"Hilton" wrote in message
ink.net...
Peter Duniho wrote:
Hilton wrote:
Todd's reply to this clearly shows why Roger's statement is wrong.

No, it doesn't. See my reply to Todd and Stefan's reply here to
understand
what we are all talking about.

You wrote "Had his definition of lift been correct, he would have been
exactly correct." Ummm, OK. But lift is well-defined and it is not
defined as the force that opposes weight. So, you can redefine whatever
you
want, doesn't make it right.

Hilton

I would tend to agree with you on this point, but with a caveat.
Unfortunately for many student pilots searching for information on lift,
many of the data sources in use at the student pilot level present subjects
like lift improperly in my opinion anyway.
Rather than state a definition of lift, the "definition" actually passes
that stage and presents what lift DOES! It's a fine point, but it is worthy
of note for the more "scientific minds" among us :-)
I've always STARTED an explanation of lift by presenting it initially as the
aerodynamic force that opposes the relative wind, NOT the force that opposes
gravity or weight. (That comes later :-)))
Again, it's a fine point, and there are many ways to discuss definition, and
if nothing else, what you are discussing here with others on the group helps
demonstrate why the subject of lift is so misunderstood by the student pilot
community. (Not your fault BTW :-)
I think I've spent more time discussing lift with students through the years
than any other single aspect of flight. Part of the reason for that is the
confusion caused by the community's seeming insistence on presenting lift in
a non standard written form.
Dudley Henriques