A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old May 22nd 08, 03:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,546
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

BDS wrote:
On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Stealth Pilot writes:
aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces.
Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that

engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing ...
The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It

can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.


There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
talks about lift theory.

I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the lift
force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of attack than
would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it through the air
perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.

I agree that a flat wing will produce lift at a positive AOA even without an
airfoil shape - it just won't be as efficient as it would otherwise be if it
were shaped like an airfoil, and talk about pitch divergent...

Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having anything
to do with why a wing produces lift.

BDS


Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect. I just can't understand why there is so much trouble
in the pilot community understanding that Newton and Bernoulli do NOT
conflict in any way whatsoever, and that each explanation is correct in
itself. Newton AND Bernoulli are BOTH present simultaneously on th wing
at any moment lift is being created. EACH creates the other and EACH is
a complete explanation for how lift is created.

You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!



--
Dudley Henriques
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apology re mxsmanic terry Piloting 96 February 16th 08 05:17 PM
I saw Mxsmanic on TV Clear Prop Piloting 8 February 14th 07 01:18 AM
Mxsmanic gwengler Piloting 30 January 11th 07 03:42 AM
Getting rid of MXSMANIC [email protected] Piloting 33 December 8th 06 11:26 PM
Feeling aircraft sensations Ramapriya Piloting 17 January 12th 06 10:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.