Dudley Henriques wrote:


"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'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 :-)))
Dudley Henriques

Lift opposes the Relative Wind?

How does lift (and I assume you are talking wing lift here since you mention
gravity/weight) *oppose* the relative wind?

What do you mean when you use the word "oppose"?

Or were you speaking of prop lift?

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm