Backwash Causes Lift?

"Jim Logajan" wrote

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.

Jim, this is MX reborn. Give it up.
--
Jim in NC

"Matt Whiting" wrote

That is because it isn't 1,500 MPH tape but rather Mach 2 tape!

Ahh, that _does_ have a nicer ring to it, doesn't it!
--
Jim in NC

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 4, 6:58 pm, Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
What's strange is CFI'S (two of them) who did not know how to explain
VOR to an electrial engineer (me), who, after reading the discription
of how it works, could probably make after reading the technical
specs.

Doesn#t matter how it works.
It does work, and lasts a long time. That#s all pilots need to know,
fjukkwit.

Sounds like you've been using Viagra.

Don't need it.


And my guess is you´ßre going to be a permanent newbie to flying.

Ess-Tsett and # symbols. Hmmm...

Either you're German, drunk, or both.


None of the above.


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

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.



Yeah, show all that to yor win, dip****.



rash due
to pilot error because of shallow understanding...

...that's simply unacceptable in my book, especially when I have
passengers.



Never going to happen, Anthony


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

I am not an expert either, but I know enough to know that the
explanations I am reading in books are, at best, misleading.

That's an open secret in aviation. The mechanism of lift has been widely
explained incorrectly for years.



You've only been explaining it for a few months, fjukktard, not years.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.


Much like your life.


Bertie

"Morgans" wrote in
:


"Paul Riley" wrote

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.
:-)))))))))

I used to call it 200 MPH tape, because that's about how fast they go
in NASCAR. Then I got to know a Master Chief that was serving on
carriers, working on Hornets.

Then he tells me they were using it in the first Gulf War, and on
F-18's, at that! Now I have to call it 1,500 MPH tape!

No doubt that they are still using it now, for much the same purposes,
I'll bet.

1,500 MPH tape just doesn't have the same ring. It doesn't roll off
the tongue as smoothly. g

Wonderful stuff, huh?

The stuff they are using on the jets is a bit different than 200 mph tape.
It's kind of a thin but tough foil. It's actually legal for some repairs.
If you keep an eye out you might see it on the leading edge of a wing or
maybe holdin an oil door down on an engine where the fasteners have been
damaged.
It's good stuff and if ever I see a roll lying around it's in my flight
case faster'n you can say boo.,

Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
oups.com...

The air on the "outside" of the umbrella does *NOT* instantaneously
fill the void that is created by yanking the umbrella.

All you need to change the known science of aerodynamics is a wind tunnel.
For example, some of your fellow aerospace scientists use this one:

http://www.ccastronomy.org/photo_NAS...14_640x480.jpg
http://www.windtunnels.arc.nasa.gov/...2FT/12ft2.html

It's amazing. They even have a supersonic wind tunnel so they can test
their aerodynamic ideas. Not only that, but they have a VR lab nearby that
lets them look at 3D renderings of the wind tunnel results.


-c

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 3, 8:15 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Actually I did because every book I read about flying skimped on the
subject. I'm going to hop over to MIT's OpenCourseWare later this
week and download their most basic course on aero/astro. Benoulli's
principle is toss around as if it were facecloth, but I'm getting the
feeling that no one is really doing the physics.

I SWEAR to you guys, somebody sounding conspicuously like him was out here
within the last couple of months refuting Bournoulli and referring to
pressure under the wing, making plywood fly, etc. Sounds awful familiar.

-c

On Oct 5, 4:42 pm, "Gatt" wrote:

On Oct 3, 8:15 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Actually I did because every book I read about flying skimped on the
subject. I'm going to hop over to MIT's OpenCourseWare later this
week and download their most basic course on aero/astro. Benoulli's
principle is toss around as if it were facecloth, but I'm getting the
feeling that no one is really doing the physics.

I SWEAR to you guys, somebody sounding conspicuously like him was out here
within the last couple of months refuting Bournoulli and referring to
pressure under the wing, making plywood fly, etc. Sounds awful familiar.

It's familiar because there are many out there who don't
understand or don't agree with the textbooks. Even among experts
there's disagreement. Every so often one of them makes an issue of it.
It's quite normal, especially if they don't use the Google Groups
Search function first to see what the previous arguments have been on
the subject on a particular newsgroup.
It annoys some of us because the same arguments are put forth
repeatedly and we can't figure out why some don't get it. But it's no
different than my classroom, in which every new batch of students
brings the same misunderstandings and doubts and arguments. We were
young once, too, and didn't believe much of what our teachers were
trying to tell us.
Bernoulli said that moving air has a lower pressure than
static air. The air over the top of the wing is moving considerably
faster than that underneath, so it has lower pressure. It's not
rarefaction; it's the increase in dynamic pressure (velocity) that
subtracts from static pressure, the same phenomenon that makes a
turbine engine work so well.
Newton said that for every action there's an equal and
opposite reaction. If you look at the diagrams of airflow here,
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
scrolling down to Figure 3.2, you'll see that there's upwash ahead of
the wing as well as downwash behind it. the upwash is generated by the
approaching low pressure area above the wing. As the wing passes, the
upwash is converted to downwash; if this isn't Newton at work, I don't
know what is. Newton would be just another dead guy.
For the average PPL or CPL this should be sufficient. It's true
enough, even if it doesn't give the detail that the physicist would
like. As I said, most pilots have other careers and interests and they
find that Newton and Bernoulli jibe with what they experience in the
air, so they're satisfied. Making textbooks thicker or filling them
with competing theories does nothing but confuse these people.
If a student wants to argue that the physics as presented are
all wrong he should do extensive research and publish a book on the
subject, not argue with pilots who have been trusting their soft pink
bodies to Bernoulli and Newton for decades.

Dan