Backwash Causes Lift?

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

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,


You don't know how a wing works and now you are making pronouncements on
what is technically acceptable?


You are a k00k


Perhaps there was just a misunderstanding.



Well, since you misunderstand everything...

Bertie

On Oct 9, 1:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Phil wrote in news:1191952801.357185.176540
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:







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.

then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line. The
air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below this line
(inside the wing) has normal pressure.

So the air below the line is
pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
pressing down.

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.

What if your wing doesn't have any air in it?

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It will still fly, of course. If you talk about the upper wing
surface as a solid, with the air inside the wing under it, or if you
talk about the whole wing as a solid with air under it, the principle
is the same. You have lower pressure above the wing, and it
contributes lift.

On Oct 9, 8:49 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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.

I think we agree on this part. :-)

On Oct 9, 9:09 pm, Phil wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:49 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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.

I think we agree on this part. :-)

Glad to see that we're on the same page. :-)

See you in the air somewhere.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Phil wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 9, 1:03 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Phil wrote in news:1191952801.357185.176540
@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:







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.

then think of it this way. Imagine a cross-
section of the wing. The top surface of the wing forms a line.
The air just above this line has lower pressure. The air below
this line (inside the wing) has normal pressure.

So the air below the line is
pressing upward against it with more force than the air above is
pressing down.

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.

What if your wing doesn't have any air in it?

Bertie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It will still fly, of course. If you talk about the upper wing
surface as a solid, with the air inside the wing under it, or if you
talk about the whole wing as a solid with air under it, the principle
is the same. You have lower pressure above the wing, and it
contributes lift.


Well, you needn't think of the interior of a wing unless it's very very
leaky!

Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 9, 9:09 pm, Phil wrote:
On Oct 9, 8:49 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

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.

I think we agree on this part. :-)

Glad to see that we're on the same page. :-)

See you in the air somewhere

Not in this lifeime, anthony.

Bertie

On Oct 9, 9:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote groups.com:
See you in the air somewhere

Not in this lifeime, anthony.

You said you were old, but I had no idea that you were so close to
death.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 9, 9:22 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote
groups.com:
See you in the air somewhere

Not in this lifeime, anthony.

You said you were old, but I had no idea that you were so close to
death.



Oh aren't you a wit.


You'll never fly, fjukkwit.

You'll never even leave your bedroom.


bertie

Dudley Henriques dhenriques rcn.com wrote:

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".

Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))

Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
would correct Bertie instead of praise him.












DH

--
Dudley Henriques


Path: newssvr25.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!b order1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loc al01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rcn.net!news.rcn.n et.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:33:38 -0500
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:33:37 -0400
From: Dudley Henriques dhenriques rcn.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Subject: OK, IF Backwash Causes Lift then...
References: TsKNi.201$2n4.15900 news1.epix.net 1191685992.884239.318350 50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com p2ukt4-hrk.ln1 mail.specsol.com 1191694545.462771.143250 d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com 13gkirmlp7mnk25 news.supernews.com Xns99C3A8A7DE5F9****upropeeh 207.14.116.130 kd5qt4-m62.ln1 mail.specsol.com Xns99C3B8EDF5ED3****upropeeh 207.14.116.130 6v9lg3dblpdb19moek4kcu67gf1dahe3dn 4ax.com 1191938547.569257.8860 o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com 6nbng312p9ohpr7kcq81kg8k2gr89hak09 4ax.com Xns99C4B4C3BFD58****upropeeh 207.14.116.130 l4Odnb1QIOsiUZbanZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d rcn.net Xns99C4C7086D55D****upropeeh 207.14.116.130 Q7WdnWctH4ZzSpbanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d rcn.net Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30
In-Reply-To: Xns99C48AD799047JamesLLugojcom 216.168.3.30
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: kJSdnfgDTqgvbpbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d rcn.net
Lines: 56
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.172.126.29
X-Trace: sv3-XmX07olO4dkIdR0xopsdgG3lf1iQkQV0DsTfvmsNBJuyFpL8yx ZeLLpjeR9SPjdNhvsTn6aJY6EYkPb!/IvbWifa2CYqPyFpOiYFFR0TSQpjtWxTOWT3TxqdIE6hGYFkl+K KNDfPbhgeg1KXy5cG8HkSNlJm!AEM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse rcn.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
Xref: prodigy.net rec.aviation.piloting:603738

John Doe wrote in
t:

Dudley Henriques dhenriques rcn.com wrote:

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".

Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))

Bertie is anything but bandwidth (or anything else) friendly. If you
were concerned about bandwidth and noise, Dudley Henriques, you
would correct Bertie instead of praise him.






Oooow! Aren't we kinky psycho boi?



Bertie