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

Airplane Pilot's As Physicists



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 10th 07, 06:38 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson wrote:
Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.


(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.


(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.


Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

R.G. Vickson


It doesn't have to be either-or. Both Bernoulli and angle of attack
are at work in generating lift. Both the top and bottom surfaces of
the wing contribute. The fact that aerobatic planes can be flown
upside down shows that if you take a normal airfoil and fly it upside
down at the right angle of attack, it will still generate lift. But
unless it has a symmetric airfoil, it will be a lot less efficient
when it is operated upside down. This is because the when it is
upside down, the top surface of the wing is flat rather than curved,
and hence you lose a lot of the lift which this surface generates when
it is rightside up. This is why many aerobatic planes have symmetric
airfoils. A symmetric airfoil works well upside down because it still
has a curved surface on top to help generate lift.

  #2  
Old October 10th 07, 06:48 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Phil wrote in news:1192037923.115677.275220
@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson wrote:
Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.


(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.


(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.


Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

R.G. Vickson


It doesn't have to be either-or. Both Bernoulli and angle of attack
are at work in generating lift.



That's right, but what's more is that Bernoulli is strengthened by angle of
attack and it's that which provides most of the increase n lift at higher
angles.
Even with a flat bottom wing being flown inverted, most of the lift is
still coming from Bernoulli.



Bertie
  #3  
Old October 28th 07, 04:39 AM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Dave[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 186
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

If you will be satisfied with empirical evidence, stick your hand out
the window of the car while going 50-60 MPH. Experiment with different
angles of attack. You will no doubt experience lift when your hand has
a positive angle of attack. Poor man's wind tunnel - but illustrates
that just about anything relatively flat will fly
given enough speed and a positive angle of attack.

David Johnson

  #4  
Old October 28th 07, 11:29 AM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
jon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

On 28 Okt, 05:39, Dave wrote:
If you will be satisfied with empirical evidence, stick your hand out
the window of the car while going 50-60 MPH. Experiment with different
angles of attack. You will no doubt experienceliftwhen your hand has
a positive angle of attack. Poor man's wind tunnel - but illustrates
that just about anything relatively flat will fly
given enough speed and a positive angle of attack.

David Johnson


The problem is probably, that Bertie does have a car, so the simple
experiment is not possible for him.

He might find a bus, where he can open the window and try.

The risk is that he does not understand the physical effects on his
hand.

Since he does not understand how to see the vertical airflow from the
wings at AOA in this picture, he has a big problem:

http://www.efluids.com/efluids/galle...s/Morris_4.jsp



  #5  
Old October 28th 07, 12:20 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

jon wrote in news:1193570966.513645.238920
@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

On 28 Okt, 05:39, Dave wrote:
If you will be satisfied with empirical evidence, stick your hand out
the window of the car while going 50-60 MPH. Experiment with

different
angles of attack. You will no doubt experienceliftwhen your hand has
a positive angle of attack. Poor man's wind tunnel - but illustrates
that just about anything relatively flat will fly
given enough speed and a positive angle of attack.

David Johnson


The problem is probably, that Bertie does have a car, so the simple
experiment is not possible for him.


Yep, I do have a car. an airplane too.

He might find a bus, where he can open the window and try.

The risk is that he does not understand the physical effects on his
hand.

Since he does not understand how to see the vertical airflow from the
wings at AOA in this picture, he has a big problem:

http://www.efluids.com/efluids/galle...s/Morris_3.jsp

Look again, fjukkwit.



You have yet to explain th elow on top of the wing..



Bertie




  #6  
Old October 29th 07, 03:05 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Gatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists


"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...
If you will be satisfied with empirical evidence, stick your hand out
the window of the car while going 50-60 MPH. Experiment with different
angles of attack. You will no doubt experience lift when your hand has
a positive angle of attack. Poor man's wind tunnel - but illustrates
that just about anything relatively flat will fly
given enough speed and a positive angle of attack.


That's why wings have camber. 'Cause they don't need 'em.

Bertie's a shill for the Alcoa Camber Conspiracy. ...they've sold more
metal by convincing every successful aircraft designer and manufacturer in
the history of aviation that upper camber is necessary, when all they need
are two simple deflection plates.

Fortunately, the wizards at sci.physics have busted the conspiracy and we
all see now how the designers of all aircraft were grievously wrong.

-c


  #7  
Old October 30th 07, 01:40 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,851
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

"Gatt" wrote in
:


"Dave" wrote in message
ups.com...
If you will be satisfied with empirical evidence, stick your hand out
the window of the car while going 50-60 MPH. Experiment with
different angles of attack. You will no doubt experience lift when
your hand has a positive angle of attack. Poor man's wind tunnel -
but illustrates that just about anything relatively flat will fly
given enough speed and a positive angle of attack.


That's why wings have camber. 'Cause they don't need 'em.

Bertie's a shill for the Alcoa Camber Conspiracy. ...they've sold
more metal by convincing every successful aircraft designer and
manufacturer in the history of aviation that upper camber is
necessary, when all they need are two simple deflection plates.



Yeah, that's it. Also, I get good money from the guys who deice aircraft
upper surfaces..

Fortunately, the wizards at sci.physics have busted the conspiracy and
we all see now how the designers of all aircraft were grievously
wrong.



It had to end for me sometime. ;(

Well, I had a good run..



Bertie
  #8  
Old October 9th 07, 09:51 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside of
the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the wing,
including both top underside and bottom overside, and thereby
nullifying any effect it would have on the wing.


You are trying to convince one person - there is no plural.

Just for the record, I pointed the OP at the following NASA web pages and
after first thanking me, has decided NASA's explanation is somehow suspect:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/lift1.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.html
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html

Note follow-ups set to sci.physics only.
  #9  
Old October 9th 07, 10:29 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Gatt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 179
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists


"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ps.com...

I am an electrical engineer with experience in analag


That would be "analog" there, wouldn't it, engineer? Now, think about how
"attention to detail" applies to math.

I count 8-9 people in the group who are utterly convinced that I am inept
at physics, mathematics, etc.


Nobody's saying you're inept at anything; just arrogant about your
assumptions, and wrong, and quite possibly dishonest about your identity.

Taking on the science of NASA, for example, challenges the kind of people
who put men on the moon, shuttle aircraft into space and back, and robots on
Mars. What I'm saying is, they've proven their ability to do math and
physics. You're talking about two pieces of paper on a table or whatever,
admitting you don't fully understand aerodynamics, and then challenging the
kind of people who did research using SR-71 blackbirds and spacecraft.

....in a pilots' forum. What in hell kind of response did you possibly
expect?

-c


  #10  
Old October 9th 07, 10:41 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.aviation.piloting
Le Chaud Lapin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

On Oct 9, 4:29 pm, "Gatt" wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in glegroups.com...


Taking on the science of NASA, for example, challenges the kind of people
who put men on the moon, shuttle aircraft into space and back, and robots on
Mars. What I'm saying is, they've proven their ability to do math and
physics. You're talking about two pieces of paper on a table or whatever,
admitting you don't fully understand aerodynamics, and then challenging the
kind of people who did research using SR-71 blackbirds and spacecraft.


My initial assertion was that the experts were not in agreement about
causes lift. Many posters said that I was wrong, that there was total
agreement, that I was mistaken.

...in a pilots' forum. What in hell kind of response did you possibly
expect?


A little bit more focus on the physics, a loss less focus on the
poster.

And with regard to the demonstration I presented in my original post,
I was expecting at least one pilot to give a correct explanation why
the lower paper is lifted off the ground, and not only has anyone
given a correct explanation, but no one has given any explanation at
all.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

 




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
Pilot's Assistant V1.6.7 released AirToob Simulators 2 July 7th 07 10:43 AM
A GA pilot's worst nightmare? Kingfish Piloting 49 February 1st 07 02:51 PM
Pilot's Political Orientation Chicken Bone Piloting 533 June 29th 04 12:47 AM
Update on pilot's condition? Stewart Kissel Soaring 11 April 13th 04 09:25 PM
Pilot's Funeral/Memorial TEW Piloting 6 March 17th 04 03:12 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 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.