![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"T o d d P a t t i s t" wrote in message
... Pete, in your reply above, you did the same thing Roger did, (and what I often do too,) you equated the vertical component of aerodynamic force to "lift." I made the assumption that when I wrote "See Todd's post" people would. You clarified that quite well there, and I didn't see any reason to try to use a finer brush than what started the thread. The real issue here is whether lift changes according to airspeed. The generic idea of lift (as in, the force that keeps airplanes aloft) versus the specific physics definition of lift is inconsequential in that context, and not one I feel is worth nitpicking over. If you'll note, I also wrote "He's quite close". Had his definition of lift been correct, he would have been exactly correct. Again, referencing your post explains the minute detail where he was incorrect, and I didn't feel a need to delve more deeply. Frankly, I think this might be one of the reasons so many pilots don't understand lift. As soon as the discussion turns technical, many people want to make sure every last detail is just perfectly right. But in reality, one can gain a very useful and practical understanding of lift without ever knowing that lift is perpendicular to relative wind. Jumping right into the minutiae of relative wind, vertical components, etc. just makes some people's eyes glaze over, and they don't learn anything at all, not even that lift is relatively constant over all unaccelerated flight, regardless of airspeed. Pete |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter,
Todd wrote: Pete, in your reply above, you did the same thing Roger did, (and what I often do too,) you equated the vertical component of aerodynamic force to "lift." [zap] The real issue here is whether lift changes according to airspeed. The generic idea of lift (as in, the force that keeps airplanes aloft) versus the specific physics definition of lift is inconsequential in that context, and not one I feel is worth nitpicking over. It is *exactly* worth discussing and it is not nitpicking. Lift as DEFINED is completely different to the force pointing upwards and there are many examples where they all completely different; some example: spins, steep turns, a plane climbing vertically, a flat spin, the F-18 slow pass... OK, quick question: how much 'lift' (your definition) is an aircraft producing in a 45 degree bank? Equal to the weight? If so, why does my stall speed increase? Nitpicking? Well this nitpicking kills a lot of pilots including very experienced ones. How would you explain to a pilot that even though lift equals weight in a steep turn (your definition), the stall speed increases? Hilton |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Hilton" wrote in message
k.net... It is *exactly* worth discussing and it is not nitpicking. Not in this context. Still, you have demonstrated you are happy to continue to do so, so please...knock yourself out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lift Query | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 8 | April 21st 05 07:50 PM |
Tamed by the Tailwheel | [email protected] | Piloting | 84 | January 18th 05 04:08 PM |
New theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Piloting | 70 | October 10th 04 10:50 PM |
Lift and Angle of Attack | Peter Duniho | Simulators | 9 | October 2nd 03 10:55 PM |
Across Nevada and Part Way Back (long) | Marry Daniel or David Grah | Soaring | 18 | July 30th 03 08:52 PM |