Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Feb 11, 11:42 pm, terry wrote:
sometime ago I criticised pilots on this group about the harsh way
they were treating one mxsmanic. It seemed to me at the time to be a
bunch of egotistical pilots snubbing their nose at someone who was
genuinely interested in finding out about aviation, but didnt have the
wherewithall financially or intellectually to actually participate in
the real thing. No matter what your profession is, it always seemed
to me that promoting that profession in a good light to others was
part of what being a professional is all about. It has always been my
approach. I have now come to understand what a complete waste of time
trying to help this person is. I have never in all my life come across
an individual with an attitude like this. If any of you regulars
actually remember me for those comments, I unreservedly apologise.
Terry
PPL Downunder

I haven't communicated enough with Mxsmanic enough to judge him,
though I strongly disagree with his "action under wing only"
philosphy, if he still believes that.

In any case, your old point-of-view and your new point-of view are not
mutually-exclusive.

Whether Mxsmanic is a kook, I have still found a few of the regulars
in this group to be somewhat ogrish. It's almost as if they feel that
having a pilot's license gives them the right to abuse those who do
not.

I posted an article a while back about backwash causing lift, because
I was genuinely interested in exploring the topic, and the explanation
given in my student handbook conflicted with basic Newtonian physics,
and tried to start a discussion, and the ad-hominen attacks were
almost immediate:

http://tinyurl.com/34tfeq

It was as if the pilots in this group were not ready to hear that what
they had learned for X years might be wrong, even though one
individual posted a link from NASA saying that at conventional wisdom
might be wrong. I also did a bit of research myself and discovered
that there are *many* university researchers in aero/astro who do
*not* agree that theory of flight is a settled issue, contrary to what
some of the pilots in here were claiming. Also, a couple of famous
pilots who have written books also agreed that much of the
conventional wisdom is wrong. The more I looked, the more I saw
disagreement in academia, while many people here were saying "it's
well-understood, leave it alone!" There were posters stepping in only
to say something rude, then leave. I was a bit suprised to be
honest. It completely changed my image of the pilot, though I guess
that's to be expected, since until starting flight school and coming
to this group, my only "experience" had been on the way to my seat,
passing a captain or FO who would smile by default to all passengers.
Of course, this group is not representative of the pilot community (or
is it?).

When you have so many esteemed institutions and individuals offering
alternative explanations, what's wrong with a bit of disucssion? It
can't hurt...and even if what's put forth turns out the be wrong, the
person who is wrong might learn something. There also might be lurkers
who learn from reading the posts.

I guess the most important thing that I learned is that a pilot's
group might not the best place on USENET to broach taboo subjects on
the theory of flight.

Whatever the reason planes fly, there is no excuse for being rude if
the person you are being rude toward has not been rude to you, IMO.
There is always the option to simply ignore the person whom you don't
agree with.

-Le Chaud Lapin-
[student pilot, very much interested in theory of flight]

You are correct in that there are incorrect theories of lift in play,
but totally incorrect in any assumption that these incorrect theories
are not so well known as to be considered at this point in time 101 by
any good flight instructor.and indeed, any well trained pilot.
For you to appear here and state that pilots generally are unaware of
these issues is disingenuous to a fault and totally untrue.
There are basically 3 incorrect theories of lift and they are the equal
transit theory, the "venturi" theory, and the reaction theory concerning
the underside of the wing.
Both Bernoulli and Newton are in themselves complete explanations of
lift as both occur at the same instant in time on the surface generating
lift and one can not physically be present without the other.
Each can be used to explain lift, and good CFI's present lift explaining
how both interact.

This information as I said is basic to all good pilots and CFI's.


--
Dudley Henriques