![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com: On Oct 6, 8:53 am, Tina wrote: The hand waving about lift is equally funny: people are attaching names to various theories, but the reality is the physics used in the analysis of lift work well enough to predict performance. The 'wise fools' will wave their hands and argue, those knowing what they are doing will design airplanes. This I definitely agree with. Even if aerodynamicists (is that even a word) were so inept at physics that could not even calculate F=ma, after so many iterations, they would still be able to make highly refined airfoils simply because nature provides feedback to help one distinguish between good designs and bad designs. However, I must point out something I noted yesterday, that if you have theory as well as the practice, the correct theory, there might be opportunity to experience and entiely new realm of order and efficiency. I re-read the chapter on fluid mechanics in my physics book last night and it says exactly what that NASA article refutes. Naturally, I was bit perturbed - this physics book is same one used by some very good universities. It also read in it a near verbatim explanation of downwash as an example of Newton's law at work, that I found in the Jeppesen book, the same explanation with is rigorously refuted by NASA. I remember reading this chapter over and over a long time ago, and "not getting it", and now I realize that it's because it is most likely wrong. In any case, there is something to be said for re-examining the theory. There might be a bit of opportunity here. I *think* I understand the physics behind reduced pressure above a moving, appropriately shaped airfoil. *If* my suspicions are correct, then it should be possible to make an entirely new type of aircraft, where the mechanims to keep the aircraft flying are entirely different from what they are today. I won't say too much now. I know no one will consider it anyway. I'll just start fiddling, albeit slowly, with my copy of SolidWorks that is coming in the mail soon. I plan eventually to make a small-scale model. Hopefully, someday, I might find someone involved in aerodynamics/flight to help make a prototype. -Le Chaud Lapin- You're an idiot Bertie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How much lift do you need? | Dan Luke | Piloting | 3 | April 16th 07 02:46 PM |
Theories of lift | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 3 | April 28th 06 07:20 AM |
what the heck is lift? | buttman | Piloting | 72 | September 16th 05 11:50 PM |
Lift Query | Avril Poisson | General Aviation | 8 | April 21st 05 07:50 PM |
thermal lift | ekantian | Soaring | 0 | October 5th 04 02:55 PM |