Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Hmm..more reasoning going on in sci.physics.

R.G. Vickson

I am beginning to think I should have posted my OP in
rec.aviation.piloting to sci.physics.

Very comforting to see people focusing on physics to guide their
arguments.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Randy Poe" wrote

BS and more BS.
***********************
And another sock puppet is born. Sheesh.
--
Jim in NC

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here
(sci.physics) many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Hmm..more reasoning going on in sci.physics.

R.G. Vickson

I am beginning to think I should have posted my OP in
rec.aviation.piloting to sci.physics.

Very comforting to see people focusing on physics to guide their
arguments.



Just as long as you **** off there and don't ever fly an airplane.

All of the posts I have seen in reply to yours are either completely
wrong, partially wrong or just off the wallm so you'll be in good
company.


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in news:1191974445.830019.13730
@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
(2) Conservation of momentum (for every action there's
an equal and opposite reaction) says that you can't push
up from the inside. You'll create a counter force pushing
down.

Finally, someone speaks reason.

Now all we need to do is see that the jar might as well be a the
volume of a wing, and the same principle applies.

Not possible to have air on inside of wing pushing up against
underside of top of wing without having same said air pushing downward
on overside of bottom part of wing.



Good god.

Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in news:EKUOi.35$KS3.30
@newsfe03.lga:


"Randy Poe" wrote

BS and more BS.
***********************
And another sock puppet is born. Sheesh.

Nah, he's not a sock. just someone who isn't up to speed on aerodynamics
that Anthony sucked in with a crosspost.


His sock didn't work so he's looking for reinforcements elsewhere.

Told you it would get good!


Bertie

On Oct 9, 6:00 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

(2) Conservation of momentum (for every action there's
an equal and opposite reaction) says that you can't push
up from the inside. You'll create a counter force pushing
down.

Finally, someone speaks reason.

Now all we need to do is see that the jar might as well be a the
volume of a wing, and the same principle applies.

Not possible to have air on inside of wing pushing up against
underside of top of wing without having same said air pushing downward
on overside of bottom part of wing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Shoot. And here we used to help the 150 off the ground on a hot
day by pushing up on the ceiling, and if the wind was calm we'd blow
on the windshield, too. Are you saying we were wasting our time?

Seems to me there was ONE guy who talked about the air inside
the wing, but you implied that there were "people" that believed the
air inside had something to do with lift. Not honest about things,
trying to make us all look as ignorant as Mx, or trying to raise your
reputation by finding others to step on. It won't work.

MX and someone else talked about wings with no camber. He was
referring to a sheet of plywood with no curvature and was out to
lunch, as usual, but symmetrical wings have no camber. Camber is the
difference between the chord line and the centerline of the airfoil,
he http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#toc56 scroll
down to Figure 3.12. Or this one:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ils/TH13G2.jpg

It would help if these "experts" used the correct terminology so the
rest of us misguided pilots knew what they were talking
about.

Dan

On Oct 9, 8:18 pm, wrote:
Not possible to have air on inside of wing pushing up against
underside of top of wing without having same said air pushing downward
on overside of bottom part of wing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Shoot. And here we used to help the 150 off the ground on a hot
day by pushing up on the ceiling, and if the wind was calm we'd blow
on the windshield, too. Are you saying we were wasting our time?

Seems to me there was ONE guy who talked about the air inside
the wing, but you implied that there were "people" that believed the
air inside had something to do with lift. Not honest about things,
trying to make us all look as ignorant as Mx, or trying to raise your
reputation by finding others to step on. It won't work.

MX was not the one talking about air inside the wing.

Also, even though you are correct that there was only one person who
was talking about air inside the wing, there were several other posts
made by different people that demonstrated equally questionable
understanding of basic physics.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 9, 6:00 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

(2) Conservation of momentum (for every action there's
an equal and opposite reaction) says that you can't push
up from the inside. You'll create a counter force pushing
down.

Finally, someone speaks reason.

Now all we need to do is see that the jar might as well be a the
volume of a wing, and the same principle applies.

Not possible to have air on inside of wing pushing up against
underside of top of wing without having same said air pushing
downward on overside of bottom part of wing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Shoot. And here we used to help the 150 off the ground on a hot
day by pushing up on the ceiling, and if the wind was calm we'd blow
on the windshield, too. Are you saying we were wasting our time?

Seems to me there was ONE guy who talked about the air inside
the wing, but you implied that there were "people" that believed the
air inside had something to do with lift. Not honest about things,
trying to make us all look as ignorant as Mx, or trying to raise your
reputation by finding others to step on. It won't work.

MX and someone else talked about wings with no camber. He was
referring to a sheet of plywood with no curvature and was out to
lunch, as usual, but symmetrical wings have no camber. Camber is the
difference between the chord line and the centerline of the airfoil,
he http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html#toc56 scroll
down to Figure 3.12. Or this one:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ht/Airfoils/TH
1
3G2.jpg

It would help if these "experts" used the correct terminology so the
rest of us misguided pilots knew what they were talking
about.

Dan



Symmetrical airfoils have camber because they're not acting
symmetrically when they are in flight.


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ps.com:

On Oct 9, 8:18 pm, wrote:
Not possible to have air on inside of wing pushing up against
underside of top of wing without having same said air pushing
downward
on overside of bottom part of wing.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Shoot. And here we used to help the 150 off the ground on a hot
day by pushing up on the ceiling, and if the wind was calm we'd blow
on the windshield, too. Are you saying we were wasting our time?

Seems to me there was ONE guy who talked about the air inside
the wing, but you implied that there were "people" that believed the
air inside had something to do with lift. Not honest about things,
trying to make us all look as ignorant as Mx, or trying to raise your
reputation by finding others to step on. It won't work.

MX was not the one talking about air inside the wing.


Thanks for clearing that up Sockpuppet boi.



Also, even though you are correct that there was only one person who
was talking about air inside the wing, there were several other posts
made by different people that demonstrated equally questionable
understanding of basic physics.


You have no idea what you're talking about , fjukkwit.


Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ps.com...
I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside of
the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the wing,
including both top underside and bottom overside, and thereby
nullifying any effect it would have on the wing.

Correct.

If it's sealed the inside of the wing could contain anything at any
pressure. It could be solid metal. Most wings are full of fuel etc etc Makes
no difference to the aerodynamics outside (ignoring weight issues).