Isn't lift part of drag?

es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
page, http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...ortune/16.html,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design. Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design
of the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make
the wing more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip
of the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
page,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...ortune/16.html,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the
wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the wing
more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip of
the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately expressed by
it's printed weight in pounds?

On Apr 26, 7:58*am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On one
page,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...y.boeing_dream...,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. *Did I
misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Apr 26, 7:58*am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. *On
on
e
page,

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...ry.boeing_drea
m...
,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
drag. *Did I misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
desig
n.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of
the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and
make the win
g
more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when
doing an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply
present the tip o
f
the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a
distinct difference between an article on wing design written for
Fortune as opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately
expressed by it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -


Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser?

He does, actually. And nothing you can say to him will convince him
otherwise. It's the very essence of what it is to be a k00k.

Bertie

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
...
On Apr 26, 7:58 am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On one
page,
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...y.boeing_dream...,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on the
wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If this
is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag. Did I
misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the
wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the
wing
more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip
of
the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately expressed by
it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -


Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.

Cheers

No ****!!!!! What did I loose??

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
news

"WingFlaps" wrote in message
news:9aeabecd-d09c-46f0-9a11-7d1e15c45ff2
@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com.
.. On Apr 26, 7:58 am, "Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message

news




es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
one page,

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...ry.boeing_drea
m...,
they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well.
If this is the case then increasing lift should also increase
drag. Did I misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of
the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and
make the wing
more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when
doing an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply
present the tip of
the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a
distinct difference between an article on wing design written for
Fortune as opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
heard.

Do you think the value of any writing can be most accurately
expressed by it's printed weight in pounds?- Hide quoted text -


Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.

Cheers

No ****!!!!! What did I loose??


Marbles would be my guess.


Bertie

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.

Cheers

No ****!!!!! What did I loose??


Marbles would be my guess.


Bertie

when I read maxwell's post my immediate thought was "marbles"

ahhh bertie. rotfl lmao
Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:



Do you think you are achieving anything more than exposing yourself as
a rather tedious loser? Give it up man.

Cheers

No ****!!!!! What did I loose??


Marbles would be my guess.


Bertie

when I read maxwell's post my immediate thought was "marbles"

ahhh bertie. rotfl lmao

They are pretty funny. The "give him a taste of his own medicine" game is a
pretty common tactic k00ks try and use on me. never seems to work for them
for some reason.


Bertie

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in
:


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
news
es330td wrote:
Fortune magazine online has a photo essay about their new 787. On
one page,

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/...y.boeing_dream
liner.fortune/16.html, they make this statement:

The Dreamliner's wingspan is 197 feet, or about 25% longer than a
similar-sized plane, which increases lift and reduces drag.

I thought that lift, in addition to causing a net upward force on
the wing, also contributes to the drag force on the wing as well. If
this is the case then increasing lift should also increase drag.
Did I misunderstand?

The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing
design. Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the
design of the wing could easily change the lift and drag coefficients
and make the wing more efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing
an article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the
tip of the iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as
opposed to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)


--
Dudley Henriques

I think you can say more and explain less than anyone I have ever
heard.

That's just because you're too dim to undestand the instructions on how
to open up your pop tarts.


Bertie

listen to dudley dooright he is a senior

Dudley Henriques formulated the question :
The lift and drag curves for any given wing are a function of wing design.
Although induced drag is a product of lift creation, the design of the wing
could easily change the lift and drag coefficients and make the wing more
efficient.
These are complicated inter-relationships, and sometimes, when doing an
article in a non technical venue, a writer will simply present the tip of the
iceberg.
This isn't necessarily wrong but you will probably notice a distinct
difference between an article on wing design written for Fortune as opposed
to one written for Aviation Weekly :-)