In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Jun 19, 4:15?pm, wrote:
In rec.aviation.piloting Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Nope, totally understood by some entited to put Phd after their name.
Probably. ?But there are many people with Ph.D's in the field, and
some of them disagree with each other about the origin of lift. ?Which
of these do we believe?

Nope.

Only arm chair physicists disagree.

There is at least one astrophysicist who disagrees with at least 3
premier educators in aviation.

And probably a couple of particle physicists as well.

If you mean that propeller-driven aircraft is the only way to get a
contraption to move foward through the air using no more than basic
Newtonian physics, I disagree.

Name something other than propellors, jets and rockets that actually
exists.
That, I cannot do, until it actually exists.

Which is why:

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

So essentially, you are saying that, aside from propellers, jets,
rockets (and slight deviations thereof), flight based on classic
Newtonian physics is a settled issue?

Aircraft will look like they do now until some huge new technology
gets invented such as anti-gravity or the impulse engines of Star
Trek, in which case they will probably look like Star Trek shuttle
craft.

Get it yet?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.