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

Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 22nd 08, 04:15 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,892
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Dudley Henriques wrote:

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!


Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
into a 10 second sound bite.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.
  #2  
Old May 22nd 08, 04:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,546
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:

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!


Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
into a 10 second sound bite.


This is exactly correct.

Lift explanation in it's true form is an extremely complicated issue.
Attempts to explain it in one simple sentence is usually very confusing
to a new student pilot.
The closest thing to a one sentence explanation I have seen is that lift
is created by turning an airflow.
Of course this covers Newton and leaves Bernoulli out there to be
discovered later on as one finally comes to realize that you can't turn
the airflow without having the pressure difference :-)

The best way to handle the lift question is to openly discuss both
Newton and Bernoulli and how they interact to create each other while
creating what we call lift.

--
Dudley Henriques
  #3  
Old May 22nd 08, 04:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
BDS[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 149
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

Lift explanation in it's true form is an extremely complicated issue.
Attempts to explain it in one simple sentence is usually very confusing
to a new student pilot.
The closest thing to a one sentence explanation I have seen is that lift
is created by turning an airflow.
Of course this covers Newton and leaves Bernoulli out there to be
discovered later on as one finally comes to realize that you can't turn
the airflow without having the pressure difference :-)


I hadn't looked into this much in recent years and the article rekindled
some interest. I hadn't even heard of the "equal transit theory" before you
mentioned it, but a short search brought up a detailed explanation of
exactly what you are talking about, and turning the airflow is ultimately
what it's all about for both Bernoulli and Newton.

BDS


  #4  
Old May 22nd 08, 05:12 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Dudley Henriques[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,546
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

BDS wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote
Lift explanation in it's true form is an extremely complicated issue.
Attempts to explain it in one simple sentence is usually very confusing
to a new student pilot.
The closest thing to a one sentence explanation I have seen is that lift
is created by turning an airflow.
Of course this covers Newton and leaves Bernoulli out there to be
discovered later on as one finally comes to realize that you can't turn
the airflow without having the pressure difference :-)


I hadn't looked into this much in recent years and the article rekindled
some interest. I hadn't even heard of the "equal transit theory" before you
mentioned it, but a short search brought up a detailed explanation of
exactly what you are talking about, and turning the airflow is ultimately
what it's all about for both Bernoulli and Newton.

BDS



It's a complicated issue that many in aviation accidentally make even
more complicated by delving too deeply into their physics books instead
of learning to shave with Occam's Razor :-))

--
Dudley Henriques
  #5  
Old May 22nd 08, 06:35 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 22, 10:15 am, wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Snipped


Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
into a 10 second sound bite.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Careful there; next you'll be telling us that we shouldn't nationalize
the oil companies, tax all profits and generally use a Marxist
economic system in an effort to 'simplify' our complex energy issues.

  #7  
Old May 23rd 08, 04:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 22, 2:35 pm, wrote:
wrote:
On May 22, 10:15 am, wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
Snipped


Most people seem to want simple, one size fits all answers to
everything and forget that most real life things, e.g. what causes
lift and what causes cancer, are complex and can't be boiled down
into a 10 second sound bite.


--
Jim Pennino


Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Careful there; next you'll be telling us that we shouldn't nationalize
the oil companies, tax all profits and generally use a Marxist
economic system in an effort to 'simplify' our complex energy issues.


Or add ethenol to gasoline to free use from oil imports.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.


Then we'll have to nationalize farming to keep corn prices down.

While we're at it we should make pi = 3.000000.


  #8  
Old May 22nd 08, 06:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Jim Logajan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,958
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

"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.
  #9  
Old May 22nd 08, 07:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,169
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

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.
  #10  
Old May 23rd 08, 12:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Some Other Guy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

BDS wrote:
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 first experienced this as a kid, sticking my hand out the car window with
the thumb as a leading edge, forming a crude airfoil.

When at the right shape and angle of attack, the lift is amazingly strong.
I always found it remarkable that when my hand was completely
perpendicular to the wind, the force didn't seem as strong.

Definitely a visceral lesson in lifting versus stalling.

 




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
Apology re mxsmanic terry Piloting 96 February 16th 08 05:17 PM
I saw Mxsmanic on TV Clear Prop Piloting 8 February 14th 07 01:18 AM
Mxsmanic gwengler Piloting 30 January 11th 07 03:42 AM
Getting rid of MXSMANIC [email protected] Piloting 33 December 8th 06 11:26 PM
Feeling aircraft sensations Ramapriya Piloting 17 January 12th 06 10:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 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.