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

Backwash Causes Lift?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 4th 07, 05:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Backwash Causes Lift?

On Oct 4, 6:39 am, Tina wrote:
Still waiting for the conservation of momentum derivation. My husband,
also trained as an engineer, casually remarked he didn't think you
could get from Newton's First Law to the that confirms my memory,
but we are both willing to have that belief rebutted.


My apologies for broaching the subject. Frankly, I would rather save
it for the physicists.

He also pointed out that how a CFI might explain how a VOR works would
not satisfy an engineer. For that matter, the physics of flight as
explained to a student pilot would not satisfy someone who might be
interested in designing, as opposed to flying, an airplane, but I
don't think the manuals you are looking at are in error.


If the manuals are in error, then they are in error. If the manual
issues a disclaimer, saying something, like, "this is not really what
is happening, but this will suffice for us..." that would be ok.
That's not what's happening. The manual mentions things like
Bernoulli, Newtons laws of motion. It even uses vector notation for a
few of the formula's. When one gets that close to the merchandise,
they need to purchase it.

I would point
out that each field has its own language, and you denying the
conventions used in aviation -- drag, lift and so on -- demonstrates
an unbecoming trait for a student, and even a worse one for an
employee. You may want to rething that attitude if you use it in real
life.


There is a difference between convention and errononeous information.
I never discounted drag, lift, or so on...I discounted the
explanations given some of my flight education materials. If it's
wrong, it's wrong. If someone reading it gets comfort from thinking
they understand, or whatever, that's fine for that person. But the
writers of those manuals should know that their audience is broad, and
should not publish erroneous information (after they know that it is
erroneous). There is gross difference between explaining something in
simple terms and being correct, versus explaining something in
moderately-difficult terms, and being incorrect.
I could probably explain VOR to a 10-year-old, without ever mentioning
things like counters, angular frequency, anisotropic radiation,
frequency bands, sub-carriers, convolution, etc....and my explanation
would still be correct.

"When you drink from a straw, there is no suction force."

-Le Chaud Lapin-

  #2  
Old October 4th 07, 07:51 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default Backwash Causes Lift?

On Oct 4, 10:47 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I could probably explain VOR to a 10-year-old, without ever mentioning
things like counters, angular frequency, anisotropic radiation,
frequency bands, sub-carriers, convolution, etc....and my explanation
would still be correct.



I doubt it. The ten-year-old, and most flight students,
have absolutely no frame of reference to understand any of this in any
depth. I teach a College course on Aircraft Systems, and I have to
keep things really simple so they can grasp a few basics. If you are
an electrical engineer, and I've had a few in my classes, we can get
more into the workings of the VOR, but we leave all the others yawning
and wondering if this is going to be on the final exam.
When we come to hydraulics, we talk about pressure, volume
and area and relate that to what we experience as kids playing with a
garden hose. The same analogy can be used to a limited extent when
explaining Ohm's Law. But now I encounter kids who grew up in
highrises and never squirted their sisters with a hose, so they have
more difficulty. Too much information, not enough relationship to
previous bases because there are none.
You have no frame of reference yet. When you start getting
into violent departure stalls, skidding-turn spins, accelerated
stalls, spirals and the like, the sounds and forces start to make the
textbook stuff real. Sure, Jeppesen isn't always right. I haven't
found a textbook yet that doesn't have some glaring errors, and the
one I use in the Systems class has at least four that I have to issue
corrections on in the syllabus. And the writers of texts have found
that they don't sell the books that go into thousands of pages of
detail; the students have neither the inclination for it nor the time.
They have careers in other fields. So the textbook authors keep it
really simple in the hope that the student will be piqued enough to
dig further on his own. Most don't.
You an argue this as long as you want, like Mx, but it's all
book-learnin' and when the ground starts to come up at you real quick
it won't matter one bit. You WILL want to understand AOA and where you
went wrong.

Dan
Flight Instructor
Aircraft Maintenance Engineer


  #3  
Old October 4th 07, 08:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Backwash Causes Lift?

On Oct 4, 1:51 pm, wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:47 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I could probably explain VOR to a 10-year-old, without ever mentioning
things like counters, angular frequency, anisotropic radiation,
frequency bands, sub-carriers, convolution, etc....and my explanation
would still be correct.


I doubt it. The ten-year-old, and most flight students,
have absolutely no frame of reference to understand any of this in any
depth. I teach a College course on Aircraft Systems, and I have to
keep things really simple so they can grasp a few basics. If you are
an electrical engineer, and I've had a few in my classes, we can get
more into the workings of the VOR, but we leave all the others yawning
and wondering if this is going to be on the final exam.
When we come to hydraulics, we talk about pressure, volume
and area and relate that to what we experience as kids playing with a
garden hose. The same analogy can be used to a limited extent when
explaining Ohm's Law. But now I encounter kids who grew up in
highrises and never squirted their sisters with a hose, so they have
more difficulty. Too much information, not enough relationship to
previous bases because there are none.
You have no frame of reference yet. When you start getting
into violent departure stalls, skidding-turn spins, accelerated
stalls, spirals and the like, the sounds and forces start to make the
textbook stuff real. Sure, Jeppesen isn't always right. I haven't
found a textbook yet that doesn't have some glaring errors, and the
one I use in the Systems class has at least four that I have to issue
corrections on in the syllabus. And the writers of texts have found
that they don't sell the books that go into thousands of pages of
detail; the students have neither the inclination for it nor the time.
They have careers in other fields. So the textbook authors keep it
really simple in the hope that the student will be piqued enough to
dig further on his own. Most don't.
You an argue this as long as you want, like Mx, but it's all
book-learnin' and when the ground starts to come up at you real quick
it won't matter one bit. You WILL want to understand AOA and where you
went wrong.


I agree with everything you wrote except this last part and the part
about the 10-year-old. I have teaching experience myself in
electrical engineering, and mathematics, computer science, ...all, non-
trivial. I have found that very many complex things can be taught to
people while still remaining honest. Certainly there might not be
utlization of Maxwell's equations or partial-differential equations,
or red-black trees, but insight can be instilled that will give the
student an understanding that is both intutive and accurate. As the
student matures, the depth of understanding might increase, but it can
at least remain true. Schools try hard to do this, but since there
are so many students in class at once, each with different proclivity
to learn, the curriculum, by necessity, quickly suffers from rote
drill, as you hinted at. I remember being introduced to notion of
sqare-root of negative number in elementrary school. Then middle
school. Then again in high school. I never really understod them in
middle school because the teachers would not allow that. All the
students were in monkey mode. I also remember when I first did long
division, I and wanted to move on to what was next, and the teachers
would not allow it. I was forced to do hundreds of long-division
problems, one after the other, like a pencil monkey, even though it
was quite apparent what was going on. It was their way of keeping me
occupied.

This was OK for square-root of -1.

I do not think it is OK for flying. I want theory and the practice,
because with flying, I think it is more relevant. I don't want to be
in the cockpit flying around my friends and their children harboring
the secret that regarded the KT as an impediment to me having some fun
yankin' and bankin'. It's irresponsible. And if there is a crash due
to pilot error because of shallow understanding...

....that's simply unacceptable in my book, especially when I have
passengers.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

  #4  
Old October 5th 07, 06:10 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Backwash Causes Lift?

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 4, 1:51 pm, wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:47 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I could probably explain VOR to a 10-year-old, without ever

mentioning
things like counters, angular frequency, anisotropic radiation,
frequency bands, sub-carriers, convolution, etc....and my

explanation
would still be correct.


I doubt it. The ten-year-old, and most flight students,
have absolutely no frame of reference to understand any of this in

any
depth. I teach a College course on Aircraft Systems, and I have to
keep things really simple so they can grasp a few basics. If you are
an electrical engineer, and I've had a few in my classes, we can get
more into the workings of the VOR, but we leave all the others

yawning
and wondering if this is going to be on the final exam.
When we come to hydraulics, we talk about pressure, volume
and area and relate that to what we experience as kids playing with a
garden hose. The same analogy can be used to a limited extent when
explaining Ohm's Law. But now I encounter kids who grew up in
highrises and never squirted their sisters with a hose, so they have
more difficulty. Too much information, not enough relationship to
previous bases because there are none.
You have no frame of reference yet. When you start

getting
into violent departure stalls, skidding-turn spins, accelerated
stalls, spirals and the like, the sounds and forces start to make the
textbook stuff real. Sure, Jeppesen isn't always right. I haven't
found a textbook yet that doesn't have some glaring errors, and the
one I use in the Systems class has at least four that I have to issue
corrections on in the syllabus. And the writers of texts have found
that they don't sell the books that go into thousands of pages of
detail; the students have neither the inclination for it nor the

time.
They have careers in other fields. So the textbook authors keep it
really simple in the hope that the student will be piqued enough to
dig further on his own. Most don't.
You an argue this as long as you want, like Mx, but it's

all
book-learnin' and when the ground starts to come up at you real quick
it won't matter one bit. You WILL want to understand AOA and where

you
went wrong.


I agree with everything you wrote except this last part and the part
about the 10-year-old. I have teaching experience myself in
electrical engineering, and mathematics, computer science, ...all,

non-
trivial.




Yeah, show all that to yor win, dip****.



rash due
to pilot error because of shallow understanding...

...that's simply unacceptable in my book, especially when I have
passengers.



Never going to happen, Anthony


Bertie
 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 PM.


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