Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

[More_Flaps]

On May 22, 1:07*am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:33:18 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
>
> > wrote:
> >On May 21, 9:59*pm, Stealth Pilot >
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:25 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
> >> >wrote:
>
> >> >> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
> >> >> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear
>
> >> >How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
> >> >endolymph actually change?
>
>
> >> yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
> >> active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
> >> never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.
>
> >> do some serious human factors reading. the subject is fascinating.
> >> our human sensations have some amazing limitations.
>
> >> if you need a good introductory text on human physiology to get some
> >> underlying understanding I can recommend 'Human Anatomy and
> >> Physiology' by Elaine N Marieb. It is published by Pearson Benjamin
> >> Cummings in san francisco. excellent!
>
> >I've got several physiology/toxicology text books but I can't see a
> >reference to _viscosity_ changes in endolymph with alcohol. Are you
> >sure you mean viscosity and not density?
>
> >Cheers
>
> I mean exactly what I wrote.
>
> human factors stuff is reasonably new. it is probable that the
> research in the human factors work doesnt make it into the other text
> books because it is fairly specialised.
> btw I dont quote human factors books because I was taught this stuff
> in my commercial pilot studies. it is standard modern australian
> commercial level aviation knowledge.
>

Hmm. As fas as viscosity changes go, gravitational sensing does not
require movement of endolymph. A small change in viscosity of
endolymph due to alcohol (EtOH) is not likely to do much except
_reduce_ rotational accleration sensation a little. There are no
scientific papers describing this effect as far as I know, just my
prediction based on how the labarynth works. The change in density of
the endolymph is the real problem as it affects the buoyancy of
cupula. Research has shown that this buoyancy hypothesis can explain
most of effects (e.g. PAN I & II) but there are additional central
effects due to nueronal signal processing that appears degraded by
EfOH. So in summary, if your testbook (a basic book targeted to nurses
and sports scientists) says "viscosity" it is probably either a typo
or factual error, cross it out and replace it with density and the
descrition of the buoyancy effects of EtOH .The reason why I asked you
to check on your claim of viscosity effects was that I had not heard
of this before.

Here's a relevant paper for you:

New insights into positional alcohol nystagmus using three-dimensional
eye-movement analysis.
Fetter M, Haslwanter T, Bork M, Dichgans J.Ann Neurol. 1999 Feb;45(2):
216-23.

Hope this helps with your studies and teaching human factors.

Cheers





the otoreports of this to my knowlege. HoViscosity of the endolymph is
not lilely to be a problem as it does not affect rotait is the density
chnage that leads to

[More_Flaps]

On May 22, 6:00*am, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Tina writes:
> > As for a sim flight taking as long to get somewhere as one in a real
> > airplane? What an odd mind you have. When we arrive somewhere we are
> > actually there. We can meet with friends who live there, dine with
> > them, play golf, whatever.
>
> I simulate for the sake of flying. *I'm not interested in meeting friends,
> dining, or playing golf. *I'm only interested in flying. *The sim has the
> advantage in this respect.

That's not healthy. You should talk to a physician about this and
he'll refer you to the right people.

Cheers

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:00:11 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

> On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:46:31 -0400, Gezellig >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
>>are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
>>our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
>>day-in/day-out experiences too.
>>
>
> so totally incompetent a viewpoint that you are stunning.

I see. Because I interact in a thread, and am newer at piloting than
you, you get to act like an asshole and treat me with high disdain. This
embellishes your ego, strikes you in a positive way, makes your life
happy as a clam.

I, because of my age and newness, am incompetent. I must wait until I am
as bright as you, hunt Usenet like a jaguar and pounce on newbies,
again, emulating you and acting like an asshole.

I wasn't aware of the privileges of experience. I can hardly wait. to
become the next BunnyIP, Bendover or StealthSockPuppet pilot.

In the meantime, let me practice.

Outside of piloting data, is there anything except rocks and pebbles in
your cranium? To elaborate, my suggestion is that before posting you
should give your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside
and to consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.

Gee, I feel like IFRed already.

[JB]

On May 19, 9:07*pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>There no sensation is; there only instrument is.

OMG!!!!!...I didn't realize Anthony A was actually Yoda!! Forgive me
O Wise One!!! I must now un-learn what I have learned! A dark place
entered have we.

--Jeff
Only a Jedi Apprentice

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 21, 8:56*am, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> For reasons known only to them, some posters here are going to extraordinary
> lengths to prove that "seat of the pants" sensations are a part of IFR
> flight -- even though every published source (and every expert here) has
> agreed with MX's statements to the contrary.
>
> It's like they are willing to go to ANY length to try to prove the statement
> wrong simply because the source (in this case) was a non-pilot. * I don't
> know what mysterious power MX has over some participants in this group, but
> it's downright creepy.

I will be the first to admit that I have zero knowledge of the topic,
which is why I have been watching the posts to see how this played
out.

But from what I have seen so far, I would have to agree with your
observation, especially the comment about going to Paris to shoot
Mxsmanic:

Prosecutor: "So let me get this straight...you shot him because..."
Shooter: "..because he's an idiot!"
Prosecutor: "Certainly that cannot be the only reason..."
Shooter: "Yes, that's pretty much it. We felt that we would be better
off without his posts."
Prosecutor: "But you are an American. What happened to all that
freedom-of-speech stuff?"
Shooter: "That applies to everyone except MxsManic."
Prosecutor: "Why?"
Shooter: "Because he is an idiot, and we do not like what he says, and
he makes me and my USENET pals angry."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:07:01 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

>>> if you need a good introductory text on human physiology to get some
>>> underlying understanding I can recommend 'Human Anatomy and
>>> Physiology' by Elaine N Marieb. It is published by Pearson Benjamin
>>> Cummings in san francisco. excellent!
>>>
>>
>>I've got several physiology/toxicology text books but I can't see a
>>reference to _viscosity_ changes in endolymph with alcohol. Are you
>>sure you mean viscosity and not density?
>>
>>
>>Cheers
>
> I mean exactly what I wrote.
>
> human factors stuff is reasonably new. it is probable that the
> research in the human factors work doesnt make it into the other text
> books because it is fairly specialised.
> btw I dont quote human factors books because I was taught this stuff
> in my commercial pilot studies. it is standard modern australian
> commercial level aviation knowledge.
>
> Stealth Pilot

Reasonably new? like is WWII reasonably new? Considering WWII planes
were designed around human factors, ergonomics and included designs from
the input of physiologists, kinesiologists and biomechanists?

[Gezellig]

On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:13:00 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

> But the real question is, why am I wasting key clicks on Mxsmanic?

Did you answer this? If so, repost, I missed it and I am curious.

[george]

On May 22, 7:39 am, Buster Hymen > wrote:

> > The aircraft has six seats, including those of the pilot(s).
>
> Thanks, Anthony. You just proved you're an even bigger doofus.

Wow. We pilots have seats?
Who let the secret out ?

[Gezellig]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 17:59:22 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

>>On May 21, 12:56*am, Stealth Pilot >
>>wrote:
>>
>>> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
>>> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear
>>
>>How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
>>endolymph actually change?
>>
>>Cheers
>
> yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
> active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
> never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.

Up to a week? Endolymphatic viscosity reduction lasts a week after a
shot of port wine?

> do some serious human factors reading. the subject is fascinating.
> our human sensations have some amazing limitations.

Is that why I sense that the above posting re; ETOH is the equivalent of
donkey turds on a newsgroup?

[Gezellig]

On Tue, 20 May 2008 03:07:09 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

> No.

To save you time, I read parts of the discussions around you. I don't
ever read you.

Just so you know. March on.

[Jim Stewart]

Stealth Pilot wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:25 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
> > wrote:
>
>> On May 21, 12:56 am, Stealth Pilot >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
>>> on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear
>> How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
>> endolymph actually change?
>>
>> Cheers
>
> yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
> active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
> never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.

I'm wondering why the airlines, FAA and the
military don't seem to be particularly
concerned about this....

[Wing Flap]

Gezellig was thinking very hard :
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:00:11 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

>> On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:46:31 -0400, Gezellig >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
>>> are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
>>> our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
>>> day-in/day-out experiences too.
>>>
>>
>> so totally incompetent a viewpoint that you are stunning.

> I see. Because I interact in a thread, and am newer at piloting than
> you, you get to act like an asshole and treat me with high disdain. This
> embellishes your ego, strikes you in a positive way, makes your life
> happy as a clam.

> I, because of my age and newness, am incompetent. I must wait until I am
> as bright as you, hunt Usenet like a jaguar and pounce on newbies,
> again, emulating you and acting like an asshole.

> I wasn't aware of the privileges of experience. I can hardly wait. to
> become the next BunnyIP, Bendover or StealthSockPuppet pilot.

> In the meantime, let me practice.

> Outside of piloting data, is there anything except rocks and pebbles in
> your cranium? To elaborate, my suggestion is that before posting you
> should give your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside
> and to consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.

> Gee, I feel like IFRed already.

wow LOL

You go G.

lol

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> Stealth Pilot writes:
> > aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
> > the wing surfaces.
>
> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
> an opposite force that is lift.
>
> > ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
> > of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>
> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

So you're saying the sky does suck after all?

What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:56:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>> the wing surfaces.
>
>Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
>downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
>an opposite force that is lift.
>
>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>
>The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
>perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
effect to the wing? magnetism?

[Gig 601Xl Builder]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>> the wing surfaces.
>
> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
> an opposite force that is lift.
>
>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>
> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.


If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
pounds of force straight down. Why then am I not crushed when a 747
flies over me?

[BDS[_2_]]

On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> > Stealth Pilot writes:
> > > aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
> > > the wing surfaces.
> >
> > Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> > downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that
engenders
> > an opposite force that is lift.
> >
> > > ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
> > > of the aerofoil of the wing ...
> >
> > The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It
can be
> > perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
talks about lift theory.

I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the lift
force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of attack than
would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it through the air
perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.

I agree that a flat wing will produce lift at a positive AOA even without an
airfoil shape - it just won't be as efficient as it would otherwise be if it
were shaped like an airfoil, and talk about pitch divergent...

Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having anything
to do with why a wing produces lift.

BDS

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

BDS wrote:
> On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>
>>> Stealth Pilot writes:
>>>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>>>> the wing surfaces.
>>> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
>>> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that
> engenders
>>> an opposite force that is lift.
>>>
>>>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>>>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>>> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It
> can be
>>> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>
> There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
> talks about lift theory.
>
> I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the lift
> force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of attack than
> would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it through the air
> perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.
>
> I agree that a flat wing will produce lift at a positive AOA even without an
> airfoil shape - it just won't be as efficient as it would otherwise be if it
> were shaped like an airfoil, and talk about pitch divergent...
>
> Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having anything
> to do with why a wing produces lift.
>
> BDS
>

Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect. I just can't understand why there is so much trouble
in the pilot community understanding that Newton and Bernoulli do NOT
conflict in any way whatsoever, and that each explanation is correct in
itself. Newton AND Bernoulli are BOTH present simultaneously on th wing
at any moment lift is being created. EACH creates the other and EACH is
a complete explanation for how lift is created.

You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!



--
Dudley Henriques

[BDS[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
> lift is incorrect.

I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.

> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
> In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
> explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!

According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
edge after the air flowing under the wing.

BDS

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

BDS wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>> Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
>> lift is incorrect.
>
> I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
> what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.
>
>> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
>> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
>> In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
>> explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!
>
> According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
> that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
> at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
> further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
> above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
> not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
> edge after the air flowing under the wing.
>
> BDS
>
>
I think I see where this article has gone wrong.

What Garrison is talking about is the equal transit theory, which is
indeed incorrect, but it's CRITICAL that a pilot reading this completely
understand that it isn't Bernoulli that is incorrect, but rather the
equal transit theory that is incorrect. The equal transit theory is
simply a totally incorrect INTERPRETATION of Bernoulli that has been
passed around for eons by CFI's, pilots, and indeed textbooks as well.

It's quite common for someone writing an article on lift to try and make
a distinction that Bernoulli is incorrect by referencing the incorrect
interpretations that have been out here in the community for many years.
Just remember; the incorrect interpretations that misrepresent Bernoulli
are in fact misrepresentations of Bernoulli, NOT proof in any way
whatsoever that Bernoulli's CORRECT theory is wrong.





--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

Dudley Henriques > wrote:

> Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
> lift is incorrect. I just can't understand why there is so much trouble
> in the pilot community understanding that Newton and Bernoulli do NOT
> conflict in any way whatsoever, and that each explanation is correct in
> itself. Newton AND Bernoulli are BOTH present simultaneously on th wing
> at any moment lift is being created. EACH creates the other and EACH is
> a complete explanation for how lift is created.

> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
> In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
> explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!

Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
into a 10 second sound bite.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>
>> Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
>> lift is incorrect. I just can't understand why there is so much trouble
>> in the pilot community understanding that Newton and Bernoulli do NOT
>> conflict in any way whatsoever, and that each explanation is correct in
>> itself. Newton AND Bernoulli are BOTH present simultaneously on th wing
>> at any moment lift is being created. EACH creates the other and EACH is
>> a complete explanation for how lift is created.
>
>> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
>> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
>> In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
>> explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!
>
> Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
> everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
> lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
> into a 10 second sound bite.
>
>
This is exactly correct.

Lift explanation in it's true form is an extremely complicated issue.
Attempts to explain it in one simple sentence is usually very confusing
to a new student pilot.
The closest thing to a one sentence explanation I have seen is that lift
is created by turning an airflow.
Of course this covers Newton and leaves Bernoulli out there to be
discovered later on as one finally comes to realize that you can't turn
the airflow without having the pressure difference :-)

The best way to handle the lift question is to openly discuss both
Newton and Bernoulli and how they interact to create each other while
creating what we call lift.

--
Dudley Henriques

[BDS[_2_]]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>
> Lift explanation in it's true form is an extremely complicated issue.
> Attempts to explain it in one simple sentence is usually very confusing
> to a new student pilot.
> The closest thing to a one sentence explanation I have seen is that lift
> is created by turning an airflow.
> Of course this covers Newton and leaves Bernoulli out there to be
> discovered later on as one finally comes to realize that you can't turn
> the airflow without having the pressure difference :-)
>

I hadn't looked into this much in recent years and the article rekindled
some interest. I hadn't even heard of the "equal transit theory" before you
mentioned it, but a short search brought up a detailed explanation of
exactly what you are talking about, and turning the airflow is ultimately
what it's all about for both Bernoulli and Newton.

BDS

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Stealth Pilot writes:
>>
>>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>>> the wing surfaces.
>>
>> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
>> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
>> an opposite force that is lift.
>>
>>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>>
>> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
>> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>
> If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
> pounds of force straight down. Why then am I not crushed when a 747
> flies over me?

At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Kloudy via AviationKB.com]

Michael Ash wrote:

>
>At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
>for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
>out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?
>

I don't know about you but Celine Dion gave me an invisible force-field.

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/aviation/200805/1

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

BDS wrote:
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>> Lift explanation in it's true form is an extremely complicated issue.
>> Attempts to explain it in one simple sentence is usually very confusing
>> to a new student pilot.
>> The closest thing to a one sentence explanation I have seen is that lift
>> is created by turning an airflow.
>> Of course this covers Newton and leaves Bernoulli out there to be
>> discovered later on as one finally comes to realize that you can't turn
>> the airflow without having the pressure difference :-)
>>
>
> I hadn't looked into this much in recent years and the article rekindled
> some interest. I hadn't even heard of the "equal transit theory" before you
> mentioned it, but a short search brought up a detailed explanation of
> exactly what you are talking about, and turning the airflow is ultimately
> what it's all about for both Bernoulli and Newton.
>
> BDS
>
>

It's a complicated issue that many in aviation accidentally make even
more complicated by delving too deeply into their physics books instead
of learning to shave with Occam's Razor :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[gatt[_3_]]

wrote:
> On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> Stealth Pilot writes:
>>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>>> the wing surfaces.
>> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
>> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
>> an opposite force that is lift.
>
> So you're saying the sky does suck after all?
>
> What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work?

I've repeatedly explained to these guys that camber was just a
conspiracy by the aluminum industry to sell more metal.

I don't know why Boeing, Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft and everybody else
don't listen to Mxmaniac. CAMBER IS A LIE!!!

-c

[Jim Logajan]

"BDS" > wrote:
> There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison
> that talks about lift theory.
>
[...]
>
> Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having
> anything to do with why a wing produces lift.

The Bernoulli equations aren't wrong. It is a simply a case that they apply
ONLY to a set of streamlines. Once the streamlines are determined, the
Bernoulli equation should be able to tell you the lift of an airfoil.
Explanations that point to Bernoulli and then fail to discuss how and
whence the streamlines are determined for a problem are bound to lead to
confusion and misunderstanding.

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 10:15 am, wrote:
> Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>>Snipped<<
>
> Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
> everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
> lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
> into a 10 second sound bite.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Careful there; next you'll be telling us that we shouldn't nationalize
the oil companies, tax all profits and generally use a Marxist
economic system in an effort to 'simplify' our complex energy issues.

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 11:51 am, gatt > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> >> Stealth Pilot writes:
> >>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
> >>> the wing surfaces.
> >> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> >> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
> >> an opposite force that is lift.
>
> > So you're saying the sky does suck after all?
>
> > What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work?
>
> I've repeatedly explained to these guys that camber was just a
> conspiracy by the aluminum industry to sell more metal.
>
> I don't know why Boeing, Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft and everybody else
> don't listen to Mxmaniac. CAMBER IS A LIE!!!
>
> -c

No no, aluminium was a conspiracy by Westinghouse and Edison (and
proly Tesla too) to sell more electricity via the Bayer process! Or
was it the other way 'round? Westinghouse was a conspiracy by the
electricity conglomerates to produce more beer cans? Hmmm....let me
adjust my Reynolds Cap.

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 8:20 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:56:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> wrote:
>
> >Stealth Pilot writes:
>
> >> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
> >> the wing surfaces.
>
> >Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> >downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
> >an opposite force that is lift.
>
> >> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
> >> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>
> >The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
> >perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>
> downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
> effect to the wing? magnetism?

Sorta. The girl lift fairies push from underneath whilst the boy lift
fairies pull from up top. The obese lift fairies just hang on and
thus produce drag.

[Gezellig]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 10:52:15 -0500, Michael Ash wrote:

> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Stealth Pilot writes:
>>>
>>>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>>>> the wing surfaces.
>>>
>>> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
>>> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
>>> an opposite force that is lift.
>>>
>>>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>>>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>>>
>>> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
>>> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>>
>> If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
>> pounds of force straight down. Why then am I not crushed when a 747
>> flies over me?
>
> At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
> for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
> out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?

Because I eat beans?

[Mxsmanic]

writes:

> What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work?

Simple action and reaction.

[Mxsmanic]

BDS writes:

> I agree that a flat wing will produce lift at a positive AOA even without an
> airfoil shape - it just won't be as efficient as it would otherwise be if it
> were shaped like an airfoil, and talk about pitch divergent...

Non-flat airfoil shapes help to increase the range of usable AOAs and reduce
drag, but a positive AOA is still required to generate lift.

> Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having anything
> to do with why a wing produces lift.

It is a common misconception.

[Mxsmanic]

Stealth Pilot writes:

> downwash occurs after the wing has passed.

Downwash is the result of the wing's passing. The wing accelerates air above
it downwards. That downward movement continues after the wing has passed, and
it is called downwash. It is the acceleration that produces the downwash that
is responsible for lift.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601Xl Builder writes:

> If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
> pounds of force straight down.

It does. The downward force is equal to the weight of the aircraft.

> Why then am I not crushed when a 747 flies over me?

Because the entire force is not concentrated on the top of your head.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> I'm wondering why the airlines, FAA and the
> military don't seem to be particularly
> concerned about this....

It's too difficult to enforce in a culture where this type of substance abuse
is an institution.

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Gig 601Xl Builder writes:
>
>> If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
>> pounds of force straight down.
>
> It does. The downward force is equal to the weight of the aircraft.
>
>> Why then am I not crushed when a 747 flies over me?
>
> Because the entire force is not concentrated on the top of your head.

Chuckle for the day :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> I'm wondering why the airlines, FAA and the
>> military don't seem to be particularly
>> concerned about this....
>
> It's too difficult to enforce in a culture where this type of substance abuse
> is an institution.

Don't fsking quote me out of context.

[gatt[_3_]]

wrote:
> On May 22, 8:20 am, Stealth Pilot >

>> downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
>> effect to the wing? magnetism?
>
> Sorta. The girl lift fairies push from underneath whilst the boy lift
> fairies pull from up top. The obese lift fairies just hang on and
> thus produce drag.

EXACTLY! GOD, somebody FINALLY nailed it. The ones that can't hang on
slam into the elevator and produce downwash.

-c

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> Don't fsking quote me out of context.

I quote as I see fit.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> On May 22, 10:15 am, wrote:
> > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>Snipped<<
> >
> > Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
> > everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
> > lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
> > into a 10 second sound bite.
> >
> > --
> > Jim Pennino
> >
> > Remove .spam.sux to reply.

> Careful there; next you'll be telling us that we shouldn't nationalize
> the oil companies, tax all profits and generally use a Marxist
> economic system in an effort to 'simplify' our complex energy issues.

Or add ethenol to gasoline to free use from oil imports.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Stewart]

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>> Don't fsking quote me out of context.
>
> I quote as I see fit.

So then that makes you both rude and dishonest.

[Mxsmanic]

Jim Stewart writes:

> So then that makes you both rude and dishonest.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 3:11*am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> BDS wrote:
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
> >> Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
> >> lift is incorrect.
>
> > I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
> > what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.
>
> >> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
> >> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
> >> In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
> >> explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!
>
> > According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
> > that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
> > at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
> > further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
> > above the wing. *The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
> > not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
> > edge after the air flowing under the wing.
>
> > BDS
>
> I think I see where this article has gone wrong.
>
> What Garrison is talking about is the equal transit theory, which is
> indeed incorrect, but it's CRITICAL that a pilot reading this completely
> understand that it isn't Bernoulli that is incorrect, but rather the
> equal transit theory that is incorrect. The equal transit theory is
> simply a totally incorrect INTERPRETATION of Bernoulli that has been
> passed around for eons by CFI's, pilots, and indeed textbooks as well.
>
> It's quite common for someone writing an article on lift to try and make
> a distinction that Bernoulli is incorrect by referencing the incorrect
> interpretations that have been out here in the community for many years.
> Just remember; the incorrect interpretations that misrepresent Bernoulli
> are in fact misrepresentations of Bernoulli, NOT proof in any way
> whatsoever that Bernoulli's CORRECT theory is wrong.
>
Spot on. In any case Bernoulli cannot be "wrong" as it it's only an
energy conservation equation.

Cheers

[Tina]

Don't forget he is a demonstrated lier, too, has self proclaimed
himself as 'heavy' (aka obese) and has asked for money donations. The
word 'Loser' comes to mind.

He does have a unique skill, however. He brings out the sadistic side
of me -- in a secondary meaning sense of the word.

On May 22, 4:03 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Jim Stewart writes:
>
> >> Don't fsking quote me out of context.
>
> > I quote as I see fit.
>
> So then that makes you both rude and dishonest.

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 5:40*am, wrote:
> On May 22, 8:20 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 21 May 2008 19:56:35 +0200, Mxsmanic >
> > wrote:
>
> > >Stealth Pilot writes:
>
> > >> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
> > >> the wing surfaces.
>
> > >Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> > >downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
> > >an opposite force that is lift.
>
> > >> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
> > >> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>
> > >The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. *It can be
> > >perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>
> > downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
> > effect to the wing? magnetism?
>
> Sorta. *The girl lift fairies push from underneath whilst the boy lift
> fairies pull from up top. *The obese lift fairies just hang on and
> thus produce drag.- Hide quoted text -

No, there are no fat faries -fat faries would not be able to fly and
they would die. It's transvestite fairies that produce drag,

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 6:53*am, gatt > wrote:
> wrote:
> > On May 22, 8:20 am, Stealth Pilot >
> >> downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
> >> effect to the wing? magnetism?
>
> > Sorta. *The girl lift fairies push from underneath whilst the boy lift
> > fairies pull from up top. *The obese lift fairies just hang on and
> > thus produce drag.
>
> EXACTLY! *GOD, somebody FINALLY nailed it. *The ones that can't hang on
> slam into the elevator and produce downwash.

Noooooooooo! It's the beating of the farie wings that makes downwash!
What do you think anables them to keep the wing up. Really, the
knowledge of simple airyfairey dynamics here is abysmal.

Cheers

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

More_Flaps wrote:
> On May 23, 3:11 am, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
>> BDS wrote:
>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>>> Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
>>>> lift is incorrect.
>>> I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
>>> what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.
>>>> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
>>>> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
>>>> In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
>>>> explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!
>>> According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
>>> that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
>>> at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
>>> further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
>>> above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
>>> not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
>>> edge after the air flowing under the wing.
>>> BDS
>> I think I see where this article has gone wrong.
>>
>> What Garrison is talking about is the equal transit theory, which is
>> indeed incorrect, but it's CRITICAL that a pilot reading this completely
>> understand that it isn't Bernoulli that is incorrect, but rather the
>> equal transit theory that is incorrect. The equal transit theory is
>> simply a totally incorrect INTERPRETATION of Bernoulli that has been
>> passed around for eons by CFI's, pilots, and indeed textbooks as well.
>>
>> It's quite common for someone writing an article on lift to try and make
>> a distinction that Bernoulli is incorrect by referencing the incorrect
>> interpretations that have been out here in the community for many years.
>> Just remember; the incorrect interpretations that misrepresent Bernoulli
>> are in fact misrepresentations of Bernoulli, NOT proof in any way
>> whatsoever that Bernoulli's CORRECT theory is wrong.
>>
> Spot on. In any case Bernoulli cannot be "wrong" as it it's only an
> energy conservation equation.
>
> Cheers

Actually (and I've always found this extremely humorous :-) neither
Bernoulli OR Newton's work was ever directly involved with the
production of lift.

--
Dudley Henriques

[george]

On May 23, 8:22 am, More_Flaps > wrote:

> No, there are no fat faries -fat faries would not be able to fly and
> they would die. It's transvestite fairies that produce drag,
>
Must be that built in parasite drag :-)

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"BDS" > wrote in message
...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote
>>
>> Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
>> lift is incorrect.
>
> I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
> what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.
>
>> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
>> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.

That's because Bernoulli's equation is nothing more than Newtons law
(conservation of momentum) applied to a streamline. It's not that hard to
derive Bernoulli's equation from Newtons...

>> In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
>> explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!
>
> According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
> that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
> at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does,

Bernoullli never said that. Whoever did was an idiot. Do the math. It's not
that hard.
If this were true, airplanes (as we know them) could not fly - they would
not generate enough lift.

and since it has
> further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
> above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what
> does
> not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the
> trailing
> edge after the air flowing under the wing.


Sorry, but, at most speeds the air "over the top" gets there well before the
air flowing under. Do the math. It's not that hard.
Circulation is a good way to model the effects.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Eideigssei]

Mxsmanic wrote:

> Jim Stewart writes:
>
>>So then that makes you both rude and dishonest.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

Your rudeness and dishonsty are facts, not opinions. So is the
fact that you are an obstinate cretin unable (and too dishonest)
to grasp such simple concepts as applying to yourself. HTH.

[Eideigssei]

Michael Ash wrote:

> At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
> for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
> out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?

I'm too emotionally stable to be crushed by such a trivial thing.

Besides, I push back with equal force.

[BDS]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote
>
> Sorry, but, at most speeds the air "over the top" gets there well before
the
> air flowing under. Do the math. It's not that hard.
> Circulation is a good way to model the effects.

You're right - I had that sdrawkcab...

BDS

[Tina]

Interesting phrase, "pushes down". Why would you think atmospheric
pressure pushes down?






On May 22, 11:52 am, Michael Ash > wrote:
> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Mxsmanic wrote:
> >> Stealth Pilot writes:
>
> >>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
> >>> the wing surfaces.
>
> >> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
> >> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
> >> an opposite force that is lift.
>
> >>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
> >>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>
> >> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
> >> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>
> > If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
> > pounds of force straight down. Why then am I not crushed when a 747
> > flies over me?
>
> At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
> for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
> out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?
>
> --
> Mike Ash
> Radio Free Earth
> Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Some Other Guy]

BDS wrote:
> There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
> talks about lift theory.
>
> I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the
> lift force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of
> attack than would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it
> through the air perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.

I first experienced this as a kid, sticking my hand out the car window with
the thumb as a leading edge, forming a crude airfoil.

When at the right shape and angle of attack, the lift is amazingly strong.
I always found it remarkable that when my hand was completely
perpendicular to the wind, the force didn't seem as strong.

Definitely a visceral lesson in lifting versus stalling.

[gatt[_3_]]

Steve Foley wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Agateller

Seriously: Have any of you guys read "A Confederacy of Dunces"? Add
this stuff to the Wikipedia page above:

"I mingle with my peers or no one-and since Ihave no peers, I mingle
with no one..."

"I dust a bit...in addition, I am at the moment writing a lengthy
indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my
literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."

"I have succeeded in in initiating several work-saving methods. I have
taken to arriving at the office one hour later than I am expected. ... I
find that in arriving later, the work which I do perform is of a much
higher quality. My innovation in connection with the filing system must
remain secret for the moment, for it is rather revolutionary..." -
Ignatius J. Reilly


-c
"My life is a rather grim one. One day I shall perhaps describe it to
you in great detail."

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 5:36 pm, Some Other Guy > wrote:
> BDS wrote:
> > There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
> > talks about lift theory.
>
> > I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the
> > lift force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of
> > attack than would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it
> > through the air perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.
>
> I first experienced this as a kid, sticking my hand out the car window with
> the thumb as a leading edge, forming a crude airfoil.
>
> When at the right shape and angle of attack, the lift is amazingly strong.
> I always found it remarkable that when my hand was completely
> perpendicular to the wind, the force didn't seem as strong.
>
> Definitely a visceral lesson in lifting versus stalling.

I have a copy of that article here. Very, very good. The
coefficient of lift, as he described it, was a ratio related to the
lift generated by a unit area of wing compared to the flat-plate drag
created by the same unit area perpendicular to the airflow. The Wright
brothers did this in their wind tunnel, so they were able to develop
efficient airfoils. A common airfoil (NACA 23012, IIRC) has a max lift
coefficient of 1.8 , which means that it generates 1.8 times the lift
as the drag of the perpendicular surface of the same area.
He made things really clear when he pointed out that this is why
boats and ships no longer use paddlewheels. The wheel will produce
forward thrust equivalent to the power required to force the paddle
back through the water, while the propeller (they call it a "screw")
will produce much more forward thrust for the same torque required by
the paddlewheel.
So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.
Bernoulli is right, and so is Newton. There's a pressure
difference because of the difference in airspeeds between top and
bottom, and there's a movement of air downward to which there's an
upward reaction. The equal-transit time theory is bogus, since the
airfoil is much more efficient than that theory would imply. See this
page:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
And, again, Mxmanic has declared, for about the 12th time, that
positive AOA is necessary for lift. If this was so, and it isn't, and
he has been shown many times that it isn't, then airfoils like the
Clark Y wouldn't generate lift at AOAs as low as -4 degrees. That's
negative 4 degrees, airfoil chord pointing downward. A graph can be
found a third of the way down this page: http://lpmpjogja.diknas.go.id/kc/a/air/airplane.htm
That page also deals properly with both Newton and Bernoulli.

Dan

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 22, 5:25*pm, Tina > wrote:
> Interesting phrase, "pushes down". Why would you think atmospheric
> pressure pushes down?

> > At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
> > for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
> > out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?
> > Mike Ash

He probably picked down since down is as good a direction as any,
unless, of course, he was thinking of someone with a big head whose
top surface area measures 4.5 feet x 4.5 feet.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Tina]

I think you asserted one time or the other you had technical
training. Why then in terms of static fluid pressure would one
specify a direction?



On May 22, 9:06 pm, Le Chaud Lapin > wrote:
> On May 22, 5:25 pm, Tina > wrote:
>
> > Interesting phrase, "pushes down". Why would you think atmospheric
> > pressure pushes down?
> > > At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
> > > for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
> > > out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?
> > > Mike Ash
>
> He probably picked down since down is as good a direction as any,
> unless, of course, he was thinking of someone with a big head whose
> top surface area measures 4.5 feet x 4.5 feet.
>
> -Le Chaud Lapin-

[Le Chaud Lapin]

On May 22, 8:16*pm, Tina > wrote:
> I think you asserted one time or the other you had technical
> training. *Why then in terms of static fluid pressure would one
> specify a direction?

The fluid presses in all direction.

I was merely pointing out the fact that, if he, or the source of the
"43,000" in his post, actually thought that the fluid only presses
downward, then "43,000" would have been a much smaller value.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Gezellig > wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 10:52:15 -0500, Michael Ash wrote:
>
>> In rec.aviation.student Gig 601Xl Builder > wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Stealth Pilot writes:
>>>>
>>>>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>>>>> the wing surfaces.
>>>>
>>>> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
>>>> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
>>>> an opposite force that is lift.
>>>>
>>>>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>>>>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>>>>
>>>> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
>>>> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>>>
>>> If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
>>> pounds of force straight down. Why then am I not crushed when a 747
>>> flies over me?
>>
>> At sea level the atmosphere pushes down with about 14.7 pounds of force
>> for every square inch of exposed surface. On the average man, this works
>> out to about 43,000 pounds, all the time. Why aren't your crushed by this?
>
> Because I eat beans?

Score yet another point for the musical fruit.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Michael Ash]

In rec.aviation.student Tina > wrote:
> Interesting phrase, "pushes down". Why would you think atmospheric
> pressure pushes down?

It was just bad phrasing.

I was thinking about how atmospheric pressure is created by gravity
pulling the air down. But of course as you imply, the pressure itself
pushes in all directions.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

[Gezellig[_2_]]

seniours pass dunce 101 you didn't!
Gezellig laid this down on his screen :
> Sensory inputs are checkpoints.

> I see
> I feel
> I see
> I see more
> I resolve to what I see.

> Basic piloting, best constrained and confirmed to the sciences of engineering
> and physics. This is what I struggle the most, I am neither physicist,
> mathmetician or engineering inclined. :-? I flunked Legos. :')

[Gezellig[_2_]]

Gezellig brought next idea :
> seniours pass dunce 101 you didn't!
> Gezellig laid this down on his screen :
>> Sensory inputs are checkpoints.

>> I see
>> I feel
>> I see
>> I see more
>> I resolve to what I see.

>> Basic piloting, best constrained and confirmed to the sciences of
>> engineering and physics. This is what I struggle the most, I am neither
>> physicist, mathmetician or engineering inclined. :-? I flunked Legos. :')

Another Forged Message :-[

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 9:32*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:

>
> >> You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
> >> way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
>
> That's because Bernoulli's equation is nothing more than Newtons law
> (conservation of momentum) applied to a streamline. It's not that hard to
> derive Bernoulli's equation from Newtons...
>
Nope. It's an energy equation, not inertial.

Cheers

[More_Flaps]

On May 23, 12:46*pm, wrote:

> * * * So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
> direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
> which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.

Nonsense, the derivation is from a blade or leaf.

Cheers

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 20:13:44 +0200, Mxsmanic >
wrote:

>Stealth Pilot writes:
>
>> downwash occurs after the wing has passed.
>
>Downwash is the result of the wing's passing. The wing accelerates air above
>it downwards. That downward movement continues after the wing has passed, and
>it is called downwash. It is the acceleration that produces the downwash that
>is responsible for lift.

no.
what pushes the aeroplane up into the air is the pressure differences
at the surface of the wing.

the whole purpose of the rest of it is to create those pressure
differences *at the surface*.

a wingtip vortex is an example of pressure differences not at the
surface and those just cause drag.

keep at it son. one day it is sure to sink in.
Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 08:22:49 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
> wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Stealth Pilot writes:
>>
>>> aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
>>> the wing surfaces.
>>
>> Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
>> downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
>> an opposite force that is lift.
>>
>>> ... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
>>> of the aerofoil of the wing ...
>>
>> The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
>> perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.
>
>
>If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
>pounds of force straight down. Why then am I not crushed when a 747
>flies over me?

bloody long wings combined with you being a bit slow on the uptake
(...I'm joking :-) )

it is 250,000lbs or whatever the aircraft weight is but it isnt a
point load and it is a variation in an existing unperceived pressure.

the pressure variations over the wing of a 747 are discussed in an
aero engineering book. because of the wing area involved and the speed
the pressure variations are a lot less than you'd think.
( I wish I could remember which book it was)

Stealth Pilot

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On May 22, 5:36 pm, Some Other Guy > wrote:
>> BDS wrote:
>> > There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter
>> > Garrison that talks about lift theory.
>>
>> > I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that
>> > the lift force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum
>> > angle of attack than would be the force imparted to it if you were
>> > to move it through the air perpendicular to the air flow at the
>> > same speed.
>>
>> I first experienced this as a kid, sticking my hand out the car
>> window with the thumb as a leading edge, forming a crude airfoil.
>>
>> When at the right shape and angle of attack, the lift is amazingly
>> strong. I always found it remarkable that when my hand was completely
>> perpendicular to the wind, the force didn't seem as strong.
>>
>> Definitely a visceral lesson in lifting versus stalling.
>
> I have a copy of that article here. Very, very good. The
> coefficient of lift, as he described it, was a ratio related to the
> lift generated by a unit area of wing compared to the flat-plate drag
> created by the same unit area perpendicular to the airflow. The Wright
> brothers did this in their wind tunnel, so they were able to develop
> efficient airfoils. A common airfoil (NACA 23012, IIRC) has a max lift
> coefficient of 1.8 , which means that it generates 1.8 times the lift
> as the drag of the perpendicular surface of the same area.
> He made things really clear when he pointed out that this is why
> boats and ships no longer use paddlewheels. The wheel will produce
> forward thrust equivalent to the power required to force the paddle
> back through the water, while the propeller (they call it a "screw")
> will produce much more forward thrust for the same torque required by
> the paddlewheel.
> So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
> direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
> which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.


Actually it's a synonym for blade.

> Bernoulli is right, and so is Newton. There's a pressure
> difference because of the difference in airspeeds between top and
> bottom, and there's a movement of air downward to which there's an
> upward reaction. The equal-transit time theory is bogus, since the
> airfoil is much more efficient than that theory would imply. See this
> page:
> http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
> And, again, Mxmanic has declared, for about the 12th time, that
> positive AOA is necessary for lift. If this was so, and it isn't, and
> he has been shown many times that it isn't, then airfoils like the
> Clark Y wouldn't generate lift at AOAs as low as -4 degrees. That's
> negative 4 degrees, airfoil chord pointing downward. A graph can be
> found a third of the way down this page:
> http://lpmpjogja.diknas.go.id/kc/a/air/airplane.htm
> That page also deals properly with both Newton and Bernoulli.

Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as being
seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create lift
and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
rigid!


Bertie

[Tina]

On May 23, 7:27 am, Stealth Pilot >
wrote:
It's easy to write the equations, it's classic physics stuff. Start
from basic principles.

You need not involve chaos theory, although some posters seem to try.

[Tina]

Foiled again!


On May 23, 5:56 am, More_Flaps > wrote:
> On May 23, 12:46 pm, wrote:
>
> > So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
> > direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
> > which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.
>
> Nonsense, the derivation is from a blade or leaf.
>
> Cheers

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as being
> seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create lift
> and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
> rigid!
>
>
> Bertie

Where did you read that dumb ass, ya got a link?

[[email protected]]

On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> wrote i
> > So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
> > direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
> > which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.

>
> Actually it's a synonym for blade.


Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Foil:
1 obsolete : trample
2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat <always able to foil
her enemies> b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot)
synonyms: see frustrate.

So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate."

Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary's
definitions:

foil (SWORD) gatiful
noun [C]
a thin light sword used in the sport of fencing


Dan

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 2:35 pm, wrote:
> wrote:
> > On May 22, 10:15 am, wrote:
> > > Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> > >>Snipped<<
>
> > > Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
> > > everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
> > > lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
> > > into a 10 second sound bite.
>
> > > --
> > > Jim Pennino
>
> > > Remove .spam.sux to reply.
> > Careful there; next you'll be telling us that we shouldn't nationalize
> > the oil companies, tax all profits and generally use a Marxist
> > economic system in an effort to 'simplify' our complex energy issues.
>
> Or add ethenol to gasoline to free use from oil imports.
>
> --
> Jim Pennino
>
> Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Then we'll have to nationalize farming to keep corn prices down.

While we're at it we should make pi = 3.000000.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:aPAZj.2623$7k1.2040
@newsfe24.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as
being
>> seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create
lift
>> and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
>> rigid!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Where did you read that dumb ass, ya got a link?
>


Nope, I know it.



Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in news:380a3b72-e9e1-4b9f-86a5-
:

> On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> wrote i
>> > So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
>> > direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
>> > which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.
>
>>
>> Actually it's a synonym for blade.
>
>
> Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>
> Foil:
> 1 obsolete : trample
> 2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat <always able to foil
> her enemies> b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot)
> synonyms: see frustrate.
>
> So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate."
>
> Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary's


That definition isn't relevant to this application, though.

> definitions:
>
> foil (SWORD) gatiful
> noun [C]
> a thin light sword used in the sport of fencing
>

More relevant, I suppose, but that definition is dervied from leaf or blade
as well. Foil as in thwart and foil as in blade have two completely
different origins, from waht I've been able to find...


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foil

So I'd say arfoil was not used becasue of it's ability to frustrate air (
engineers just don't think like that, they seek harmony) but more because
of their resemblance to a leaf or blade.
Actually, the one in that link that stands out is the architectural one.


Bertie

[Mxsmanic]

Eideigssei writes:

> Your rudeness and dishonsty are facts, not opinions.

Then you should be able to program a computer to recognize both.

[Steve Foley]

"Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
...
> Eideigssei writes:
>
> > Your rudeness and dishonsty are facts, not opinions.
>
> Then you should be able to program a computer to recognize both.

if ($name="mxsmanic") {
$rudeness = true;
$dishonesty = true;
}

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Foley writes:

> if ($name="mxsmanic") {
> $rudeness = true;
> $dishonesty = true;
> }

Hmm.

[Buster Hymen]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in
news:oBDZj.26$jA.21@trndny09:

> "Mxsmanic" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Eideigssei writes:
>>
>> > Your rudeness and dishonsty are facts, not opinions.
>>
>> Then you should be able to program a computer to recognize both.

You left out a few:
>
> if ($name="mxsmanic") {
> $rudeness = true;
> $dishonesty = true;
$HeadLockedUpButt = true;
$ViewsWorldThruPenis = true;
$PsychoticPersonalityDisorder = true;
> }
>

[More_Flaps]

On May 24, 2:59*am, wrote:
> On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
> > wrote i
> > > * * * So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
> > > direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
> > > which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.
>
> > Actually it's a synonym for blade.
>
> Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>
> * * Foil:
> 1 obsolete : trample
> 2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat <always able to foil
> her enemies> b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot)
> synonyms: see frustrate.
>
> * * * So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate."
>
> * * * *Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary's
> definitions:

If you look a bit further in the MW disctionary you will see both
blade and keaf. But the key is to use a proper dictionary like the
OED. Your definition of foil is a verb, not a noun and an aerofoil or
air foil is a noun.

Cheers

[gatt[_4_]]

> On May 22, 6:00 am, Mxsmanic > wrote:

> I'm only interested in flying.

You should try it sometime.


-c

[Dudley Henriques[_2_]]

wrote:
> On May 22, 5:36 pm, Some Other Guy > wrote:
>> BDS wrote:
>>> There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
>>> talks about lift theory.
>>> I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the
>>> lift force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of
>>> attack than would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it
>>> through the air perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.
>> I first experienced this as a kid, sticking my hand out the car window with
>> the thumb as a leading edge, forming a crude airfoil.
>>
>> When at the right shape and angle of attack, the lift is amazingly strong.
>> I always found it remarkable that when my hand was completely
>> perpendicular to the wind, the force didn't seem as strong.
>>
>> Definitely a visceral lesson in lifting versus stalling.
>
> I have a copy of that article here. Very, very good. The
> coefficient of lift, as he described it, was a ratio related to the
> lift generated by a unit area of wing compared to the flat-plate drag
> created by the same unit area perpendicular to the airflow. The Wright
> brothers did this in their wind tunnel, so they were able to develop
> efficient airfoils. A common airfoil (NACA 23012, IIRC) has a max lift
> coefficient of 1.8 , which means that it generates 1.8 times the lift
> as the drag of the perpendicular surface of the same area.
> He made things really clear when he pointed out that this is why
> boats and ships no longer use paddlewheels. The wheel will produce
> forward thrust equivalent to the power required to force the paddle
> back through the water, while the propeller (they call it a "screw")
> will produce much more forward thrust for the same torque required by
> the paddlewheel.
> So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
> direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
> which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.
> Bernoulli is right, and so is Newton. There's a pressure
> difference because of the difference in airspeeds between top and
> bottom, and there's a movement of air downward to which there's an
> upward reaction. The equal-transit time theory is bogus, since the
> airfoil is much more efficient than that theory would imply. See this
> page:
> http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
> And, again, Mxmanic has declared, for about the 12th time, that
> positive AOA is necessary for lift. If this was so, and it isn't, and
> he has been shown many times that it isn't, then airfoils like the
> Clark Y wouldn't generate lift at AOAs as low as -4 degrees. That's
> negative 4 degrees, airfoil chord pointing downward. A graph can be
> found a third of the way down this page: http://lpmpjogja.diknas.go.id/kc/a/air/airplane.htm
> That page also deals properly with both Newton and Bernoulli.
>
> Dan
>
>

Perhaps if we stray from a Clark Y and discuss symmetrical
airfoils............... :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 1:08 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
> writes:
> > What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work?
>
> Simple action and reaction.

Mmmm...but your action has nothing to react against, there's nothing
to push down on like you said with downwash producing lift for an
airplane wing.

[[email protected]]

On May 19, 2:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Daedalus > wrote :
>
> > On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> > wrote:
>
> >>Daedalus > wrote in
> :
>
> >>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>
> >
>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
> >>>>news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
> :
>
> >>>>> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques > wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>>>> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
> >>>>>> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques >
> >>wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> >>>>>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>> >>>>> <...>
> >>>>>> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right and
> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion physical
> >>sensation
> >>>>>> >>>>>> should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO
> >>>>>> >>>>>> mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an
> instrument
> >>>>>> >>>>>> reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan technique
> >>is
> >>>>>> >>>>>> all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using other
> >>>>>> >>>>>> instruments, right on down to primary panel if necessary,
> >>>>>> >>>>>> but in my opinion, the basic concept of ignoring physical
> >>cues
> >>>>>> >>>>>> and sensations while on instruments is a sound principle
> ans
> >>>>>> >>>>>> should be followed to the letter.
> >>>>>> >>>>> <...>
> >>>>>> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
> >>>>>> >>>>> But...
> >>>>>> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or
> >>>>>> >>>>> unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations that
> >>are
> >>>>>> >>>>> very important in the sense that, if you don't have
> >>significant
> >>>>>> >>>>> experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up dead
> >>(in
> >>>>>> >>>>> real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations
> don't
> >>>>>> >>>>> happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get
> >>>>>> >>>>> disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes
> >>flying
> >>>>>> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
> >>>>>> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop
> simulation
> >>>>>> >>>>> will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses that
> >>can
> >>>>>> >>>>> happen when things aren't going well in real life soup.
> >>>>>> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on desktop
> >>>>>> >>>>> experience - but without realizing just how difficult it is
> >>to
> >>>>>> >>>>> ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't
> >>really
> >>>>>> >>>>> have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet
> that
> >>>>>> >>>>> an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings off
> in
> >>>>>> >>>>> less than 3 minutes in real life.
> >>>>>> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps
> >>something
> >>>>>> >>>> being misread.
> >>>>>> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact with
> the
> >>>>>> >>>> IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a lack
> of
> >>>>>> >>>> this understanding can get you killed quicker than anything
> >>else
> >>>>>> >>>> I can think of at the moment.
> >>>>>> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was directly
> >>>>>> >>>> concerned with one pilot who commented that verifying an
> >>>>>> >>>> instrument reading with a physical sensation was important.
> My
> >>>>>> >>>> point was that instrument verification should be done
> against
> >>>>>> >>>> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical sensation
> >>from
> >>>>>> >>>> that equation.
> >>>>>> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
> >>>>>> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
> >>>>>> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
> >>>>>> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
> >>>>>> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
> >>>>>> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
> >>>>>> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
> >>>>>> >>> screwed my inner ear.
> >>>>>> >>> (That is my weakness).
> >>>>>> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
> >>>>>> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
> >>>>>> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
> >>>>>> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
> >>>>>> >>> early on in instruction.
> >>>>>> >>> Ken
> >>>>>> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It
> helps
> >>>>>> >> to hide my shortcomings :-)
>
> >>>>>> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
> >>>>>> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
> >>>>>> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
> >>>>>> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
> >>>>>> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
> >>>>>> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
> >>>>>> > by instruments.
> >>>>>> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
> >>>>>> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
> >>>>>> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
> >>>>>> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
> >>>>>> > Ken
>
> >>>>>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students to
> >>get
> >>>>>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
> >>>>>> (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding of
> >>these
> >>>>>> nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with the
> >>>>>> panel. Different strokes for different folks :)
> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>
> >>>>> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
> >>>>> understand the attitude.
>
> >>>>Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!
>
> >>>>> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
> >>>>> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
> >>>>> ancedote.
>
> >>>>"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote, fjukkwit.
> >>>>Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"
>
> >>> Maybe it's an antidote!
>
> >>> Jade
>
> >>Maybe it was an antecedant.
>
> >>BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.
>
> >>Bertie
>
> > Is that who keeps calling and breathing heavily?
>
> > THXS!
>
> He mayb be crude, but he's cheaper than those 1-900 numbers.
>
> Bertie

Speaking of cheap; you can replace the artificial horizon- how can you
tell when the wings are level?


Wait for it.



The CFI drools out of both sides of his mouth.

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:59:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

>On May 22, 1:08 pm, Mxsmanic > wrote:
>> writes:
>> > What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work?
>>
>> Simple action and reaction.
>
>Mmmm...but your action has nothing to react against, there's nothing
>to push down on like you said with downwash producing lift for an
>airplane wing.

huh??? the push is against the inside top of the rocket.
the hole at the bottom where all manner of stuff rushes out is in
reality the part where the push is missing. ...thats for a gunpowder
rocket.

for a nasa fuel rocket the push is against the conical part of the
rocket motor because of the way the pressure is generated.

....its not rocket science you know!

Stealth Pilot

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as being
> seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create lift
> and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
> rigid!
>
>
> Bertie

Posted by a forger.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Nope, I know it.
>
>
>
> Bertie
>>
>>
>

Posted by a forger.

[Maxwell[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
>
> So I'd say arfoil was not used becasue of it's ability to frustrate air (
> engineers just don't think like that, they seek harmony) but more because
> of their resemblance to a leaf or blade.
> Actually, the one in that link that stands out is the architectural one.
>
>
> Bertie

Posted by a forger.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

More_Flaps > wrote in
:

> On May 24, 2:59*am, wrote:
>> On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>
>> > wrote i
>> > > * * * So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
>> > > direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you
>> > > like,
>
>> > > which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to
>> > > deceive.
>>
>> > Actually it's a synonym for blade.
>>
>> Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
>>
>> * * Foil:
>> 1 obsolete : trample
>> 2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat <always able to foil
>> her enemies> b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot)
>> synonyms: see frustrate.
>>
>> * * * So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate."
>>
>> * * * *Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary'
> s
>> definitions:
>
> If you look a bit further in the MW disctionary you will see both
> blade and keaf. But the key is to use a proper dictionary like the
> OED. Your definition of foil is a verb, not a noun and an aerofoil or
> air foil is a noun.
>
> Cheers

Yeah, but the verb as it;s used has also become a noun. But I do believe
that the noun as it applies to a blade is probably the origin of it
being applied to wings and fins and other bits.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:TmVZj.1163$v94.4
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Nope, I know it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Posted by a forger.
>


Aw, that all you got wannabe boi?

How's the old forgery komplaint coming on there?


Good?

Get any feedback from altopia?


Bertie
>
>

[Bertie the Forger]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> So I'd say arfoil was not used becasue of it's ability to frustrate
>> air ( engineers just don't think like that, they seek harmony) but
>> more because of their resemblance to a leaf or blade.
>> Actually, the one in that link that stands out is the architectural
>> one.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Posted by a forger.
>
>
>
Aww, you got me.



Bwaahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhhahwh!



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]]

wrote in
:

> On May 19, 2:27 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Daedalus > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > On Mon, 19 May 2008 18:52:05 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>Daedalus > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >>> On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:10:55 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>
>> >
>>
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>"Ken S. Tucker" > wrote in
>> >>>>news:f41822f7-8b58-4810-bf30-97634fd4dec3
>> :
>>
>> >>>>> On May 18, 5:09 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>>>>> > On May 18, 4:09 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> >> Ken S. Tucker wrote:
>> >>>>>> >>> On May 18, 3:34 pm, Dudley Henriques >
>> >>wrote:
>> >>>>>> >>>> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> >>>>>> >>>>> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
>> >>>>>> ...
>> >>>>>> >>>>> <...>
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Without getting into a whole magilla concerning right
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and wrong, simply let me say that in my opinion
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> physical
>> >>sensation
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> should never, and I repeat it again so that there's NO
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> mistake....NEVER be used to verify or augment an
>> instrument
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> reading. In my opinion, this is what proper scan
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> technique
>> >>is
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> all about. You verify instruments CONSTANTLY using
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> other instruments, right on down to primary panel if
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> necessary, but in my opinion, the basic concept of
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ignoring physical
>> >>cues
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and sensations while on instruments is a sound
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> principle
>> ans
>> >>>>>> >>>>>> should be followed to the letter.
>> >>>>>> >>>>> <...>
>> >>>>>> >>>>> I won't argue with a single word of that.
>> >>>>>> >>>>> But...
>> >>>>>> >>>>> That doesn't make physical sensations irrelevent or
>> >>>>>> >>>>> unimportant. In fact, it is the MISLEADING sensations
>> >>>>>> >>>>> that
>> >>are
>> >>>>>> >>>>> very important in the sense that, if you don't have
>> >>significant
>> >>>>>> >>>>> experience "playing over" them, one typically ends up
>> >>>>>> >>>>> dead
>> >>(in
>> >>>>>> >>>>> real life). Sitting on your lazy boy, those sensations
>> don't
>> >>>>>> >>>>> happen - you always feel "coordinated" - you don't get
>> >>>>>> >>>>> disoriented, you don't experience vertigo - which makes
>> >>flying
>> >>>>>> >>>>> in simulated IMC stupid easy compared to real life.
>> >>>>>> >>>>> And, I would argue that _no_ _ammount_ of desktop
>> simulation
>> >>>>>> >>>>> will _ever_ prepare you for the assult on your senses
>> >>>>>> >>>>> that
>> >>can
>> >>>>>> >>>>> happen when things aren't going well in real life soup.
>> >>>>>> >>>>> One may think that one can handle real IMC based on
>> >>>>>> >>>>> desktop experience - but without realizing just how
>> >>>>>> >>>>> difficult it is
>> >>to
>> >>>>>> >>>>> ignore your inner ear screaming lies at you, one doesn't
>> >>really
>> >>>>>> >>>>> have any idea what flying real IMC is like - I would bet
>> that
>> >>>>>> >>>>> an experienced "sim only" pilot would pull the wings
>> >>>>>> >>>>> off
>> in
>> >>>>>> >>>>> less than 3 minutes in real life.
>> >>>>>> >>>> I believe you and I are in complete agreement. Perhaps
>> >>something
>> >>>>>> >>>> being misread.
>> >>>>>> >>>> The understanding of sensations and how they interact
>> >>>>>> >>>> with
>> the
>> >>>>>> >>>> IFR experience is of paramount importance. In fact, a
>> >>>>>> >>>> lack
>> of
>> >>>>>> >>>> this understanding can get you killed quicker than
>> >>>>>> >>>> anything
>> >>else
>> >>>>>> >>>> I can think of at the moment.
>> >>>>>> >>>> Where I was referring to the sensations issue was
>> >>>>>> >>>> directly concerned with one pilot who commented that
>> >>>>>> >>>> verifying an instrument reading with a physical sensation
>> >>>>>> >>>> was important.
>> My
>> >>>>>> >>>> point was that instrument verification should be done
>> against
>> >>>>>> >>>> other instruments with the EXCLUSION of physical
>> >>>>>> >>>> sensation
>> >>from
>> >>>>>> >>>> that equation.
>> >>>>>> >>> When I was a kid, I was spun to dizzy, and
>> >>>>>> >>> then staggered when I tried to walk. IIRC it
>> >>>>>> >>> took a concentrated focus on some point to
>> >>>>>> >>> sustain balance, which is me in VFR, but that
>> >>>>>> >>> doesn't work in a fog.
>> >>>>>> >>> Another thing I noticed is flying VFR with a lot
>> >>>>>> >>> of turbulence, (especially with towering cumulus)
>> >>>>>> >>> screwed my inner ear.
>> >>>>>> >>> (That is my weakness).
>> >>>>>> >>> I was very lucky that after just a couple of hours,
>> >>>>>> >>> my flight instructor got me going on IFR.
>> >>>>>> >>> He knew I had a basic handle on geometry and
>> >>>>>> >>> algebra so he was the type to promote the advance
>> >>>>>> >>> early on in instruction.
>> >>>>>> >>> Ken
>> >>>>>> >> I tend to keep things on the basic level with students. It
>> helps
>> >>>>>> >> to hide my shortcomings :-)
>>
>> >>>>>> > After a few hours, my instructor had me doing shallow
>> >>>>>> > (30's), medium (45's) and steep (60's) turns and would
>> >>>>>> > critcize me because I focused on the VFR horizon and
>> >>>>>> > he'd smirk and point to the Indescent Indicator showing
>> >>>>>> > a 50'/per minute loss, and the IAS loss of energy and
>> >>>>>> > my off-center-ball, so my turn performance was gauged
>> >>>>>> > by instruments.
>> >>>>>> > Obviously, I should have pulled a bit more elevator,
>> >>>>>> > put on some RPM, and applied more rudder, so that's
>> >>>>>> > what I did via instruments, and that's in a well done
>> >>>>>> > bank at 60 degs even when VFR is available.
>> >>>>>> > Ken
>>
>> >>>>>> I'm the reverse ytpe of instructor. Initially I like students
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>get
>> >>>>>> their heads outside the airplane and discover nose attitudes
>> >>>>>> (LF;Climb; glides) THEN after they have a good understanding
>> >>>>>> of
>> >>these
>> >>>>>> nose attitudes I get them to cross check these attitudes with
>> >>>>>> the panel. Different strokes for different folks :)
>> >>>>>> Dudley Henriques
>>
>> >>>>> I was a Professional teacher for awhile, and so
>> >>>>> understand the attitude.
>>
>> >>>>Bwawhawhhahwhahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwha!
>>
>> >>>>> We did about 5 hours of night flying together,
>> >>>>> he didn't say much by that time, except the odd
>> >>>>> ancedote.
>>
>> >>>>"oh ****, watch what you are doing!" is not an anectdote,
>> >>>>fjukkwit. Oh wait, maybe it;s a "ancedote"
>>
>> >>> Maybe it's an antidote!
>>
>> >>> Jade
>>
>> >>Maybe it was an antecedant.
>>
>> >>BTW, you wanna watch Larry, he has your number.
>>
>> >>Bertie
>>
>> > Is that who keeps calling and breathing heavily?
>>
>> > THXS!
>>
>> He mayb be crude, but he's cheaper than those 1-900 numbers.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Speaking of cheap; you can replace the artificial horizon- how can you
> tell when the wings are level?
>
> Wait for it.
>
>
>
> The CFI drools out of both sides of his mouth.
>

Excellent safety tip! The FAA needs to put out an advisory circular on
this one.


Bertie

[Bertie the Forger[_2_]]

"Maxwell" <luv2^fly99@cox.^net> wrote in news:ymVZj.1162$v94.724
@newsfe14.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as
being
>> seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create
lift
>> and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
>> rigid!
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Posted by a forger.
>
>
>



Snort!



Bertie

[BakedandFried]

"Tina" > wrote in message
...
> On May 23, 7:27 am, Stealth Pilot >
> wrote:
> It's easy to write the equations, it's classic physics stuff. Start
> from basic principles.
>
> You need not involve chaos theory, although some posters seem to try.

By this thread I no longer consider it a theory.

[yd+yg+as]

On 5/23/2008 10:45 AM Mxsmanic ignored two million years of human
evolution to write:

> Then you should be able to program a computer to recognize both.

What does this have to do with aviation?