Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"CWatters" wrote in
:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
The essential feature of an airfoil is that it twists the flow of
air as
it
passes (or as the airfoil passes through still air, which is
equivalent,
and
that's how it works in airplanes). The air is accelerated
downward, and
this
engenders an equal and opposite force that is lift.
Nope. That wouldn't explain how wing sections for tailless planes
work. The sections for those curve up towards the trailing edge. The
leading edge produces lift but the trailing edge produces a
_downward_ force to counter the pitching moment. Example section...

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedae...mages/image13_
43.
gif





Good point.

The porblem with this guy is (and it's just one guy with a handful of
sockpuppets) is that he ses some discrepencies in how bernoulli is
explained and has concluded that it must be incorrect since there is
"disagreement amongst the experts"

A good analogy here would be the eeedjit creationists who grasp at
the straws presented by the minor scuffles occuring within the
evolutionary sciences.


Bertie

This is exactly how I see this as well. This character and his puppets
are playing out a conversation with themselves (one person) designed
to capitalize on the few simple misconceptions concerning Bernoulli
that are common knowledge among the professional aviation community
and have been "corrected" years ago.
Unfortunately for this forum, there are still a few old textbooks
hanging around out there reflecting these misconceptions. This,
coupled with the fact that there are individual pilots out here (from
the GA community mostly) who apparently lack the formal physics
knowledge to take on someone whose sole intent is to discredit them by
cleverly using the remaining confusion in the community concerning
Bernoulli against them. The REAL rub in this situation is that the
idiot doing this, from what I have seen in his posting, has very
little knowledge HIMSELF about the lift issue and is totally wrong in
critical areas of his argument. It's an unfortunate situation designed
by a person who seems to pleasure himself by what he's doing.
Personally I wouldn't give this idiot the time of day. His
understanding of Bernoulli is much worse than those with whom he has
engaged. Those who are on to him he avoids, only taking glancing shots
at them knowing he won't be answered directly.
It's a shame really....but what the hell, it's Usenet!!
:-)))

Absolutely. Actually, trolling around the net, it's a bit surprising the
amount of info out there that is so intent on adressing the deficienceis
in the way Bernoulli was described that they appear to be trying to say
that he was wrong. Some of them actually say this flatly.
Bernoulli works and NASA know it.
Their website appears to be disowning him ot the uninitiated, but at the
end of the day, if you need to fly on the edge, there are several colors
you have to paint on he inside of your skull to get your hands to
continuousl select the Alpha required to get th eflight path you want

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

He's a sockpuppet. A creation.

Who do you think he is a sock puppet for, MX?

CWatters writes:

Nope. That wouldn't explain how wing sections for tailless planes work. The
sections for those curve up towards the trailing edge. The leading edge
produces lift but the trailing edge produces a _downward_ force to counter
the pitching moment. Example section...

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedae...image13_43.gif

The first thing I saw in this image was "Angle of attack 5.50." Case closed.

CWatters writes:

How come most wing sections still produce lift at ZERO degrees AOA?..

They don't do that.

Why do slow flying aircraft such as gliders have wing sections with more
camber than fast jets?

Camber becomes more of a liability than an asset at higher speeds.

Denny writes:

Thank the lord that most of the lists I follow are moderated, and
unlike this one do not have this endless baloney going on...

Most moderated lists have nothing going on at all.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

CWatters writes:

Nope. That wouldn't explain how wing sections for tailless planes
work. The sections for those curve up towards the trailing edge. The
leading edge produces lift but the trailing edge produces a
_downward_ force to counter the pitching moment. Example section...

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedae...ges/image13_43
.gif

The first thing I saw in this image was "Angle of attack 5.50." Case
closed.


Nope


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

CWatters writes:

How come most wing sections still produce lift at ZERO degrees AOA?..

They don't do that.

Why do slow flying aircraft such as gliders have wing sections with more
camber than fast jets?

Camber becomes more of a liability than an asset at higher speeds.


For reasonswaaaaay beyond you, less is better, but it's still better to
have.

But you've been saying it's not neccesary at all.

So why is it required at low speeds fjukktard?






Or rather, why do you think it is?

(I feel like I've just left a banana skin on the pavement)

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

He's a sockpuppet. A creation.

Who do you think he is a sock puppet for, MX?




Oh yeah. Classic k00k strategy. He needed someone he could have an
"intelligent" discussion with since we're all too thick to understadn waht
he's talking about.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Denny writes:

Thank the lord that most of the lists I follow are moderated, and
unlike this one do not have this endless baloney going on...

Most moderated lists have nothing going on at all.


Much like yourself


Bertie

On Oct 10, 7:46 am, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"CWatters" wrote in
:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
The essential feature of an airfoil is that it twists the flow of
air as
it
passes (or as the airfoil passes through still air, which is
equivalent,
and
that's how it works in airplanes). The air is accelerated downward,
and
this
engenders an equal and opposite force that is lift.
Nope. That wouldn't explain how wing sections for tailless planes
work. The sections for those curve up towards the trailing edge. The
leading edge produces lift but the trailing edge produces a _downward_
force to counter the pitching moment. Example section...

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedae...mages/image13_
43.
gif

Good point.

The porblem with this guy is (and it's just one guy with a handful of
sockpuppets) is that he ses some discrepencies in how bernoulli is
explained and has concluded that it must be incorrect since there is
"disagreement amongst the experts"

A good analogy here would be the eeedjit creationists who grasp at the
straws presented by the minor scuffles occuring within the evolutionary
sciences.

Bertie

This is exactly how I see this as well. This character and his puppets
are playing out a conversation with themselves (one person) designed to
capitalize on the few simple misconceptions concerning Bernoulli that
are common knowledge among the professional aviation community and have
been "corrected" years ago.
Unfortunately for this forum, there are still a few old textbooks
hanging around out there reflecting these misconceptions. This, coupled
with the fact that there are individual pilots out here (from the GA
community mostly) who apparently lack the formal physics knowledge to
take on someone whose sole intent is to discredit them by cleverly using
the remaining confusion in the community concerning Bernoulli against them.
The REAL rub in this situation is that the idiot doing this, from what I
have seen in his posting, has very little knowledge HIMSELF about the
lift issue and is totally wrong in critical areas of his argument.
It's an unfortunate situation designed by a person who seems to pleasure
himself by what he's doing.
Personally I wouldn't give this idiot the time of day. His understanding
of Bernoulli is much worse than those with whom he has engaged. Those
who are on to him he avoids, only taking glancing shots at them knowing
he won't be answered directly.
It's a shame really....but what the hell, it's Usenet!!
:-)))

--
Dudley Henriques

I haven't minded taking the bait. The process has
pointed out many good websites we can use in instruction, and has
forced a review of some basic principles. Got to find the silver
lining, right?

Dan