whole lift thing
backwards. An airplane's natural habitat is the air, and it =wants= to
go into the air. Very often what brings airplanes down are gremlins,
usually traced to the control system, the avionics, or even the pilot
himself. The object of the propeller is to shake the gremlins off the
plane and allow the plane to achieve its natural state. Since gremlins
are pretty fast, the airplane has to also move forward to keep them off
the plane.

This is a homebuilt, which is the natural habitat of gremlins. So, it
has to move =very= fast in order to shake them off and keep them off.

When you consider how hard gremlins are, and how soft feathers are, it's
a natural that feathers repel gremlins, and lift is sometimes
erroniously attributed to feathers. Many researchers have been down
this path, and there is a large body of accepted literature in support
of the feathers theory. At low speeds, the feather theory and the
gremlin theory give pretty much the same answers, but at high enough
speeds the relationship breaks down and the feather theory gives
erronious answers. This is where gremlin theory shines (it should be
noted that lift fairies are just gremlins gone bad).

Gremlin theory holds the potential for explaining a lot of aviation that
is otherwise unexplainable, but experiments are difficult and fraught
with peril. However, I would be happy to conduct the appropriate
research. Send grant money to Jose, care of Usenet.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Montblack]

("Jeff" wrote)
>>>>> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>>>>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...

>>> Do all fruit flies have bannana ratings ?

>> Only visual banana rules in most cases. I heard the IBR are a tad
>> tough.

> The scarcity of tiny instrument training hoods or banana simulators makes
> it even more difficult.


Apparently the FAA waived the requirement for a safety pilot. They feel
there's a sufficient number of eyes in the cockpit already.


Montblack

[Dan]

Montblack wrote:
> ("Jeff" wrote)
>>>>>> Remember, Time flies like an arrow...
>>>>>> Fruit Flies Like a Banana...
>
>>>> Do all fruit flies have bannana ratings ?
>
>>> Only visual banana rules in most cases. I heard the IBR are a tad
>>> tough.
>
>> The scarcity of tiny instrument training hoods or banana simulators makes
>> it even more difficult.
>
>
> Apparently the FAA waived the requirement for a safety pilot. They feel
> there's a sufficient number of eyes in the cockpit already.
>
>
> Montblack

The 200 eye rule?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Macklin]

If you feed the gremlins hot chili with lots of beans, the
rocket like exhaust provided lift and propulsion.


"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
|> OK, Jose (just had to say that one) explain delta wings.
| >
| > http://ernest.isa-geek.org
|
| Oh, that's a tough one. Looking at the CAD drawings, I
was at first
| inclined towards the helicopter methods (it's ugly; the
earth repels it)
| but the composite of several deltas belies that
simpleminded conclusion.
| It resembles a bird in flight, maybe the air can be
fooled into
| thinking feathers are on their way... but that requires
the air to do
| the lifting. We know this can't be true. Obviously some
out-of-the-box
| thinking is in order. Fortunately I'm up to the task;
people have been
| trying to put me back in my box for ages.
|
| I am drawn to the 200 mph cruise speed; this is pretty
fast for a single
| engine prop plane. Maybe we are thinking this whole lift
thing
| backwards. An airplane's natural habitat is the air, and
it =wants= to
| go into the air. Very often what brings airplanes down
are gremlins,
| usually traced to the control system, the avionics, or
even the pilot
| himself. The object of the propeller is to shake the
gremlins off the
| plane and allow the plane to achieve its natural state.
Since gremlins
| are pretty fast, the airplane has to also move forward to
keep them off
| the plane.
|
| This is a homebuilt, which is the natural habitat of
gremlins. So, it
| has to move =very= fast in order to shake them off and
keep them off.
|
| When you consider how hard gremlins are, and how soft
feathers are, it's
| a natural that feathers repel gremlins, and lift is
sometimes
| erroniously attributed to feathers. Many researchers have
been down
| this path, and there is a large body of accepted
literature in support
| of the feathers theory. At low speeds, the feather theory
and the
| gremlin theory give pretty much the same answers, but at
high enough
| speeds the relationship breaks down and the feather theory
gives
| erronious answers. This is where gremlin theory shines
(it should be
| noted that lift fairies are just gremlins gone bad).
|
| Gremlin theory holds the potential for explaining a lot of
aviation that
| is otherwise unexplainable, but experiments are difficult
and fraught
| with peril. However, I would be happy to conduct the
appropriate
| research. Send grant money to Jose, care of Usenet.
|
| Jose
| --
| Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Apparently the FAA waived the requirement for a safety pilot. They feel
> there's a sufficient number of eyes in the cockpit already.

I thought that only applied to flying potatos.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> You seem to think [rising air in front of the wing]
> requires the presence of a ground.

No, the rising air is caused by the high pressure in front of the wing,
caused by the wing throwing the air down (and ahead). The ground is not
required for that.

However, the ground =is= required for there to be "no net vertical
motion of air". Were there no ground, the air thrown down would not
bounce back up. The molecules would bounce around the other molecules,
dissipating the motion, but the downward momentum imparted by the wing
to keep it in the air would be equal to the downward momentum the wing
would have acquired had it not been flying. Although dissipated across
the rest of the atmosphere, it would not "disappear".

> If air just "smooshed" away wings would not
> work to hold us up.

If the wing is motionless, the air =does= just smoosh out of the way,
unlike a runway, which will hold an airplane up. To hold an airplane up
requires a special kind of motion - the kind that has the wing throwing
air down. Landing gear does not (usually!) throw the runway down.

> If all this sounds a bit like perpetual motion, it's because
> we've left out some details.

Yes.

> we're looking at the wing long after it has started
> up and everything is in steady state.

Yes. This obscures the "what causes what" question.

> Essentially, it causes air
> to rise ahead and get pushed down.

I see it as "it throws air down, which causes air in front to rise ahead".

>> A wing not only keeps the plane away from the earth, it keeps the earth
>> away from the plane. If you could measure the total forces on the earth
>> due to everything on top of it (essentially making the earth a giant
>> bathroom scale), the reading would not change when an airplane takes
>> off. Even though the plane is not touching the earth, it is throwing
>> air down at the earth, and that impact registers as weight.
>
> Agreed, but this does not help explain the basics of lift.

It does belie the claim that there is no net downward momentum transfer.
This is only true if the air is allowed to bounce against the earth,
and as you stated earlier, the wing itself doesn't care about the earth.
As far as the wing is concerned, it is throwing air down, dealing with
the side effects (high pressure below and in front) and riding the wave
that it =caused= by throwing the air down in the first place.

If the earth were air-transparant, there would for sure be net downward
momentum of air, equal to the momentum the wing would have acquired had
it been freefalling (which is what flying is preventing).

(from the next post)
> The upward momentum comes
> from the air molecules. There is no requirement for the
> ground. The approaching air molecules below the wing at
> higher pressure cause the air molecules ahead to try to
> escape. They preferentially escape upwards towards the
> approaching low pressure above the wing.

Some upward momentum comes from there. But now that I think further,
the downward momentum imparted by the wing to the air (which then
bounces against the ground) only partly gets transferred back to the
wing. Most of it misses the (relatively) small wing and simply causes a
few more air molecules to escape the earth completely, or at least to
rise higher before gravity reclaims them.

> This seems to imply that a wing would not produce lift,
> i.e., could not fly, without the ground. That's clearly
> incorrect.

Agreed (that a wing could produce lift without the ground). However,
without the ground, there would =not= be no net downward movement of air.

(from the next post)

> [The Bernoulli effect] does explain [how the upwash starts]
> - by virtue of pressure differentials.

Since pressure is derived from molecular collisions, and the Bernoulli
effect is also ultimately derived from those same collisions, we are
looking at the same thing, but in one case with a shortcut, the other
case on a microscopic level. For those for whom the Bernoulli effect is
a bit mysterious, or at least not obvious, looking at the newtonian
microscopic version is instructive. For those comfortable with
Bernoulli's equations, it provides a quick way to get numeric answers.

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Two years ago when I was in college I used to read science journals for
fun... One particular, just published within the past two years
(spring '04?) caught me.

It discussed the Bernuolli theory of flight- and (if I recall) quite
conclusively proved that one of the _fundamental_ assumptions of the
Bernuolli theory- that air that travels path over the top of the wing
is flowing appreciably faster than air that flows over the bottom- is
simply incorrect in a compressible fluid....

Obviously, you should take this with a grain of salt because A- this is
my first post on this board and B- I can't remember either the journal
or the exact date... but take it for what its worth;)

[Jose]

> Most aerodynamic equations dealing with low subsonic speeds treat air as an
> incompressible fluid because compressibility doesn't have a significant
> effect until you approach sonic speeds.

Isn't compressiblity what causes pressure changes (absent temperature
changes)?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Rolf Blom G (AS/EAB)]

On 2006-03-01 20:42, Jose wrote:
-snip-
> When you consider how hard gremlins are, and how soft feathers are, it's
> a natural that feathers repel gremlins, and lift is sometimes
> erroniously attributed to feathers. Many researchers have been down
> this path, and there is a large body of accepted literature in support
> of the feathers theory. At low speeds, the feather theory and the
> gremlin theory give pretty much the same answers, but at high enough
> speeds the relationship breaks down and the feather theory gives
> erronious answers. This is where gremlin theory shines (it should be
> noted that lift fairies are just gremlins gone bad).
>
> Gremlin theory holds the potential for explaining a lot of aviation that
> is otherwise unexplainable, but experiments are difficult and fraught
> with peril. However, I would be happy to conduct the appropriate
> research. Send grant money to Jose, care of Usenet.
>
> Jose

I'm with you on the gremlins theory; since the feathers theory can be
proven to work or not in at least two disparate ways:

1. Why is is that a feathered prop does not provide more lift than an
unfeathered one? If the feather theory was correct, it would make sense
to feather all props to increase lift.

2. Manned flight would have been possible long ago, by just applying
feathers to the human body; while some think this is difficult to
achieve, I've read several successfull reports using tar for this
purpose. (It is the removing thereof that is the difficult part.)
None of the tarred aviators seemed to fly wery well afterwards, so the
feathers have been demonstrated not to work in this case.

(I note that the excact mass of feathers may have been too small,
according to calculations in this group, so I invite anyone to try this
method for themselves, to prove or disprove it.)

/Rolf

[george]

wrote:
> Greg Esres wrote:
> > <<The disk is constantly transferring momentum to the air below it,
> > which is transferring it right back after bouncing off of the floor.
> > >>
> >
> > There is no momentum change here because there is no *net* force on
> > either the air or the disk. The molecules next to the disk have a
> > pressure equal to the weight of the disk below it and the actual disk
> > above it. There is no net force and thus no momentum change.
>
> Pressure never equals weight for the same reason that voltage
> never equals power.
>
> To be precise, the upward force the disk is the difference
> in the pressure below the disk less the pressure above, multiplied
> by the area of the disk. The downward force is the weight of
> the disk which is the product of the mass of the disk times
> the local acceleartion due to gravity. The disk stops moving when
> the two forces are equal.
>
> >
> > Momentum = mass * velocity, and the vertical velocity of the air and
> > the disk are zero.
>
> Force is defined as the time rate of change of momentum. Therefor
> when the disk is neither accelerating nor changing mass there is
> no force acting on it.
>
> So what holds it up? ;-)
>

Lift pixies !

[Roger]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:15:59 -0600, Immanuel Goldstein
> wrote:

>The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training
>
>Nila Sagadevan | February 21 2006
>
>Nila Sagadevan is an aeronautical engineer and a qualified pilot of heavy aircraft.
>
And absolutely no common sense, but being this has to be a troll what
would you expect.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 02:35:13 -0600, Immanuel Goldstein
> wrote:

>On 2/22/2006 11:07 AM, Robert M. Gary wrote:
>> A local pilot at our airport who owns a small Cessna 210 went to Boeing
>> 737 school a few years back. He was able to shoot approaches to mins
>> and fly quite nicely without any heavy iron training outside of some
>> books and manuals he picked up. Of course, the work gets harder when
>> the instructor starts to simulate things failing. Airline pilots are
>> grossly over paid 99% of the time and grossly under paid 1% of the
>> time. As long as everything is working its pretty easy.
>>
>
>Thank you, Robert. This is exactly the reason I chose these groups for my
>_original_ post. I have a couple of follow-up questions.
>
>The local pilot you mentioned was already _quite_ capable of flying a Cessna
>210, before attempting a 737. Would someone with little or no flight experience
>be able to fly a 737, 747, or 757, and also make steep dives and sharp turns?
>
The *big* mistake here is making some wild assumptions.
1. Assuming the pilot is worried about exceeding some or any of the
aircraft's limitations. (afraid of breaking it)
2. Afraid of injury. (He plans on dying.)
3. That all maneuvers are performed according to the book.

So, steep dives and sharp turns are indeed easy once you have
determined the pilot does not care what happens to the airplane, the
passengers, what every they might hit, or himself.

>Standard Boeing commercial aircraft have locks on the cockpit doors. How
>difficult would it be break one down?

Before 9/11 they often stood open whether they were supposed to be
shut or not.

>
>What are the chances that 8 trained pilots and co-pilots, with military
>backgrounds, could be physically overpowered by a few thugs with box-cutters?

Quite good when you consider back then the training was to try and
keep the hijacker calm and reason with them, particularly if they have
a hostage. The rule was, "don't make waves" as we might get sued if
any passengers get hurt through your actions.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 21:28:52 -0500, Bryan Martin
> wrote:

>I don't know if it was the first time, but it happened once back in the
>early '80s in, I think, Arizona. I believe it was a PSA DC-9. A disgruntled
>ex-employee snuck a gun on board and forced his way into the cockpit and
>shot the flight crew and then dove the plane into the ground. Of course in
>that case the hijacker had a real weapon and about the only thing that might
>have stopped him was someone else with a gun. Then of course there is the
>case of the FedEx DC-10 where the crew barely managed to prevent a nut case
>soon to be ex-employee from doing the same.
>
>The 9-11 hijackers weren't even armed. No mater what anybody says, a box
>cutter is not a weapon. The only way you can do any serious damage with one
>is if your victim stands there and lets you do it. Real weapons in the hands
>of the crew could have stopped them cold. The passengers could have rushed
>them and put a stop to it. This last scenario has happened at least twice
>since 9-11. The "shoe bomber' was subdued by passengers. In another case a
>drunk passenger tried to force his way onto the flight deck and was stopped
>by several passengers who damn near beat him to death.

He was DOA at the airport. Said his heart failed as I recall.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>in article . com,
at wrote on 2/27/06 12:10
>PM:
>
>>
>> Bryan Martin wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Now we all know just how stupid this policy
>>> was. They should have known it before, 9-11 is not the first time a hijacker
>>> has taken over an airliner and deliberately crashed it.
>>
>> When was the first time a hijacker took over an airliner and
>> deliberately crashed it?
>>
>> That particular scenario had been considered plausible since
>> at least eh early 1960's and was one of the design criteria
>> for the outermost containment domes at nuclear power plants.

[george]

Dan wrote:
> Richard Lamb wrote:
> > Bryan Martin wrote:
> >
> >
> > Bryan,
> >
> > Ex-nay!
> >
> > Or wander over to alt.politics to feed the loons...
> >
> > I brought up this whole Bernouli mess just to get
> > rid of these guys.
> >
> > It worked quite well.
> >
> > Now don't screw it up again!
> >
> > Richard
>
> Isn't a Bernouli what an Arab wears?

under his theorum :-)

[David CL Francis]

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 at 07:42:32 in message
om>,
wrote:

>For a fan in open air the momentum of the air moving through the
>fan is equal and opposite to the momentum of the air moving around
>the fan to replace the air removed from the front of the fan. There is
>no net momentum change in the air. For ducted flow that returns the
>air to the front fo the fan, the net momentum is also zero. Net flow
>and
>net momentum through any closed loop is zero--else the 'loop'
>is not 'closed'.
>
>Followjng a wing in level flight, the downward momentum of the
>air in the downwash is equal and opposite to the upward momentum
>of the air to either side that moves up to replace the air that washes
>down. There is no net momentum change in the air.

This whole discussion is becoming weird. The power required to drive a
fan goes somewhere. There is and must be a net increase in the air
velocity across the fan so there is a change of momentum from the air
entering to the air leaving. The power input results in a momentum
change. This principle applies to fans, helicopters, wings and other
things - even rowing! The air that leaves the driven fan, jet engine,
ducted fan, wing is the result of the thrust or vice versa, how ever you
like to think of it.

However, that speeded up air dissipates itself in the atmosphere
gradually giving up energy to the surrounding air as it all eventually
steadies down again. What does that do? Well in the ultimate I guess it
raises the temperature of the atmosphere slightly!

An airscrew does much the same. It captures air from a tube somewhat
larger that its diameter, speeds it up and it goes out the back faster
then it came in. if you had a closed circuit like a wind tunnel it still
requires power to accelerate the air to the required speed. Less than an
open system though a carefully shaped return duct will slow the air down
again ready to be accelerated again. In that cases the losses have to be
made up.

What is a wing but a kind of linear fan?
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 at 09:29:48 in message
. com>,
wrote:

>Conservation of angular momemtum causes the air to continue swirling
>after the aircraft has passed. Once the pressure changes caused by
>the passage of the aircraft have died out and the pressure restored to
>
>ambient the net downward flow from the entire aircraft is equal to net
>upward flow from the entire aircraft, provided the aircraft is in level
>flight.
The point missed her is that the pressure changes and velocity changes
to the air after the wing has passed only die away because energy is
lost far away from the wing's immediate influence. Making a big deal
about the fact that the disturbance disappears and thus the atmosphere
stays much as it was before (only a bit hotter) seems to suggest that
there is no momentum change as the wing does its work. Perhaps this is
what is meant but it cannot be used as proving in any sense that the
wing has no net effect.

The same argument would not be very convincing in demonstrating that the
air going into a fan dissipating 1000s of HP is the same going out as it
was coming in!
--
David CL Francis

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 at 22:43:58 in message
. com>,
" > wrote:

>It discussed the Bernuolli theory of flight- and (if I recall) quite
>conclusively proved that one of the _fundamental_ assumptions of the
>Bernuolli theory- that air that travels path over the top of the wing
>is flowing appreciably faster than air that flows over the bottom- is
>simply incorrect in a compressible fluid....

There is not really a Bernoulli theory of lift. Bernoulli's theory
shows the relationship between the velocity and pressure of fluid flow
when energy is not added or removed and the flow is subsonic. It is a
very simple theory which is correct for much of the time. It quite
accurately, at lower speeds, represents the velocity and pressures
between streamlines.

The air does flow faster over the top than the bottom and for the lower
subsonic region air behaves very closely to being incompressible.
Generally pressure changes are transmitted at the velocity of sound.

At high subsonic and of course at supersonic speed the effect of
compressibility cannot be ignored.

Shock waves form, first on places like the top surface of the wing where
the air first reaches the velocity of sound. As the speed rises they
become bigger and move towards the leading and trailing edges. Above
Mach one the air does not detect the approaching aircraft! :-)

I have just read a few more messages in this thread and discussing lift
in this general way without maths and without using at least simple
physics and slowly developing the methods is almost futile.

What's it matter about lift as long as the aircraft fly? !!!!!
--
David CL Francis

[Richard Lamb]

David CL Francis wrote:

> The air does flow faster over the top than the bottom and for the lower
> subsonic region air behaves very closely to being incompressible.
> Generally pressure changes are transmitted at the velocity of sound.
>

I hate to be a spoil sport (or dullard?), but...

the (stationary) air does WHAT (as the wing passes by)???


:)))

[[email protected]]

David CL Francis wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 at 07:42:32 in message
> om>,
> wrote:
>
> >For a fan in open air the momentum of the air moving through the
> >fan is equal and opposite to the momentum of the air moving around
> >the fan to replace the air removed from the front of the fan. There is
> >no net momentum change in the air. For ducted flow that returns the
> >air to the front fo the fan, the net momentum is also zero. Net flow
> >and
> >net momentum through any closed loop is zero--else the 'loop'
> >is not 'closed'.
> >
> >Followjng a wing in level flight, the downward momentum of the
> >air in the downwash is equal and opposite to the upward momentum
> >of the air to either side that moves up to replace the air that washes
> >down. There is no net momentum change in the air.
>
> This whole discussion is becoming weird. The power required to drive a
> fan goes somewhere. There is and must be a net increase in the air
> velocity across the fan so there is a change of momentum from the air
> entering to the air leaving. The power input results in a momentum
> change. This principle applies to fans, helicopters, wings and other
> things - even rowing! The air that leaves the driven fan, jet engine,
> ducted fan, wing is the result of the thrust or vice versa, how ever you
> like to think of it.
>

The momentum of an airplane in level flight at
constant speed is constant. Conservation of
momentum REQUIRES that there is no net
change in themomentum of the air. There is
momentum exchanged between the airplane
and the air. But there is no NET momentum
change in the air.

> However, that speeded up air dissipates itself in the atmosphere
> gradually giving up energy to the surrounding air as it all eventually
> steadies down again. What does that do? Well in the ultimate I guess it
> raises the temperature of the atmosphere slightly!

Yes. In closed loop ducted flow it can raise the temperature
of the air a lot.

>
> An airscrew does much the same. It captures air from a tube somewhat
> larger that its diameter, speeds it up and it goes out the back faster
> then it came in. if you had a closed circuit like a wind tunnel it still
> requires power to accelerate the air to the required speed. Less than an
> open system though a carefully shaped return duct will slow the air down
> again ready to be accelerated again. In that cases the losses have to be
> made up.
>
> What is a wing but a kind of linear fan?

There is a net transfer of energy from the airplane to the air.

There is not a net transfer of momentum from the airplane to the air.

Momentum is a vector, energy is a scaler.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > Most aerodynamic equations dealing with low subsonic speeds treat air as an
> > incompressible fluid because compressibility doesn't have a significant
> > effect until you approach sonic speeds.
>
> Isn't compressiblity what causes pressure changes (absent temperature
> changes)?
>

No.

Compressible fluids (commonly called liquids) also experience
pressure changes. THis is used advantageously for hydraulic
power.

The distinction is that a compressible fluid (commonly called gas)
undergoes a volume change proportionate to the pressure change,
while the volume of an incompressible fluid changes little with
pressure. Compressible fluids obey Charles' law,
(or is it Boyle's law?):

P1 * V2 = P2 * V1

--

FF

[ChuckSlusarczyk]

In article . com>, george
says...
>>
>> Isn't a Bernouli what an Arab wears?
>
> under his theorum :-)

Is that near his axiom?
Sorry I couldn't help myself.

Chuck S

[Jose]

> The momentum of an airplane in level flight at
> constant speed is constant. Conservation of
> momentum REQUIRES that there is no net
> change in themomentum of the air.

What is the net momentum change when the airplane falls to the ground?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose]

> Suppose we have a 1500 lb airplane in level flight at 120 mph.
> What are its horizontal and vertical components of momentum?

Suppose we have a 1500 lb rocketship hovering over the moon on its
rocket exhaust. What are its horizontal and vertical componnts of momentum?

Jose
--
Money: what you need when you run out of brains.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > Suppose we have a 1500 lb airplane in level flight at 120 mph.
> > What are its horizontal and vertical components of momentum?
>
> Suppose we have a 1500 lb rocketship hovering over the moon on its
> rocket exhaust. What are its horizontal and vertical componnts of momentum?
>

I asked first.

--

FF

[[email protected]]

Jose wrote:
> > The momentum of an airplane in level flight at
> > constant speed is constant. Conservation of
> > momentum REQUIRES that there is no net
> > change in the momentum of the air.
>
> What is the net momentum change when the airplane falls to the ground?
>

The vertical compenent first rises from zero to Vt * M where Vt is the
terminal velocity of the falling aircraft and M is the mass of the
falling
aircraft. Then the vertical component of momentum RAPIDLY drops
to zero again after the aircraft contacts the ground.

--

FF

[00:00:00Hg]

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 08:00:45 -0800, fredfighter wrote:

>
> Jose wrote:
>> > Suppose we have a 1500 lb airplane in level flight at 120 mph.
>> > What are its horizontal and vertical components of momentum?

Zero at equalibrium.

>>
>> Suppose we have a 1500 lb rocketship hovering over the moon on its
>> rocket exhaust. What are its horizontal and vertical componnts of momentum?

Again, zero.

>>
>
> I asked first.

Same answer, different criteria. Net energy for a given mass will be
the same whether the craft is flying, rocketing, or in orbit.

F=MA

But, only in the instance of 'flying' does Bernuolli apply.