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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 4, 10:47 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I could probably explain VOR to a 10-year-old, without ever mentioning things like counters, angular frequency, anisotropic radiation, frequency bands, sub-carriers, convolution, etc....and my explanation would still be correct. I doubt it. The ten-year-old, and most flight students, have absolutely no frame of reference to understand any of this in any depth. I teach a College course on Aircraft Systems, and I have to keep things really simple so they can grasp a few basics. If you are an electrical engineer, and I've had a few in my classes, we can get more into the workings of the VOR, but we leave all the others yawning and wondering if this is going to be on the final exam. When we come to hydraulics, we talk about pressure, volume and area and relate that to what we experience as kids playing with a garden hose. The same analogy can be used to a limited extent when explaining Ohm's Law. But now I encounter kids who grew up in highrises and never squirted their sisters with a hose, so they have more difficulty. Too much information, not enough relationship to previous bases because there are none. You have no frame of reference yet. When you start getting into violent departure stalls, skidding-turn spins, accelerated stalls, spirals and the like, the sounds and forces start to make the textbook stuff real. Sure, Jeppesen isn't always right. I haven't found a textbook yet that doesn't have some glaring errors, and the one I use in the Systems class has at least four that I have to issue corrections on in the syllabus. And the writers of texts have found that they don't sell the books that go into thousands of pages of detail; the students have neither the inclination for it nor the time. They have careers in other fields. So the textbook authors keep it really simple in the hope that the student will be piqued enough to dig further on his own. Most don't. You an argue this as long as you want, like Mx, but it's all book-learnin' and when the ground starts to come up at you real quick it won't matter one bit. You WILL want to understand AOA and where you went wrong. Dan Flight Instructor Aircraft Maintenance Engineer |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
On Oct 4, 1:51 pm, wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:47 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote: I could probably explain VOR to a 10-year-old, without ever mentioning things like counters, angular frequency, anisotropic radiation, frequency bands, sub-carriers, convolution, etc....and my explanation would still be correct. I doubt it. The ten-year-old, and most flight students, have absolutely no frame of reference to understand any of this in any depth. I teach a College course on Aircraft Systems, and I have to keep things really simple so they can grasp a few basics. If you are an electrical engineer, and I've had a few in my classes, we can get more into the workings of the VOR, but we leave all the others yawning and wondering if this is going to be on the final exam. When we come to hydraulics, we talk about pressure, volume and area and relate that to what we experience as kids playing with a garden hose. The same analogy can be used to a limited extent when explaining Ohm's Law. But now I encounter kids who grew up in highrises and never squirted their sisters with a hose, so they have more difficulty. Too much information, not enough relationship to previous bases because there are none. You have no frame of reference yet. When you start getting into violent departure stalls, skidding-turn spins, accelerated stalls, spirals and the like, the sounds and forces start to make the textbook stuff real. Sure, Jeppesen isn't always right. I haven't found a textbook yet that doesn't have some glaring errors, and the one I use in the Systems class has at least four that I have to issue corrections on in the syllabus. And the writers of texts have found that they don't sell the books that go into thousands of pages of detail; the students have neither the inclination for it nor the time. They have careers in other fields. So the textbook authors keep it really simple in the hope that the student will be piqued enough to dig further on his own. Most don't. You an argue this as long as you want, like Mx, but it's all book-learnin' and when the ground starts to come up at you real quick it won't matter one bit. You WILL want to understand AOA and where you went wrong. I agree with everything you wrote except this last part and the part about the 10-year-old. I have teaching experience myself in electrical engineering, and mathematics, computer science, ...all, non- trivial. I have found that very many complex things can be taught to people while still remaining honest. Certainly there might not be utlization of Maxwell's equations or partial-differential equations, or red-black trees, but insight can be instilled that will give the student an understanding that is both intutive and accurate. As the student matures, the depth of understanding might increase, but it can at least remain true. Schools try hard to do this, but since there are so many students in class at once, each with different proclivity to learn, the curriculum, by necessity, quickly suffers from rote drill, as you hinted at. I remember being introduced to notion of sqare-root of negative number in elementrary school. Then middle school. Then again in high school. I never really understod them in middle school because the teachers would not allow that. All the students were in monkey mode. I also remember when I first did long division, I and wanted to move on to what was next, and the teachers would not allow it. I was forced to do hundreds of long-division problems, one after the other, like a pencil monkey, even though it was quite apparent what was going on. It was their way of keeping me occupied. This was OK for square-root of -1. I do not think it is OK for flying. I want theory and the practice, because with flying, I think it is more relevant. I don't want to be in the cockpit flying around my friends and their children harboring the secret that regarded the KT as an impediment to me having some fun yankin' and bankin'. It's irresponsible. And if there is a crash due to pilot error because of shallow understanding... ....that's simply unacceptable in my book, especially when I have passengers. -Le Chaud Lapin- |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
... TheSmokingGnu wrote: Dudley Henriques wrote: Crash Lander wrote: I'd like to see what his thoughts are on String Theory. LOL. I'm sure he'd most likely say that twine was better :-)) What, and discount the obvious implications that Duct Tape has on modern thinking? TheSmokingGnu Ah, duct tape!! Where would aviation be without it ? -- Dudley Henriques Hey, don't knock duct tape( we called it speed tape G). Kept water out of my wing tank in Vietnam (Bird Dog) years ago. .50 cal rounds do a nasty job, even on self sealing tanks. :-))))) What the hey, even with one tank, for 2 hours, I still could fly the thing. And did, for about 2 weeks. :-))))))))) Paul |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Crash Lander writes: I'd like to see what his thoughts are on String Theory. String theory is a theory based on math rather than physical reality. And we all know math has absolutely nothing to do with physical reality eh? Crash Lander -- Straight and Level Down Under. http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/ |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Of course, but the specific statement I wanted made clear had to do
with getting conservation of momentum from Newton's relationship between force, mass, and acceleration. The OP claimed to be an engineer, he was suggesting something I thought was unlikely and you demonstrated that nicely. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
I thought it was called 100 kt tape, but if it walks like a duct and
talks like a . . . . I'll have another glass of wine now.. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Tina wrote:
I thought it was called 100 kt tape, but if it walks like a duct and talks like a . . . . I'll have another glass of wine now.. Ouch!!! Could it be that Shakespeare was right? -- Dudley Henriques |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Tina wrote:
Of course, but the specific statement I wanted made clear had to do with getting conservation of momentum from Newton's relationship between force, mass, and acceleration. The OP claimed to be an engineer, he was suggesting something I thought was unlikely and you demonstrated that nicely. Didn't he say he was an electronics engineer? Unless he's doing work on electromechanical devices I can see how one can get rusty on dynamics. I'm not sure questions regarding lift belong in a piloting group anyway. Fluid dynamics is a particularly difficult subject because it is easy to overlook things, such as: if a wing accelerates air downward, then according to conservation of momentum some other mass must be accelerated upward. |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Mxsmanic wrote: Le Chaud Lapin writes: Yes, I am. It's a combination of many things taking place at once. Vacuum generation by the forward motion of the wing is one of them. Gravity does that, not the forward motion of the wing. Without gravity, the wing would simply move upwards until the effective angle of attack were no longer positive. Good grief. Bertie |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Backwash Causes Lift?
Le Chaud Lapin wrote: On Oct 3, 9:26 pm, TheSmokingGnu wrote: Le Chaud Lapin wrote: You can have lift of an object with no Bernoulli. It's simple vector addition. 1. You are talking about nature's abhorrence of a vacuum. 2. Vacuum abhorrence is not lift. 3. Airplanes do not generate lift as a result of vacuum abhorrence. ---------- Conclusion: you are not talking about how aircraft generate lift. Yes, I am. It's a combination of many things taking place at once. Vacuum generation by the forward motion of the wing is one of them. Enjoying yourself there Anthony_ i know I am! Bwaahwahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhha! Bertie |
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 |