Apology re mxsmanic

On Feb 11, 11:42*pm, terry wrote:
sometime ago I criticised *pilots on this group about the harsh way
they were treating one mxsmanic. *It seemed to me at the time to be a
bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
the real thing. *No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
approach. *I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.
Terry
PPL Downunder

I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
philosphy, if he still believes that.

In any case, your old point-of-view and your new point-of view are not
mutually-exclusive.

Whether Mxsmanic is a kook, I have still found a few of the regulars
in this group to be somewhat ogrish. It's almost as if they feel that
having a pilot's license gives them the right to abuse those who do
not.

I posted an article a while back about backwash causing lift, because
I was genuinely interested in exploring the topic, and the explanation
given in my student handbook conflicted with basic Newtonian physics,
and tried to start a discussion, and the ad-hominen attacks were
almost immediate:

http://tinyurl.com/34tfeq

It was as if the pilots in this group were not ready to hear that what
they had learned for X years might be wrong, even though one
individual posted a link from NASA saying that at conventional wisdom
might be wrong. I also did a bit of research myself and discovered
that there are *many* university researchers in aero/astro who do
*not* agree that theory of flight is a settled issue, contrary to what
some of the pilots in here were claiming. Also, a couple of famous
pilots who have written books also agreed that much of the
conventional wisdom is wrong. The more I looked, the more I saw
disagreement in academia, while many people here were saying "it's
well-understood, leave it alone!" There were posters stepping in only
to say something rude, then leave. I was a bit suprised to be
honest. It completely changed my image of the pilot, though I guess
that's to be expected, since until starting flight school and coming
to this group, my only "experience" had been on the way to my seat,
passing a captain or FO who would smile by default to all passengers.
Of course, this group is not representative of the pilot community (or
is it?).

When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
who learn from reading the posts.

I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
the theory of flight.

Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
agree with.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
[student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:42 pm, terry wrote:
sometime ago I criticised pilots on this group about the harsh way
they were treating one mxsmanic. It seemed to me at the time to be a
bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
the real thing. No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
approach. I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.
Terry
PPL Downunder

I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
philosphy, if he still believes that.

In any case, your old point-of-view and your new point-of view are not
mutually-exclusive.

Whether Mxsmanic is a kook, I have still found a few of the regulars
in this group to be somewhat ogrish. It's almost as if they feel that
having a pilot's license gives them the right to abuse those who do
not.

I posted an article a while back about backwash causing lift, because
I was genuinely interested in exploring the topic, and the explanation
given in my student handbook conflicted with basic Newtonian physics,
and tried to start a discussion, and the ad-hominen attacks were
almost immediate:

http://tinyurl.com/34tfeq

It was as if the pilots in this group were not ready to hear that what
they had learned for X years might be wrong, even though one
individual posted a link from NASA saying that at conventional wisdom
might be wrong. I also did a bit of research myself and discovered
that there are *many* university researchers in aero/astro who do
*not* agree that theory of flight is a settled issue, contrary to what
some of the pilots in here were claiming. Also, a couple of famous
pilots who have written books also agreed that much of the
conventional wisdom is wrong. The more I looked, the more I saw
disagreement in academia, while many people here were saying "it's
well-understood, leave it alone!" There were posters stepping in only
to say something rude, then leave. I was a bit suprised to be
honest. It completely changed my image of the pilot, though I guess
that's to be expected, since until starting flight school and coming
to this group, my only "experience" had been on the way to my seat,
passing a captain or FO who would smile by default to all passengers.
Of course, this group is not representative of the pilot community (or
is it?).

When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
who learn from reading the posts.

I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
the theory of flight.

Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
agree with.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
[student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
these issues is disingenuous to a fault and totally untrue.
There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
the underside of the wing.
Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
how both interact.

This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 12, 5:38*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
these issues is disingenuous *to a fault and totally untrue.

Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.

There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
the underside of the wing.
Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
how both interact.

This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.

Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
backwash long ago.

Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
written on the NASA site. And what is written at two promiment aero/
astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
what my physics book says.

I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
days of flight.

Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
know or think we know.."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:38 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
these issues is disingenuous to a fault and totally untrue.

Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.

There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
the underside of the wing.
Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
how both interact.

This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.

Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
backwash long ago.

Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
written on the NASA site. And what is written at two promiment aero/
astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
what my physics book says.

I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
days of flight.

Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
know or think we know.."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

As I said, and said correctly, there are basically 3 incorrect theories
of lift out here and these are well known and corrected daily by any
good CFI or pilot.
Addressing your issue specifically, there are ALSO a considerable amount
of both CFI's and pilots who teach correct theory incorrectly, which can
cause even more confusion.
Contrary to what you have implied by your assertions here, I have found
the pilots and instructors on these forums to generally be quite aware
of the incorrect lift issues and more than willing (Google is your
friend on this) to engage those like yourself who have questions.
There are always a few "hold overs" from the old incorrect days on any
public forum, but to state that this condition is anything close to
systemic is a huge stretch.

There is nothing wrong with presenting a question that contradicts some
of what has been written about lift, but doing so as a challenge to
pilots everywhere will ruffle a few feathers every time.
There are many fine pilots out here who don't have engineering degrees.
I can assure you these people are anything but stupid.
If you are a student and as well a knowledgeable engineer, that can show
in your questions without being challenging or demeaning.
To reiterate, there are text books still in print that offer incorrect
information on this issue, but the main cause of confusion lies in
another direction. The books are being corrected every day, and not all
of them are wrong by a long shot.
The real "issue" on the subject of lift lies in the basic misconceptions
of a few, not in the ignorance of the general flying community as you
have incorrectly insinuated.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 12, 6:51*pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:38 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
these issues is disingenuous *to a fault and totally untrue.

Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.

There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
the underside of the wing.
Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
how both interact.

This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.

Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
backwash long ago.

Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
written on the NASA site. *And what is written at two promiment aero/
astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
what my physics book says.

I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
days of flight.

Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
know or think we know.."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

As I said, and said correctly, there are basically 3 incorrect theories
of lift out here and these are well known and corrected daily by any
good CFI or pilot.
Addressing your issue specifically, there are ALSO a considerable amount
of both CFI's and pilots who teach correct theory incorrectly, which can
cause even more confusion.
Contrary to what you have implied by your assertions here, I have found
the pilots and instructors on these forums to generally be quite aware
of the incorrect lift issues and more than willing (Google is your
friend on this) to engage those like yourself who have questions.
There are always a few "hold overs" from the old incorrect days on any
public forum, but to state that this condition is anything close to
systemic is a huge stretch.

There is nothing wrong with presenting a question that contradicts some
of what has been written about lift, but doing so as a challenge to
pilots everywhere will ruffle a few feathers every time.
There are many fine pilots out here who don't have engineering degrees.
I can assure you these people are anything but stupid.
If you are a student and as well a knowledgeable engineer, that can show
in your questions without being challenging or demeaning.
To reiterate, there are text books still in print that offer incorrect
information on this issue, but the main cause of confusion lies in
another direction. The books are being corrected every day, and not all
of them are wrong by a long shot.
The real "issue" on the subject of lift lies in the basic misconceptions
of a few, not in the ignorance of the general flying community as you
have incorrectly insinuated.

This is plain wrong.

In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
Schiff's book.

I know that there are some pilots who understand system dynamics very
well. I saw a presentation on TV about blue angles, and for maybe 200
milliseconds, on the blackboard, I saw a transfer function, H(s),
something that you cannot appreciate without understanding complex
analysis. So I was impressed indeed.

That was *before* my experience with average pilots. The best
experience I had in talking to a real pilot was the person who runs
the local control tower. We had engaging conversation about feasibilty
of Moller's car. I also had a few conversations with the owner of my
pilot school, and of course, my instructor.

Those are real world pilot's I have met.

If you would read the responses to my OP about backward, you'd see
that not only was there was a lot of "you're wrong, the book is right"
responses. This was not a few of the responders, it was more than
50%. You call that a few?

In any case, what this is about is not whether I am right about lift
or not, because I conceded in my OP that I have no idea, as I only
recently started thinking about. This is more about the attitude that
immediately resulted from broaching a legitimate technical question.

I want to reemphasize that I was not "challenging" any pilots. I was
mainly concerned with the physics. If anyones feathers got ruffled,
it was probably because they decided that they did not like what was
being written.

If someone were to come to "my" groups, in EE or software, and
challenge, say, where charge lies on a capacitor or whether AVL trees
are better than binary trees, my feathers certainly would not be
ruffled.

After all, it's just talk.

[Actually, you've almost affirmed what I suspected initially, that
some pilot's felt that questioning the theory was a direct challenge
to their knowledge. I certainly hope this wasn't the motivation for
the responses I receieved.]

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 12, 6:51 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 12, 5:38 pm, Dudley Henriques wrote:
You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
these issues is disingenuous to a fault and totally untrue.
Hmm...the NASA site and a few other sites I found a few months ago
seemed to imply that incorrect theories of flight were still popular,
even among pilots. But of course, I cannot know.
There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
the underside of the wing.
Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
how both interact.
This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.
Well, this response could have saved us a lot of typing in my OP on
backwash long ago.
Also...my Jeppesen "Private Pilot" "Guided Flight Discovery" book was
published in 2007, and what is written in it contradicts what is
written on the NASA site. And what is written at two promiment aero/
astro texts in the USA contradicts what is written on the NASA site.
And what my own flight instructor told me in ground school contradicts
what my physics book says.
I did consider the possibility that pilots who teach/write these books
know that some of what is being taught/written is not accurate, but,
in the interest of matriculating and moving the student quickly
through flight learning, they simply repeat what was said in early
days of flight.
Being an engineer, I would rather have had a disclaimer, something
like, "There is still much debate on this issue....but this is what we
know or think we know.."
-Le Chaud Lapin-
As I said, and said correctly, there are basically 3 incorrect theories
of lift out here and these are well known and corrected daily by any
good CFI or pilot.
Addressing your issue specifically, there are ALSO a considerable amount
of both CFI's and pilots who teach correct theory incorrectly, which can
cause even more confusion.
Contrary to what you have implied by your assertions here, I have found
the pilots and instructors on these forums to generally be quite aware
of the incorrect lift issues and more than willing (Google is your
friend on this) to engage those like yourself who have questions.
There are always a few "hold overs" from the old incorrect days on any
public forum, but to state that this condition is anything close to
systemic is a huge stretch.

There is nothing wrong with presenting a question that contradicts some
of what has been written about lift, but doing so as a challenge to
pilots everywhere will ruffle a few feathers every time.
There are many fine pilots out here who don't have engineering degrees.
I can assure you these people are anything but stupid.
If you are a student and as well a knowledgeable engineer, that can show
in your questions without being challenging or demeaning.
To reiterate, there are text books still in print that offer incorrect
information on this issue, but the main cause of confusion lies in
another direction. The books are being corrected every day, and not all
of them are wrong by a long shot.
The real "issue" on the subject of lift lies in the basic misconceptions
of a few, not in the ignorance of the general flying community as you
have incorrectly insinuated.

This is plain wrong.

In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
Schiff's book.

I know that there are some pilots who understand system dynamics very
well. I saw a presentation on TV about blue angles, and for maybe 200
milliseconds, on the blackboard, I saw a transfer function, H(s),
something that you cannot appreciate without understanding complex
analysis. So I was impressed indeed.

That was *before* my experience with average pilots. The best
experience I had in talking to a real pilot was the person who runs
the local control tower. We had engaging conversation about feasibilty
of Moller's car. I also had a few conversations with the owner of my
pilot school, and of course, my instructor.

Those are real world pilot's I have met.

If you would read the responses to my OP about backward, you'd see
that not only was there was a lot of "you're wrong, the book is right"
responses. This was not a few of the responders, it was more than
50%. You call that a few?

In any case, what this is about is not whether I am right about lift
or not, because I conceded in my OP that I have no idea, as I only
recently started thinking about. This is more about the attitude that
immediately resulted from broaching a legitimate technical question.

I want to reemphasize that I was not "challenging" any pilots. I was
mainly concerned with the physics. If anyones feathers got ruffled,
it was probably because they decided that they did not like what was
being written.

If someone were to come to "my" groups, in EE or software, and
challenge, say, where charge lies on a capacitor or whether AVL trees
are better than binary trees, my feathers certainly would not be
ruffled.

After all, it's just talk.

[Actually, you've almost affirmed what I suspected initially, that
some pilot's felt that questioning the theory was a direct challenge
to their knowledge. I certainly hope this wasn't the motivation for
the responses I receieved.]

-Le Chaud Lapin-

No problem.
Have a nice day, and best to you.


--
Dudley Henriques

On Feb 13, 10:19*am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:42*pm, terry wrote:
snip


When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
who learn from reading the posts.

I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
the theory of flight.

Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
agree with.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
[student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

Claude , this is not about who is right or wrong its more about the
way people behave. I love an intellectual debate myself , but good
manners dictate that if you are going to challenge someones point of
view, then be prepared to be challenged back, and graciously
acknowldege if you have been proved to be wrong or perhaps even thank
the other participant if you have learned something from them. Mxs
has undoubted interest in aviation. This forum has given him access
to a wealth of experience at zero cost to him. His continual failure
to show any respect , let alone appreciation for those that have tried
to help him is what has irritated so many people on this group. You
might like to go back and follow the why aircraft taxi thread and the
interactions between Msx and myself and you might understand what I
mean about his attitude. I certainly never started out to be rude,
on the contrary I was trying to be helpful in pointing out his
incorrect understanding of the gas laws. I would never ignore
someone simply because I dont agree with them. If I did that I wouldnt
have a friend in the world! but I will ignore people with whom it is
impossible to have an intelligent debate with.
I cant recall being involved with your lift theory thread. The fact is
that a pilot ( at least a private pilot anyway ) really doesnt need
to know whether its Benoulli or Newton at work. What he really needs
to understand is the concept of angle of attack and the need to keep
his wings clean. If you have studied lift theory in detail you
probably know more about it than a lot of pilots, including myself
Good Luck wtih your Flying
Terry

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

In fact, my estimation of what pilots knew was far greater both before
ground school and before I made my post and before I read the Barry
Schiff's book.

Pilots know about as much about aerodynamics as TV show directors know about
television engineering. They know what they need to know to fly in most
situations. Going beyond that is not necessary and is difficult for many
students. You need to know about flight and lift in detail to design
aircraft, but you don't need to know all the detail just to fly.

On Feb 12, 9:22*pm, terry wrote:
Claude , this is not about who is right or wrong its more about the
way people behave. I love an intellectual debate myself , but good
manners dictate that if you are going to challenge someones point of
view, *then be prepared to be challenged back, and graciously
acknowldege if you have been proved to be wrong or perhaps even thank
the other participant if you have learned something from them. *Mxs
has undoubted interest in aviation. *This *forum has *given him access
to a wealth of experience at zero cost to him. His continual failure
to show any respect , let alone appreciation for those that have tried
to help him is what has irritated so many people on this group. * You
might like to go back and follow the why aircraft taxi thread and the
interactions between Msx and myself *and you might understand what I
mean about his attitude. * *I certainly never started out to be rude,
on the contrary I was trying to be helpful in pointing out his
incorrect understanding of the gas laws. * *I would never ignore
someone simply because I dont agree with them. If I did that I wouldnt
have a friend in the world! *but I will ignore people with whom it is
impossible to have an intelligent debate with.
I cant recall being involved with your lift theory thread. The fact is
that a pilot ( at least a private pilot *anyway ) really doesnt need
to know whether its Benoulli or Newton at work. What he really needs
to understand is the concept of angle of attack and the need to keep
his wings clean. *If you have studied lift theory in detail you
probably know more about it than a lot of *pilots, including myself
Good Luck wtih your Flying

Grieft. If everyone here were 1/4 as polite as you....sigh.

Thx,

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" opined that many pilots have an
incorrect understanding of the physics of lift.

Speaking from my own somewhat limited experience, all my instructors and
most pilots I have spoken to about the subject do, indeed, have an incorrect
understanding of the physics of lift.

At Oshkosh last year, one of the exhibitors had a program to simulate
airplane aerodynamics. I asked the two guys who were sitting there if either
of them was an aerodynamicist. One of them said, "I am," in a light
German-sounding accent. I said to him, "Newton or Bernoulli?" "What do you
mean?" "You know -- lift." "It is all Newton. Bernoulli has nothing to do
with it!" How can you argue with a German aerodynamicist?! g

Jon