Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On Tue, 20 May 2008 13:36:51 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Stealth Pilot wrote in
:

On Mon, 19 May 2008 04:29:11 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

A Lieberman writes:



The danger in instrument flight is that all sorts of things are felt,
but none of them is reliable. It is called instrument flight because
the pilot ignores things felt and flies exclusively by the
instruments.



The feeling in your rear end is no more reliable than the feeling from
your inner ear.

It sounds like your Friday incident has given you a false sense of
security.

during the history of scientific endeavour there have been many
individuals who have arrived at the correct answers for the wrong
reasons.

anthony you are perpetually one of those people.

while you may occasionally say the correct things a careful read of
your posts has always revealed the fact that you have inherently an
incompetent understanding of what you write about.

Stealth Pilot



Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
is straight out of alice in wonderland.

Bertie

absolutely true bertie.
so you, I and others like us take on the duty of correcting his posts,
not ever in the hope of educating him but to warn others learning into
aviation that he is wrong.
personally I think we'd all be better off if we flew to paris and shot
the *******.
Stealth Pilot

On May 21, 4:22 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
is straight out of alice in wonderland.

Bertie

absolutely true bertie.
so you, I and others like us take on the duty of correcting his posts,
not ever in the hope of educating him but to warn others learning into
aviation that he is wrong.
personally I think we'd all be better off if we flew to paris and shot
the *******.
Stealth Pilot

So you mean it doesn't work because the lift fairies flap their wings
and push up on the underside of the aircraft?

Are you telling me the sky sucks????

I feel so cheap and used.

On Wed, 21 May 2008 04:52:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On May 21, 4:22 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

Difference is, he doesn;t arrive at the answer, he starts there. Then he
works his way back the Anthony land until he begins with a premise that
is straight out of alice in wonderland.

Bertie

absolutely true bertie.
so you, I and others like us take on the duty of correcting his posts,
not ever in the hope of educating him but to warn others learning into
aviation that he is wrong.
personally I think we'd all be better off if we flew to paris and shot
the *******.
Stealth Pilot

So you mean it doesn't work because the lift fairies flap their wings
and push up on the underside of the aircraft?

Are you telling me the sky sucks????

I feel so cheap and used.

look you walked in late to your class and missed the introduction.
stop bothering the aeroplane people and get back into the helicopter
classes. :-)

aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces. these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing and its relative speed with the
surrounding air. bernouli's theorem, newtonian mechanics etc are
theroretical models which can be used to calculate the effects of
varying various components at play in causing the pressure
differences.

simple enough.

Stealth Pilot

Stealth Pilot writes:

aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces.

Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing ...

The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Stealth Pilot writes:

aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces.

Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that
engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

So near, and yet so far...

... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing ...

The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It
can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

God! Grant me strength!

Peter

On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:
Stealth Pilot writes:
aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces.

Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing ...

The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

So you're saying the sky does suck after all?

What about rocket propulsion in a vacuum? How does that work?

On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Stealth Pilot writes:
aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces.

Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that
engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing ...

The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It
can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
talks about lift theory.

I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the lift
force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of attack than
would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it through the air
perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.

I agree that a flat wing will produce lift at a positive AOA even without an
airfoil shape - it just won't be as efficient as it would otherwise be if it
were shaped like an airfoil, and talk about pitch divergent...

Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having anything
to do with why a wing produces lift.

BDS

BDS wrote:
On May 21, 12:56 pm, Mxsmanic wrote:

Stealth Pilot writes:
aeroplanes fly because of lift generated by pressure differences on
the wing surfaces.
Airplanes fly because the wings divert the air through which they pass
downwards, creating a downwash and exerting a force in doing so that
engenders
an opposite force that is lift.

... these pressure differences are caused by the shape
of the aerofoil of the wing ...
The air is diverted because the wing has a positve angle of attack. It
can be
perfectly flat and it will still generate lift.

There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison that
talks about lift theory.

I thought that one of the most interesting points he made was that the lift
force generated by an airfoil is greater at the optimum angle of attack than
would be the force imparted to it if you were to move it through the air
perpendicular to the air flow at the same speed.

I agree that a flat wing will produce lift at a positive AOA even without an
airfoil shape - it just won't be as efficient as it would otherwise be if it
were shaped like an airfoil, and talk about pitch divergent...

Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having anything
to do with why a wing produces lift.

BDS


Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect. I just can't understand why there is so much trouble
in the pilot community understanding that Newton and Bernoulli do NOT
conflict in any way whatsoever, and that each explanation is correct in
itself. Newton AND Bernoulli are BOTH present simultaneously on th wing
at any moment lift is being created. EACH creates the other and EACH is
a complete explanation for how lift is created.

You can use either Newton or Bernoulli to explain lift, but the correct
way to explain it is to explain how both are correct.
In other words, anytime you have lift being created you have a Newton
explanation AND a Bernoulli explanation occurring at the SAME TIME!



--
Dudley Henriques

"BDS" wrote:
There is an interesting article in Flying magazine by Peter Garrison
that talks about lift theory.

[...]

Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having
anything to do with why a wing produces lift.

The Bernoulli equations aren't wrong. It is a simply a case that they apply
ONLY to a set of streamlines. Once the streamlines are determined, the
Bernoulli equation should be able to tell you the lift of an airfoil.
Explanations that point to Bernoulli and then fail to discuss how and
whence the streamlines are determined for a problem are bound to lead to
confusion and misunderstanding.

BDS writes:

I agree that a flat wing will produce lift at a positive AOA even without an
airfoil shape - it just won't be as efficient as it would otherwise be if it
were shaped like an airfoil, and talk about pitch divergent...

Non-flat airfoil shapes help to increase the range of usable AOAs and reduce
drag, but a positive AOA is still required to generate lift.

Oh yeah, the article also pretty much discounts Bernoulli as having anything
to do with why a wing produces lift.

It is a common misconception.