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 |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Mxsmanic wrote in : writes: Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA changes. Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off. WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider. Bertie Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves his point here. If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it God I hope he starts on gliders. I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting. Bertie Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the drivel he posts just amaze me. You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those like him. I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue. Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a serious flying forum. The complete information about lift including all the corrections for the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes on....and on......and on! Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else! Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go. :-)) Zactly Why waste your breath telling them? OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time... Bertie More fun this way! -- Dudley Henriques |
#332
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Dudley Henriques wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Mxsmanic wrote in : writes: Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA changes. Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off. WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider. Bertie Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves his point here. If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it God I hope he starts on gliders. I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting. Bertie Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the drivel he posts just amaze me. You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those like him. I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue. Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a serious flying forum. The complete information about lift including all the corrections for the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes on....and on......and on! Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else! Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go. :-)) Zactly Why waste your breath telling them? OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time... Bertie More fun this way! Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit of fun as well. Have you looked at free.usenet? Weird. Bertie |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Mxsmanic wrote in : writes: Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA changes. Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off. WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider. Bertie Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves his point here. If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it God I hope he starts on gliders. I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting. Bertie Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the drivel he posts just amaze me. You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those like him. I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue. Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a serious flying forum. The complete information about lift including all the corrections for the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes on....and on......and on! Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else! Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go. :-)) Zactly Why waste your breath telling them? OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time... Bertie More fun this way! Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit of fun as well. Have you looked at free.usenet? Weird. Bertie Things here have been a bit busy lately with some health issues. Haven't had much time other than dealing with my usual Usenet haunts. I use RCN on an Intel IMac with Thunderbird as my News and Mail program. Works fine so far with 0 issues for me. -- Dudley Henriques |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Dudley Henriques wrote in
: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote in : Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Mxsmanic wrote in : writes: Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA changes. Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off. WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a glider. Bertie Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves his point here. If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it God I hope he starts on gliders. I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting. Bertie Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the drivel he posts just amaze me. You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those like him. I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue. Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a serious flying forum. The complete information about lift including all the corrections for the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes on....and on......and on! Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else! Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go. :-)) Zactly Why waste your breath telling them? OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time... Bertie More fun this way! Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit of fun as well. Have you looked at free.usenet? Weird. Bertie Things here have been a bit busy lately with some health issues. Haven't had much time other than dealing with my usual Usenet haunts. I use RCN on an Intel IMac with Thunderbird as my News and Mail program. Works fine so far with 0 issues for me. OK, it'll only take a second. John Doe psots there. Nobody else but him... Sppoooooky. Bertie |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue. Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of comprehension. I obviously can only speak for myself, but I post under the expectation that the reading audience is more than just the person whose post I'm replying to. For example, when I posted references to some of the material on NASA web pages at least one person said they appreciated the references and said they came away with a better understanding of lift because of that material. And unlike the OP, left it at that. Just because the OP of this or any other thread refuses to budge doesn't mean followups are entirely futile. At least that is what I'd like to believe. (But I do sometimes make the mistake that I should try to budge the OP and then I post more than I should. Say one's say and try to leave it at that - that's my modest goal.) I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a serious flying forum. This is a serious flying forum? Shirley you're joking. |
#336
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote: I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue. Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of comprehension. I obviously can only speak for myself, but I post under the expectation that the reading audience is more than just the person whose post I'm replying to. For example, when I posted references to some of the material on NASA web pages at least one person said they appreciated the references and said they came away with a better understanding of lift because of that material. And unlike the OP, left it at that. Just because the OP of this or any other thread refuses to budge doesn't mean followups are entirely futile. At least that is what I'd like to believe. (But I do sometimes make the mistake that I should try to budge the OP and then I post more than I should. Say one's say and try to leave it at that - that's my modest goal.) I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a serious flying forum. This is a serious flying forum? Shirley you're joking. Jim, if you think that dealing with this nutcase is beneficial to the rest of the group then I'd be the last guy in hell to tell you to stop doing it. All I'm saying to you and to others having serious science knowledge is that the answers to this moron's constant repetition of utter crap can be found in a single publication; that publication is "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators". A simple link to this book is all that's necessary for anyone to post to steer this creep in the right direction. Pardon me for saying this, but I've been teaching aerodynamics for 50 years and from my point of view, what you are doing in sparring with this character is useless on the educational line as his entire purpose in posting to the forum is to push himself as a "cut above" the people answering him. If it pleases you to take this bait, as I said, I'm not the internet police. Go get um! Just be advised, most of the people who post on these forums are fairly well versed on the issues surrounding lift and don't require additional tutoring on the issue. Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a more bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them". All this having been said, I realize that you are not me and have a mind of your own fully capable of dealing with things like this and the final decision as to whether or not you're being used as cannon fodder by this idiot will of course be yours. Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-))) DH -- Dudley Henriques |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Dudley Henriques writes:
If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it I have pondered that exact question. But the simulation of thermals in MSFS is not entirely realistic. I rather doubt that anyone has tried it, in simulation or in real life, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done. |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
Mxsmanic wrote in
: Dudley Henriques writes: If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it I have pondered that exact question. But the simulation of thermals in MSFS is not entirely realistic. I rather doubt that anyone has tried it, in simulation or in real life, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done. Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhah whahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahw h! Bertie |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 9, 1:30 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If air inside the wing pushes upward on the underside of the top of the wing, it also pushes downward on the overside of the bottom of the wing, thus nullifying any effect of the air inside the wing. OK, I'm going to try once more. Let's say the wing is standing still. It is surrounded by normal atmospheric pressure. It has normal atmospheric pressure inside it. No net effect, right? Now lets say you could cause an area of low pressure over the top surface of the wing. You have normal pressure inside the wing pushing down on the inside bottom of the wing. But you have normal air pressure below that surface pushing up. These cancel each other, and you have no net effect from the bottom surface of the wing. But the bottom surface is not pulling down compared to the top surface. It has no net effect because the pressure on both the inside and the outside of the bottom surface of the wing is the same. But what about the top surface of the wing? You have normal atmospheric pressure inside the wing pushing up against the bottom of the top surface of the wing. But outside the wing above that surface you have lower pressure. That is a net difference, and that would cause lift. It wouldn't be countered by the pressure against the inside bottom of the wing because that is countered by the pressure outside the bottom of the wing. It's the same situation you have in flight, except then you have the addition of higher pressure under the bottom of the wing. Both the high pressure under the wing and the low pressure above the wing contribute to lift. Phil |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 9, 7:51 pm, Phil wrote:
Maybe there was a misunderstanding. Your original posts implied that you were thinking that there was some kind of suction force. Most importantly, it appear that you were thinking that the molecules on the overside of the top surface of the wing were somehow pulling up on the wing. This last post of yours, is, technically acceptable, but if you look at it closely, it's like someone asking you if you have $20 in your pocket, you say, "No, I have a $2, a $5, 3 $1's, and a $10." Physicists generally don't arbitrarily pick apart an object the way you are saying. With the point of view you just gave, I could just as well say that there really is no pressure on the upperside of the bottom surface of the wing, but 10,000 "mini-pressures", each to be taken individually and added up. Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow detaches? If you look at this paragraph that you wrote before, it seems at first glance that you are not aware that the air, doing good-stream conditions, is doing nothing more than not pushing down as hard as in a stall or standstill. Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent. -Le Chaud Lapin- You can also see from the falling line that you imply that there should be research to support my "theory", but there is no theory or all. Do you know of any research that supports that theory? Perhaps there was just a misunderstanding. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much lift do you need? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 3 | April 16th 07 02:46 PM |
Theories of lift | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 3 | April 28th 06 07:20 AM |
what the heck is lift? | buttman | Piloting | 72 | September 16th 05 11:50 PM |
Lift Query | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 8 | April 21st 05 07:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |