Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Gatt writes:

I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your
theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.

Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of
collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on
the aerodynamic principles in books ...

But they have not built airplanes, as you suggest (with a few rare exceptions,
and even then they did not design them).

About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to
have flown an airplane.

Flying an airplane wouldn't help, although designing one (successfully) would.

On Oct 4, 10:27 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

The cigarettes would be lit so that stream of smoke floats
upward.

Can cigarettes be lit so that the smoke flows downward?

If flat pressure sensors were mounted below the wing, close to the
trailing edge, they would show a momentary increase in pressure.

We've been told for years by people who do wind-tunnel
experiments that the pressure on the bottom is not increased. Again,
it's not intuitive. We're feeling drag, not an increase in pressure.
If we hold a funnel (a version of a converging duct) with the big end
to the wind, we'll find accelerating airflow in it, decreasing
pressure, decreasing temperature, and drag that makes us think that
the pressure in it is increasing.
The air below is moving downward, something that could be
measured by an airspeed indicator, but that doesn't mean pressure is
increased. It means that the air has dynamic pressure now because it's
moving, and if it's moving its static pressure has decreased.
Better get building this thing. Get back to us as to the
pressure readings under the wing.

Dan

Dan

On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Hi,

The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.

Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

What will I see?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

What will I see?

-Le Chaud Lapin-


What will I see????

The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the dawn
of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to Student
Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.
I'm sure from what I've been reading of your posts that you might
perhaps have something you would like to see changed in the book to
reflect a more accurate text.
If you would like to do this, please email me and I'll put you in touch
with the right people at the Naval Test Pilot School at Patuxant NAS.


--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

What will I see?

-Le Chaud Lapin-


What will I see????

The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the dawn
of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to Student
Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.

Can us nonNaval aviators still read it? :-)

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 4, 12:48 pm, "Robert M. Gary" wrote:
On Oct 3, 7:04 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The title of this post implies that I know why airplanes fly. I
don't, not completely at least. But I do know that I have read a lot
of "official" explanations that are just plain wrong.
Or just buy the book "Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators" and look at the
pictures.

-Robert

What will I see?

-Le Chaud Lapin-


What will I see????

The collective knowledge of the finest aerodynamics minds since the
dawn of aviation. ANA is the "bible" for anyone from Astronauts to
Student Pilots. It's not written for the casual user however.

Can us nonNaval aviators still read it? :-)

Matt

Absolutely! Accurate information is accurate information to
all.....well, ALMOST all anyway!! :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

What will I see?

Lots of pictures which is probably all you can comprehend.

--

John Godwin wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

What will I see?

Lots of pictures which is probably all you can comprehend.


Me thinks that reply by LCB, and others like it, have Mx written all over
it...

ManhattanMan wrote:
Me thinks that reply by LCB,

LCB??? Try LCL.......