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 23rd 08, 01:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 22, 5:36 pm, Some Other Guy wrote:
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.


I have a copy of that article here. Very, very good. The
coefficient of lift, as he described it, was a ratio related to the
lift generated by a unit area of wing compared to the flat-plate drag
created by the same unit area perpendicular to the airflow. The Wright
brothers did this in their wind tunnel, so they were able to develop
efficient airfoils. A common airfoil (NACA 23012, IIRC) has a max lift
coefficient of 1.8 , which means that it generates 1.8 times the lift
as the drag of the perpendicular surface of the same area.
He made things really clear when he pointed out that this is why
boats and ships no longer use paddlewheels. The wheel will produce
forward thrust equivalent to the power required to force the paddle
back through the water, while the propeller (they call it a "screw")
will produce much more forward thrust for the same torque required by
the paddlewheel.
So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.
Bernoulli is right, and so is Newton. There's a pressure
difference because of the difference in airspeeds between top and
bottom, and there's a movement of air downward to which there's an
upward reaction. The equal-transit time theory is bogus, since the
airfoil is much more efficient than that theory would imply. See this
page:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
And, again, Mxmanic has declared, for about the 12th time, that
positive AOA is necessary for lift. If this was so, and it isn't, and
he has been shown many times that it isn't, then airfoils like the
Clark Y wouldn't generate lift at AOAs as low as -4 degrees. That's
negative 4 degrees, airfoil chord pointing downward. A graph can be
found a third of the way down this page: http://lpmpjogja.diknas.go.id/kc/a/air/airplane.htm
That page also deals properly with both Newton and Bernoulli.

Dan


  #2  
Old May 23rd 08, 10:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
More_Flaps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 217
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 23, 12:46*pm, wrote:

* * * So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.


Nonsense, the derivation is from a blade or leaf.

Cheers
  #3  
Old May 23rd 08, 03:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Tina
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 500
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Foiled again!


On May 23, 5:56 am, More_Flaps wrote:
On May 23, 12:46 pm, wrote:

So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.


Nonsense, the derivation is from a blade or leaf.

Cheers


  #4  
Old May 23rd 08, 02:52 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,969
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

wrote in
:

On May 22, 5:36 pm, Some Other Guy wrote:
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.


I have a copy of that article here. Very, very good. The
coefficient of lift, as he described it, was a ratio related to the
lift generated by a unit area of wing compared to the flat-plate drag
created by the same unit area perpendicular to the airflow. The Wright
brothers did this in their wind tunnel, so they were able to develop
efficient airfoils. A common airfoil (NACA 23012, IIRC) has a max lift
coefficient of 1.8 , which means that it generates 1.8 times the lift
as the drag of the perpendicular surface of the same area.
He made things really clear when he pointed out that this is why
boats and ships no longer use paddlewheels. The wheel will produce
forward thrust equivalent to the power required to force the paddle
back through the water, while the propeller (they call it a "screw")
will produce much more forward thrust for the same torque required by
the paddlewheel.
So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.



Actually it's a synonym for blade.

Bernoulli is right, and so is Newton. There's a pressure
difference because of the difference in airspeeds between top and
bottom, and there's a movement of air downward to which there's an
upward reaction. The equal-transit time theory is bogus, since the
airfoil is much more efficient than that theory would imply. See this
page:
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html
And, again, Mxmanic has declared, for about the 12th time, that
positive AOA is necessary for lift. If this was so, and it isn't, and
he has been shown many times that it isn't, then airfoils like the
Clark Y wouldn't generate lift at AOAs as low as -4 degrees. That's
negative 4 degrees, airfoil chord pointing downward. A graph can be
found a third of the way down this page:
http://lpmpjogja.diknas.go.id/kc/a/air/airplane.htm
That page also deals properly with both Newton and Bernoulli.


Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as being
seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create lift
and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
rigid!


Bertie
  #5  
Old May 23rd 08, 03:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as being
seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create lift
and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
rigid!


Bertie


Where did you read that dumb ass, ya got a link?


  #6  
Old May 23rd 08, 04:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting,alt.usenet.kooks
Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,735
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

"Maxwell" luv2^fly99@cox.^net wrote in news:aPAZj.2623$7k1.2040
@newsfe24.lga:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as

being
seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create

lift
and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
rigid!


Bertie


Where did you read that dumb ass, ya got a link?



Nope, I know it.



Bertie



  #7  
Old May 23rd 08, 03:59 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,130
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote i
So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.



Actually it's a synonym for blade.



Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Foil:
1 obsolete : trample
2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat always able to foil
her enemies b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot)
synonyms: see frustrate.

So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate."

Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary's
definitions:

foil (SWORD) gatiful
noun [C]
a thin light sword used in the sport of fencing


Dan
  #8  
Old May 23rd 08, 04:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Bertie the Bunyip[_24_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,969
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

wrote in news:380a3b72-e9e1-4b9f-86a5-
:

On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
wrote i
So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.



Actually it's a synonym for blade.



Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Foil:
1 obsolete : trample
2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat always able to foil
her enemies b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot)
synonyms: see frustrate.

So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate."

Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary's



That definition isn't relevant to this application, though.

definitions:

foil (SWORD) gatiful
noun [C]
a thin light sword used in the sport of fencing


More relevant, I suppose, but that definition is dervied from leaf or blade
as well. Foil as in thwart and foil as in blade have two completely
different origins, from waht I've been able to find...


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foil

So I'd say arfoil was not used becasue of it's ability to frustrate air (
engineers just don't think like that, they seek harmony) but more because
of their resemblance to a leaf or blade.
Actually, the one in that link that stands out is the architectural one.


Bertie
  #9  
Old May 23rd 08, 08:40 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
More_Flaps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 217
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

On May 24, 2:59*am, wrote:
On May 23, 7:52 am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

wrote i
* * * So it's a process to cause the air to exert a force in a
direction perpendicular to the airflow. It fools the air, if you like,
which is why we call it an "air foil." A foil is a device to deceive.


Actually it's a synonym for blade.


Not quite. From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

* * Foil:
1 obsolete : trample
2 a: to prevent from attaining an end : defeat always able to foil
her enemies b: to bring to naught : thwart (foiled the plot)
synonyms: see frustrate.

* * * So my "deceive" is much less accurate than "frustrate."

* * * *Your definiton matches one of the the Cambridge Dictionary's
definitions:


If you look a bit further in the MW disctionary you will see both
blade and keaf. But the key is to use a proper dictionary like the
OED. Your definition of foil is a verb, not a noun and an aerofoil or
air foil is a noun.

Cheers
  #10  
Old May 24th 08, 03:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.piloting
Maxwell[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,043
Default Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...

Good link but I think he kind of munged up the lift/drag thing as being
seperate entities, when they're inextricably linked. IOW you create lift
and drag is a by product. Not to say, BTW, that the correlation is
rigid!


Bertie


Posted by a forger.


 




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 12:17 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.