On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
How much math are you willing to deal with?

I am comfortable with graduate-level mathematics.

If you can handle some calculus, then probably the least expensive book I
know of that may fit the bill is:

"Theoretical Aerodynamics" by L. M. Milne-Thomson.
Paperback edition is available from Dover Press.

Dover. I will assume it is cheap and take a look.

I have no idea what web sites you have visited - all I can say is that
there is _no_ dispute among experts on the very basics.

Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
are not experts. I did read once that Rod Machado has a Ph.D. in
aviation science, and the foreword to Barry Schiff's book is by Ernest
K. Gann, whom I presumed from his credentials is highly respected in
field. Yet Rob Machado and Barry Schiff said the exact opposite,
Barry clearly stating that what Rob stated was non-sense. Note that
there were not talking about something esoteric how precipitation
beings as condensation on nuclei...they have different opinions on the
most basic phenemenon that _any_ student fascinated with flying would
be inclinded to ask: "Why does the plane stay in the air?" Then we
have Jeppesen, a leaders in edcuation of GA. You would think that,
with such a fine product (no sarcasm meant), that they would have
people whom they trust, experts, at the very high-end of academia, who
could verify what's in the text. But what is in my Jeppensen book and
what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

Now I could have gone to some university in the U.S., Germany, France,
and found someone with stratospheric credentials in aero-astro, but
after seeing one expert say that the other is wrong, and then seeing
an incorrect application of Newton's law (yes I still believe it's
incorrect), I had to put on the brakes.

Aerodynamic
models are now run routinely on computers - the field is known as
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - which would hardly be possible if
the very basics were still in dispute!

Hmm...how shall I say this. It is very similar to what Ron said in my
defense.

In any field of research, there is mind and hand. For artists in the
field, there are those who have a proclivity to use hand more than
mind, and there are those who have a proclivity to use mind more than
hand. In any case, there are typically multiple paths to discovery,
one major path relying heavily on the imagination, the other path
relying on experimentation. Typically there is a combination. Based
on the small amount of the field of aerodynamcis I have seen so far,
and the disputes and inconsistencies, I would not be surprised if
there is an enormous amount of money being spent on experimentation.
Granted, experimentation is very necessary to validate (or invalidate)
what was conceived, but in many fields, there are researchers who
adopt the brute force approach, not completely, but much more than
someone who, lacking $100's of millions in funding would.

I asked one of the pilot's again..."How sure are you that the aviation
world understands the basics?" He said he was very sure. He started
rattling off things about NASA.

NASA is an excellent and authoritative source and you'll be very pleased
to discover they have web pages that address the VERY SAME COMPLAINTS you
have about many of the bogus explanations of lift that are floating
around. Here are two of the most relevant pages you should read:

I will read that...but there seems to be a contradiction of what you
are saying. OTOH, you're saying that there is no disputes amond
experts. On the other hand, you're saying that other people
(institutions) are complaining about the same thing.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

Excerpt from the above:
"Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton's
equations and because they over-simplify the description of the problem
of aerodynamic lift. The most popular incorrect theory of lift arises
from a mis-application of Bernoulli's equation."

Ok, I just read that entire page, and yes, it is comforting to see
that NASA is at least dispelling the myth that is being put forth by
Jeppensen's book and Rod Machado's book. I guess Barry Schiff was
right.

Excerpt from the above:
"There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of
the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some
textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students.

Entirely unnecessary.

The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely circulated,
incorrect explanations. The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path"
theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory."

So I started imagining, with no mathematics, what goes on with fluids
around surfaces, which lead me to these various experiments.

It is a great idea to experiment - even with things others already
understand. I do it too.

Oh, I plan to.

In addition to the above, there are a couple of other (expensive, alas)
books I would suggest:

"Introduction to Flight" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
Contains a history of the science of flight and also goes into details on
some of the more common mistakes people make in explanations of lift. I
do not own this book, but others also give it great reviews.

"Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
A well regarded, though mathematical, text on the subject. I do not own
this book either, but I expect it is good, based on my knowledge of the
next book I mention:

"Computational Fluid Dynamics" By John D. Anderson.
I bought and read through this book a couple years ago and it does a
great job of introducing CFD. I mention it here only because it is how I
know the style and quality of Anderson's writing to confidently recommend
two of his other books (above) that I have not read! He carefully disects
and explains each of the differential equations of the various types used
for computational modeling, among the many things covered.

A lot of J. D. Anderson.

Another note:

On my way to and from a party tonight, I thought in more detail about
Bernoulli's theorem, and I am more certain that not that I understand
the venturi tube, why the fluids, move, the distribution of pressures,
etc. Bernoulli's theorem is, indeed, at work over an airfoil, but is
has nothing to do with the descriptions that are being put forward by
the incorrect texts [really nothing]. All that business about one
side being longer is *not* the reason.

I guess the most important thing I learned from this experiences is
that, if it is true that the field of aerodynamics is fully-cooked,
the experts need to tell everyone else so that they stop printing (as
late as 2006) erroneous information in textbooks about the very
basics.

-Le Chaud Lapin-