Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

On Oct 9, 4:29 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in glegroups.com...

Taking on the science of NASA, for example, challenges the kind of people
who put men on the moon, shuttle aircraft into space and back, and robots on
Mars. What I'm saying is, they've proven their ability to do math and
physics. You're talking about two pieces of paper on a table or whatever,
admitting you don't fully understand aerodynamics, and then challenging the
kind of people who did research using SR-71 blackbirds and spacecraft.

My initial assertion was that the experts were not in agreement about
causes lift. Many posters said that I was wrong, that there was total
agreement, that I was mistaken.

...in a pilots' forum. What in hell kind of response did you possibly
expect?

A little bit more focus on the physics, a loss less focus on the
poster.

And with regard to the demonstration I presented in my original post,
I was expecting at least one pilot to give a correct explanation why
the lower paper is lifted off the ground, and not only has anyone
given a correct explanation, but no one has given any explanation at
all.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Sam Wormley writes:

The same way that your hand gets pulled upwards if you stick it out
the car window and tilt it. The lift of an airfoil is determined by
two things - the shape of the wing, and it's angle of attack.
Actually, only the angle of attack matters.


Nope, wrong again fjukkwit.


So when the lift from angle of attack in the up direction, exceeds
the lift from the shape of the wing ...
All of the lift comes from the positive angle of attack.


Nope, worng again.


Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics, The Citadel, Air
Force officer
I guess even the Citadel is passing on some bad information.


Nope.


They fly, you don;t.

You never will,.
Nor wil your sockpuppets.

Bertie


Wait a second here; couldn't a sock puppet fly if we used a latex liner
inside, filled it with Helium and tied it at the bottom before we let it
loose???
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

If you read carefully, the premise of what they are saying is that, if
you have, for example, a sealed jar with air in it, you are permitted
to consider the air on the _inside_ of the jar, pushing up on the lid
as contributing to a force to lift the jar off the ground, but you are
not allowed to consider the air on the _inside_ of the jar, pushing
down on the jar un the upper surface of the bottom of the jar.

The atmosphere is not a sealed jar. The source of air pressure in the
atmosphere is gravity, not confinement and kinetic energy.


You are an idiot.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Even though this (new) thread is not about what causes a wing to lift,
I just wanted to say for the record that I agree with this answer,
that it is both AoA and curvature of the wing.

It's just AOA.

*Sigh*

Then why does lift increase even though the AOA is fixed as a plane nears
the ground? (a.k.a. Ground effect.)

On Oct 9, 4:37 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
I don't understand the subject of the post. "Airplane Pilot's" what?
Why are you using a possessive noun here?

-Robert

Typo.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Gatt writes:

The day the physics guys were passing out good wing designs, the aerospace
designers were all out drinking beer, which is why every airplane since the
Wright flyer has camber when they could have just used flat plywood.

Some wings do not have camber. Anyway, the purpose of the curve is to reduce
drag and increase the stall angle, not to produce lift.

On Oct 9, 4:35 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in oglegroups.com...

If you read carefully, the premise of what they are saying is that, if
you have, for example, a sealed jar with air in it, you are permitted
to consider the air on the _inside_ of the jar,

WTF is he talking about? Nobody said anything about air -inside- of a wing.

On Oct 9, 1:00 pm, Phil wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If you
don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked upward
by that lower pressure

It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.

I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the line
is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing upward on
the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air _inside_ the wing
pressing upward on the underside of the top surface of the wing. The
air above the wing top surface has lower than normal pressure. The
air inside the wing has normal pressure. So it presses upward on the
top surface of the wing. This is lift generated by the top surface of
the wing.

Phil

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Sam Wormley writes:

The same way that your hand gets pulled upwards if you stick it out
the car window and tilt it. The lift of an airfoil is determined by
two things - the shape of the wing, and it's angle of attack.
Actually, only the angle of attack matters.


Nope, wrong again fjukkwit.


So when the lift from angle of attack in the up direction, exceeds
the lift from the shape of the wing ...
All of the lift comes from the positive angle of attack.


Nope, worng again.


Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics, The Citadel, Air
Force officer
I guess even the Citadel is passing on some bad information.


Nope.


They fly, you don;t.

You never will,.
Nor wil your sockpuppets.

Bertie


Wait a second here; couldn't a sock puppet fly if we used a latex
liner
inside, filled it with Helium and tied it at the bottom before we let
it
loose??


They're already full of hot air. /It's only a matter of harnessing that!

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 9, 4:29 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
glegroups.com...

Taking on the science of NASA, for example, challenges the kind of
people who put men on the moon, shuttle aircraft into space and back,
and robots on Mars. What I'm saying is, they've proven their ability
to do math and physics. You're talking about two pieces of paper on
a table or whatever, admitting you don't fully understand
aerodynamics, and then challenging the kind of people who did
research using SR-71 blackbirds and spacecraft.

My initial assertion was that the experts were not in agreement about
causes lift. Many posters said that I was wrong, that there was total
agreement, that I was mistaken.

...in a pilots' forum. What in hell kind of response did you
possibly expect?

A little bit more focus on the physics, a loss less focus on the
poster.

And with regard to the demonstration I presented in my original post,
I was expecting at least one pilot to give a correct explanation why
the lower paper is lifted off the ground, and not only has anyone
given a correct explanation, but no one has given any explanation at
all.=


Yeah, right mr sockpuppet.



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gatt writes:

The day the physics guys were passing out good wing designs, the
aerospace designers were all out drinking beer, which is why every
airplane since the Wright flyer has camber when they could have just
used flat plywood.

Some wings do not have camber.


Name one, aside from a chuck glider.

(and good chuck gliders have camber, BTW, fjukkwit



Anyway, the purpose of the curve is to
reduce drag and increase the stall angle, not to produce lift.



Nope.


Bertie