"gregg" wrote in message
...
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?

This should read "Lift is the component of aerodynamic force perpendicular
to the relative wind.", and not "opposes". My error in presentation.
DH