"BDS" wrote in message
...
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect.

I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.

You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.

That's because Bernoulli's equation is nothing more than Newtons law
(conservation of momentum) applied to a streamline. It's not that hard to
derive Bernoulli's equation from Newtons...

In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!

According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does,

Bernoullli never said that. Whoever did was an idiot. Do the math. It's not
that hard.
If this were true, airplanes (as we know them) could not fly - they would
not generate enough lift.

and since it has
further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what
does
not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the
trailing
edge after the air flowing under the wing.


Sorry, but, at most speeds the air "over the top" gets there well before the
air flowing under. Do the math. It's not that hard.
Circulation is a good way to model the effects.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.