Backwash Causes Lift?

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:53 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
You appear to have the essential concept right. But aerodynamicists
call it "turning" the flow, which is different from what they call
"downwash." Here's NASA's explanations:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/lift1.html

And if you click on "turning" you can see this explanation of the
term (and hopefully why "turning" was chosen):

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.html

And this is what aerodynamicists call "downwash" :

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html

I wanted to thank you again for these NASA links. IThe more I read,
the more it becomes clear that is *not* universal concensus on the
basic mechanisms of flight, not even among experts.

I'm sorry but IMHO you continue to come to the same untenable conclusion.
There is consensus among the experts. I keep giving the NASA links not
because they are in any way unique, but because it is cheaper than giving
you a list of more books on the subject that you'll never purchase and
read. They seem ideal for this particular discussion and your specific
need.

There are simplified, and therefore inaccurate, statements about
electromagnetics in books aimed at general audiences. Yet would you say
that because of these statements there is no universal consensus about
electromagnetics?

On Oct 7, 7:38 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
I'm sorry but IMHO you continue to come to the same untenable conclusion.
There is consensus among the experts. I keep giving the NASA links not
because they are in any way unique, but because it is cheaper than giving
you a list of more books on the subject that you'll never purchase and
read. They seem ideal for this particular discussion and your specific
need.

From the NASA link you posted earlier:

"There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many
of the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some
textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students."

That sounds to me like there are a lot of sources that are incorrect.
My Jeppesen book, for example, says the exact opposite of what NASA is
saying. Let's see...whom should I believe, the NASA version or one of
the leaders in flight education?

There are simplified, and therefore inaccurate, statements about
electromagnetics in books aimed at general audiences. Yet would you say
that because of these statements there is no universal consensus about
electromagnetics?-

Simplification does not necessarily make something in accurate. I
have studied electronics most of my life to some degree. With the
exception of maybe 5-10 incidents on esoteric, I do not recall
reading anything that is inaccurate, and in one of the cases, it was
simply a gross error made by author of book, not fundamental
difference of opinion of the underlying physics.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

NASA is not simplifying, digesting, or even offering an alternate
model that is mathematically and functionally equivalent from abstract
point of view. They are saying that the other theories are simply
wrong. That they think that the theories are wrong should be evident
from the last word in the URL above.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

NASA is not simplifying, digesting, or even offering an alternate
model that is mathematically and functionally equivalent from abstract
point of view. They are saying that the other theories are simply
wrong. That they think that the theories are wrong should be evident
from the last word in the URL above.

Look also at the "K-12" in the URL.