Backwash Causes Lift?

Mr Dudley, once again you are confused. Most define angle of attack as
the chord line of a wing, and of course with that definition it can be
negative and still generate lift. Mr Mx chooses a different way of
defining it. It is some angle such that when it goes negative the
airfoil can generate no lift. Do you remember the disbarred former
president Clinton saying something about "It depends on what 'is'
means"?

In Mx's case, words change meaning so that he is NEVER wrong. It must
be an interesting version of English he teaches.

But he does offer amusement for some of us on otherwise humorless
days, doesn't he?

Tina wrote:
Mr Dudley, once again you are confused. Most define angle of attack as
the chord line of a wing, and of course with that definition it can be
negative and still generate lift. Mr Mx chooses a different way of
defining it. It is some angle such that when it goes negative the
airfoil can generate no lift. Do you remember the disbarred former
president Clinton saying something about "It depends on what 'is'
means"?

In Mx's case, words change meaning so that he is NEVER wrong. It must
be an interesting version of English he teaches.

But he does offer amusement for some of us on otherwise humorless
days, doesn't he?



AOA actually can be defined relative to any given reference datum, but
normally it's considered in the industry as being the angle formed
between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind as you have
correctly stated.

Quite frankly, I read what Mxemanic writes on occasion and can't figure
out how he can be so close to getting it right and still manage to get
it wrong. He's amazing, and an interesting study if nothing else.
It's too bad he's taken this path on these groups. I've always felt he
has a genuine interest in things aviation and would like to contribute,
but he seems to be such a jerk that he gets in his own way.

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques writes:

AOA actually can be defined relative to any given reference datum, but
normally it's considered in the industry as being the angle formed
between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind as you have
correctly stated.

The angle of attack is the angle between the forward stagnation point and the
trailing stagnation point. The points of intersection of the chord line with
the airfoil surface are static, but the stagnation points can change, altering
the angle of attack.

If the angle of attack is not positive, there is no lift. You cannot have
lift at negative angles of attack because that is not symmetric. If a
negative angle of attack can produce positive lift, what happens when you turn
the airfoil upside down? Logically that would mean that even a positive angle
of attack would force the wing down, which makes no sense.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

AOA actually can be defined relative to any given reference datum,
but normally it's considered in the industry as being the angle
formed between the chord line of the wing and the relative wind as
you have correctly stated.

The angle of attack is the angle between the forward stagnation point
and the trailing stagnation point. The points of intersection of the
chord line with the airfoil surface are static, but the stagnation
points can change, altering the angle of attack.

If the angle of attack is not positive, there is no lift. You cannot
have lift at negative angles of attack because that is not symmetric.
If a negative angle of attack can produce positive lift, what happens
when you turn the airfoil upside down? Logically that would mean that
even a positive angle of attack would force the wing down, which makes
no sense.


Nope


Bertie

On Oct 5, 6:27 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

The angle of attack is the angle between the forward stagnation point and the
trailing stagnation point. The points of intersection of the chord line with
the airfoil surface are static, but the stagnation points can change, altering
the angle of attack.

This has never been an accepted definition of angle of attack and
your creation of it has no credibility. You just create even more
confusion in your mind and in the minds of innocent truth-seekers
here.

If the angle of attack is not positive, there is no lift. You cannot have
lift at negative angles of attack because that is not symmetric.

So you don't believe NASA or NACA or anyone else that finds
lift at negative AOAs on some airfoils?

Dan

writes:

This has never been an accepted definition of angle of attack and
your creation of it has no credibility.

Ho-hum. Acceptable to whom? Credible to whom?

Decide for yourself what you will accept or believe. Don't rely on others to
do it for you. Arguments can stand or fall on their own merit; do not rely on
hearsay and peer pressure to do your thinking for you.

You just create even more confusion in your mind and in the minds
of innocent truth-seekers here.

Compelling people to think for themselves will not confuse them, as long as
they are not unusually stupid. Most people don't like to think for
themselves, but they can do it if they have to.

So you don't believe NASA or NACA or anyone else that finds
lift at negative AOAs on some airfoils?

When I read what NASA says, it always seems to be different from what people
claim that NASA says.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

This has never been an accepted definition of angle of attack and
your creation of it has no credibility.

Ho-hum. Acceptable to whom? Credible to whom?

Decide for yourself what you will accept or believe. Don't rely on
others to do it for you. Arguments can stand or fall on their own
merit; do not rely on hearsay and peer pressure to do your thinking
for you.

You just create even more confusion in your mind and in the minds
of innocent truth-seekers here.

Compelling people to think for themselves will not confuse them, as
long as they are not unusually stupid. Most people don't like to
think for themselves, but they can do it if they have to.

So you don't believe NASA or NACA or anyone else that finds
lift at negative AOAs on some airfoils?

When I read what NASA says, it always seems to be different from what
people claim that NASA says.



Yeah, right. You have no idea what Nasa says, fjukkwit.


You don't even know how a wing works.

And you don't fly. and never will.


Bertie