Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gatt writes:

Guys like Kelly Johnson didn't design the P-38, U-2 and the SR-71
Blackbird by not understanding aerospace physics.

Actually there was a lot of trial and error involved. They
experimented and found what worked.



Like you'd know, fjukkwit.

Bertie

On Oct 15, 7:54 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in ooglegroups.com...
: On Oct 15, 6:42 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
: "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
oglegroups.com...
:
: I read last night in another piloting book, again, that the common
belief
: about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong,
:
: Yeah? Which one?
:
: I'd have to go back to bookstore to find the name.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Or back to sleep to dream again...

Barry Schiff, in "The Proficient Pilot", "An AOPA Book", writes on
page 2:

"There is, for example, this amusing fable: "Air flowing above the
wing has a greater distance to travel (because of camber) than air
flowing beneath the wing. Therefore, air above the wing must travel
faster so as to arrive at the wing's trailing edge at the same time as
air flowing underneath. This is pure nonsense."

He goes on to write:

"Pilot's are generally curious, intelligent breaed who desire to learn
as much as possible about the science of flight. This seprates them
from most automobile drivers who don't konw and couldn't care less
about the different between a distributor and a differential."

This last paragraph sounds reasonable, except for the fact that all
but 3 or 4 of the pilots that I "met" in rec.piloting.aviation did not
seem to fit this characterization. Even though there is undeniable
evidence both in print and on the WWW that there is not conscensus
about the dynamics of lift, there is been vehement rejection by almost
all (except the 3-4 mentioned) to broach the topic.

He then writes:

"Pilots use lift; their lives depend on it. They read and talk about
it, are quizzed about it, and even try explaining this miracle of
flight to their lay friends. The problem is that most pilots really
don't know how lift is created; they only think they do."

Hmmm...

Before I started reading his book, I had the idea (don't ask me what
possessed me to make such an assumption) that most pilots understood
the dynamics of flight. I did have personal experiences before taking
ground school that made me almost sure that the pilots that I had
spoken with personally did not understand the physics (not really),
but I thought this was due to my own bad luck. Then after ground
school and reading the Jeppesen description of lift, the NASA site,
the sites at some aero/astro departments in the USA, books at the
bookstore, and especially after my brief visit to
rec.aviation.piloting, I am inclined to believe what Barry Schiff
wrote above.

Also, if the pilots in rec.aviation.piloting really understood the
dynamics of lift, they might not have responded so vitriollically to
my original post. At the very least, there would have been open
discussion without personal attacks.

Furthermore, I have visited 4 or 5 other sites tonight about the
theory of lift, and each of them said the same thing: "the other
writers think they know, but they don't." In fact, while writing this
very post, I noticed a Google ad in the right column entitled "A
Physical Description of Lift" Here is what is written in the first
paragraph:

"Almost everyone today has flown in an airplane. Many ask the simple
question "what makes an airplane fly?" The answer one frequently gets
is misleading and often just plain wrong."
(http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...se_frm/thread/
f0ee729cabbcb903/#)

I cannot see how much clearer it could be. More than 90% of every
description of lift I have seen in print and on the WWW have all said
basically the same thing: "other people got it wrong."

Not everyone can be right when each of them are saying that some of
the others are wrong.

Therefore, one could conclude that the vitriolic attacks against me
personally for broaching the subject might be a sign of something
deeper, perhaps the attackers' distaste for having the topic openly
discussed.

And yet still, after my 1st post, after more than 600 replies
cummulative, not one pilot has dared answered the question why the
bottom paper rises.

Perhaps I will re-post the experiment in sci.physics to see what the
physicists think.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ps.com...
: On Oct 15, 7:54 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...
: : On Oct 15, 6:42 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
: : "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
: oglegroups.com...
: :
: : I read last night in another piloting book, again, that the common
: belief
: : about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong,
: :
: : Yeah? Which one?
: :
: : I'd have to go back to bookstore to find the name.
:
: AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
: Or back to sleep to dream again...
:
: Barry Schiff, in "The Proficient Pilot", "An AOPA Book", writes on
: page 2:
:
: "There is, for example, this amusing fable: "Air flowing above the
: wing has a greater distance to travel (because of camber) than air
: flowing beneath the wing. Therefore, air above the wing must travel
: faster so as to arrive at the wing's trailing edge at the same time as
: air flowing underneath. This is pure nonsense."

Since it is true Schiff must be a raving lunatic. Maybe you don't
understand that travelling the greater path in the same time involves
a greater speed.

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

Therefore, one could conclude that the vitriolic attacks against me
personally for broaching the subject might be a sign of something
deeper, perhaps the attackers' distaste for having the topic openly
discussed.

And yet still, after my 1st post, after more than 600 replies
cummulative, not one pilot has dared answered the question why the
bottom paper rises.

[Yawn] Perhaps no one here is interested in discussing this with you and
going out of their way to help you to learn because of your abrasive and
insulting approach. I think you will find that pilots with a considerable
amount of experience no longer feel like they have anything to prove, so the
"insulting challenge" approach does not work with them. IOW, they are not
interested in trying to impress you.

Perhaps I will re-post the experiment in sci.physics to see what the
physicists think.

Please do. Might I suggest you try a different approach when you ask
someone for help?

BDS

On 9 Oct, 21:08, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about what
causes lift on a plane. You can read from the link below. Please
note that about 80% of the post are mostly ad hominem attacks and
should be ignored. There are some small bits of real discussion.

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...owse_frm/threa...

I am an electrical engineer with experience in analag design and
software, with math and physics background that you would expect of an
electrical engineer.

There are many points made in the discussion, but I would like to
focus on one in particular for the sake of progress.

There are people in the pilot's group, who think that lift on a wing
is analyzed as such:

1. There is air on outside of top of wing that is pushing down, but
reduced because of aerodynamics.
2. The *inside* of the wing contains air pushing up against the
underside of top of wing .
3. Let us ignore that the same air inside the wing pushes down on the
overside of bottom part of wing.
3. The difference in pressure against the underside of the top wing on
the inside of wing and top of wing on outside, is what gives plane
lift.

Note that they ignore the pressure inside the wing that pushes
downward on the wing.

I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside of
the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the wing,
including both top underside and bottom overside, and thereby
nullifying any effect it would have on the wing. Lift is caused by a
difference in pressure between the underside of the bottom of the
wing, and the overside of the top of the wing.

I count 8-9 people in the group who are utterly convinced that I am
inept at physics, mathematics, etc.

Note that some of these people have been flying aircraft for years,
even decades, while I am still a student pilot.

Comments from anyone who knows physics welcome.

-Le Chaud Lapin-


You may want to check out my web pages http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/bernoulli.htm
and http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/drag.htm for a closer examination
of the physics behind the aerodynamic lift and drag.

The main point I am making there is that it is physically nonsense to
claim that changing merely the tangential velocity of the air stream
relative to the surface would in any way produce a resultant force (at
least for a non-viscous gas). What one needs for a pressure change
(and thus a force) on the surface is a change in the numbers and/or
the velocity of the molecules hitting it, i.e. it is only the vertical
component of the velocity that is relevant here. Only this can produce
the lift for an airfoil, either because of the increased number of
collisions on the lower side or the decreased number of collisions on
the upper side (both situations lead to a lift). And it should be
obvious that for this to be the case, one must either have the lower
side of the wing facing to a certain degree into the airstream, and/or
the upper side facing to a certain degree opposite to the airstream.
This is why one either needs a certain 'angle of attack' or a
correspondingly shaped airfoil. And it should be obvious that in order
to have an asymmetric force (i.e. a higher upward than downward force)
one needs the surfaces of the airfoil to be orientated in some way
asymmetrical relatively to the airstream. So a perfectly symmetrical
airfoil (front to back) at a zero angle of attack (like I indicated in
Fig.1 on my page http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/bernoulli.htm ) should
not produce any lift as the upward force (from the rear part) is
exactly equal to the downward force (from the front part). All that
would happen is that the wing experiences an anti-clockwise torque.
This is the reason why the rear part of the wing (behind the apex)
must always have a larger surface than the front part. At least I have
yet to see an airfoil where this is not the case and where it can be
used at a zero angle of attack.
(the Bernoulli principle is in direct contradiction to this as it
would also predict a lift for a perfectly symmetric airfoil in this
sense).

Thomas

On Oct 16, 5:01 am, "BDS" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote

Therefore, one could conclude that the vitriolic attacks against me
personally for broaching the subject might be a sign of something
deeper, perhaps the attackers' distaste for having the topic openly
discussed.

And yet still, after my 1st post, after more than 600 replies
cummulative, not one pilot has dared answered the question why the
bottom paper rises.

[Yawn] Perhaps no one here is interested in discussing this with you and
going out of their way to help you to learn because of your abrasive and
insulting approach. I think you will find that pilots with a considerable
amount of experience no longer feel like they have anything to prove, so the
"insulting challenge" approach does not work with them. IOW, they are not
interested in trying to impress you.

What about my orignial post is abrasive and insulting?

Perhaps I will re-post the experiment in sci.physics to see what the
physicists think.

Please do. Might I suggest you try a different approach when you ask
someone for help?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

On Oct 16, 3:47 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in glegroups.com...
: On Oct 15, 7:54 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
: "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
ooglegroups.com...
: : On Oct 15, 6:42 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
: : "Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in
: oglegroups.com...
: :
: : I read last night in another piloting book, again, that the common
: belief
: : about the dynamics of airfoils is wrong,
: :
: : Yeah? Which one?
: :
: : I'd have to go back to bookstore to find the name.
:
: AHAHAHAHAHAHA!
: Or back to sleep to dream again...
:
: Barry Schiff, in "The Proficient Pilot", "An AOPA Book", writes on
: page 2:
:
: "There is, for example, this amusing fable: "Air flowing above the
: wing has a greater distance to travel (because of camber) than air
: flowing beneath the wing. Therefore, air above the wing must travel
: faster so as to arrive at the wing's trailing edge at the same time as
: air flowing underneath. This is pure nonsense."

Since it is true Schiff must be a raving lunatic. Maybe you don't
understand that travelling the greater path in the same time involves
a greater speed.

Perhaps you could explain in detail what you mean by this last
statement. I am sure that there are plenty of people here would would
like, for once, that a pilot explains what s/he means by this.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Are you saying that the design of the SR-71 would not have been possible
if
the dynamics of flight were not resolved?

LMAO! Read what you just wrote. Gee, the SR-71 would have been TOTALLY
possible if the designer didn't know what he was doing. I guess he just got
lucky. What your airplane design look like?


E6B, EB-6...this has little to do with my original question.

So basically you are saying that people who make typographical errors
demonstrate their lack of understanding.

It wasn't a typo. You said it repeatedly in multiple newsgroups.

Sorry. Your entertainment value has pretty much expired. Good luck in the
future.

-c

Barry Schiff, in "The Proficient Pilot", "An AOPA Book", writes on
page 2:

"There is, for example, this amusing fable: "Air flowing above the
wing has a greater distance to travel (because of camber) than air
flowing beneath the wing. Therefore, air above the wing must travel
faster so as to arrive at the wing's trailing edge at the same time as
air flowing underneath. This is pure nonsense."

Like I said. Upper camber is a conspiracy by the aluminum manufacturers to
sell more metal... Bournoulli was a shill.


-c

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ps.com:



Perhaps I will re-post the experiment in sci.physics to see what the
physicists think.


I await the outcome of that with a giant yawn.


Bertie