Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

On Oct 4, 10:27 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

The cigarettes would be lit so that stream of smoke floats
upward.

Can cigarettes be lit so that the smoke flows downward?

If flat pressure sensors were mounted below the wing, close to the
trailing edge, they would show a momentary increase in pressure.

We've been told for years by people who do wind-tunnel
experiments that the pressure on the bottom is not increased. Again,
it's not intuitive. We're feeling drag, not an increase in pressure.
If we hold a funnel (a version of a converging duct) with the big end
to the wind, we'll find accelerating airflow in it, decreasing
pressure, decreasing temperature, and drag that makes us think that
the pressure in it is increasing.
The air below is moving downward, something that could be
measured by an airspeed indicator, but that doesn't mean pressure is
increased. It means that the air has dynamic pressure now because it's
moving, and if it's moving its static pressure has decreased.
Better get building this thing. Get back to us as to the
pressure readings under the wing.

Dan

Dan

On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless times
between wings that are proven to work being told to do experiments by
somebody who challenges proven technology and expects everybody to do
experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything they
know about aerodynamics is wrong.

Not true. I do not recall any "accusation that basically everything
they know about aerodynamics is wrong." I wrote that there are some
things in the Jeppensen book that are just plain wrong, as is the
explanation of action/reaction with regard to downwash.

It's sort of like an IT guy telling Marines how to fight a war. Probably
not going to get you invited to the NCO's club.

What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
involving aerodynamics.

Don't take it personally. It just is. If you were the first person to come
in here and do it they'd probably go easier, but, alas, you're not.

Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and
ease up on the ad hominem attacks.

If you have questions about aerodynamic science, perhaps you should first
ask those who use it on a regular basis rather than coming in an suggesting
their understanding of their area of expertise is deficient. Or AT least let
people know you're a pilot, builder or aerodynamics professional.

I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
expects everybody to do
experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything
they
know about aerodynamics is wrong.

Not true. I do not recall any "accusation that basically everything
they know about aerodynamics is wrong." I wrote that there are some
things in the Jeppensen book that are just plain wrong, as is the
explanation of action/reaction with regard to downwash.

Oh, nevermind, everybody. It's the same guy with a new handle. It's
Jeppesen, and, do you have any idea how many people are successfully flying
with what they learned from the Jeppesen books? Are you one of them?

What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
involving aerodynamics.

What I'm saying is, until you prove your aerodynamics with something more
than two sheets of paper, nobody gives a damn. Here's a hint: We don't fly
sheets of paper or plywood. If you think it can be done, all you have to do
is build an airplane and demonstrate it.

I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."

Accept it and move on. Don't just change your handle and try again.

-c

On Oct 4, 5:20 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
Oh, nevermind, everybody. It's the same guy with a new handle. It's

My handle has been the same for over a decade.

Jeppesen, and, do you have any idea how many people are successfully flying
with what they learned from the Jeppesen books? Are you one of them?

Not yet. I will continue to study my Jeppesen book. That does not
mean that I will blindly accept everything I read.

What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
involving aerodynamics.

What I'm saying is, until you prove your aerodynamics with something more
than two sheets of paper, nobody gives a damn. Here's a hint: We don't fly
sheets of paper or plywood. If you think it can be done, all you have to do
is build an airplane and demonstrate it.

I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."

Accept it and move on. Don't just change your handle and try again.

My handle has been the same for over a decade.

And I will do as I please, thanks.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

Hi,

The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

Before I begin my exposition about what keeps the plane afloat, I
would like anyone who care to participate in this discussion to do a
couple of simple experiments.


Good grief..

.... Charlie Brown.

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

What will I see?

-Le Chaud Lapin-


What will I see????

The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the dawn
of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to Student
Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.

Can us nonNaval aviators still read it? :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

What will I see?

-Le Chaud Lapin-


What will I see????

The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the
dawn of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to
Student Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.

Can us nonNaval aviators still read it? :-)

Matt

Absolutely! Accurate information is accurate information to
all.....well, ALMOST all anyway!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 4, 4:46 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless times
between wings that are proven to work being told to do experiments by
somebody who challenges proven technology and expects everybody to do
experiments just to indulge your accusation that basically everything they
know about aerodynamics is wrong.

Not true. I do not recall any "accusation that basically everything
they know about aerodynamics is wrong." I wrote that there are some
things in the Jeppensen book that are just plain wrong, as is the
explanation of action/reaction with regard to downwash.

It's sort of like an IT guy telling Marines how to fight a war. Probably
not going to get you invited to the NCO's club.

What has IT got to do with a war? My writings were very specific,
involving aerodynamics.

Don't take it personally. It just is. If you were the first person to come
in here and do it they'd probably go easier, but, alas, you're not.

Things would go a lot easier if people would focus on the physics and
ease up on the ad hominem attacks.

If you have questions about aerodynamic science, perhaps you should first
ask those who use it on a regular basis rather than coming in an suggesting
their understanding of their area of expertise is deficient. Or AT least let
people know you're a pilot, builder or aerodynamics professional.

I did. The answer was "yes, the book is right, and you are wrong."

Teh book is right.

Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that a
proposed answer is in fact wrong?
Crash Lander
--
Straight and Level Down Under.
http://www.straightandleveldownunder.net/

Crash Lander wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

If one does not know the correct answer, how can one even suggest that a
proposed answer is in fact wrong?
Crash Lander


Hold on a minute. My wife will know this one!!!!
:-)

--
Dudley Henriques