Mxsmanic , IFR sensations, and some other stuff

Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:00:25 -0700 (PDT), More_Flaps
wrote:

On May 21, 12:56 am, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

you need to learn about somatogravic thresholds, the effect of alcohol
on the viscosity of the fluids of the inner ear
How much alcohol are we talking about here? Dies the viscosity of the
endolymph actually change?

Cheers

yes. you can be quite sober and still have the viscosity reduction
active in your ears some 48 hours or more later.
never, never, never drink alcohol in the week before flying IFR.

I'm wondering why the airlines, FAA and the
military don't seem to be particularly
concerned about this....

Gezellig was thinking very hard :
On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:00:11 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2008 23:46:31 -0400, Gezellig
wrote:


Being primarily creatures earthbound (land underfoot), where feelings
are our primary sources of instrument accuracy (speed in a car, wind in
our hair), its kewl to trust those sensory inputs. A lot of
day-in/day-out experiences too.


so totally incompetent a viewpoint that you are stunning.

I see. Because I interact in a thread, and am newer at piloting than
you, you get to act like an asshole and treat me with high disdain. This
embellishes your ego, strikes you in a positive way, makes your life
happy as a clam.

I, because of my age and newness, am incompetent. I must wait until I am
as bright as you, hunt Usenet like a jaguar and pounce on newbies,
again, emulating you and acting like an asshole.

I wasn't aware of the privileges of experience. I can hardly wait. to
become the next BunnyIP, Bendover or StealthSockPuppet pilot.

In the meantime, let me practice.

Outside of piloting data, is there anything except rocks and pebbles in
your cranium? To elaborate, my suggestion is that before posting you
should give your head a shake to determine if there is anything inside
and to consider whether you really wished to make the fact public.

Gee, I feel like IFRed already.

wow LOL

You go G.

lol

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 Wed, 21 May 2008 19:56:35 +0200, 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.

downwash occurs after the wing has passed. how does it transmit its
effect to the wing? magnetism?

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.


If that were the case a 747 would have to be producing over 250,000
pounds of force straight down. Why then am I not crushed when a 747
flies over me?

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

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect.

I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.

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!

According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
edge after the air flowing under the wing.

BDS

BDS wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote
Any article that "discounts Bernoulli" as having anything to do with
lift is incorrect.

I would have thought so too but I tend to put a fair amount of weight on
what Garrison says when it comes to this sort of thing.

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!

According to the article where Bernoulli falls apart is in the assumption
that the air flowing over the top of the wing arrives at the trailing edge
at the same time that the air flowing under the wing does, and since it has
further to travel it must be going faster thereby lowering the pressure
above the wing. The article states that in fact, this is exactly what does
not happen - the air flowing over the wing actually arrives at the trailing
edge after the air flowing under the wing.

BDS


I think I see where this article has gone wrong.

What Garrison is talking about is the equal transit theory, which is
indeed incorrect, but it's CRITICAL that a pilot reading this completely
understand that it isn't Bernoulli that is incorrect, but rather the
equal transit theory that is incorrect. The equal transit theory is
simply a totally incorrect INTERPRETATION of Bernoulli that has been
passed around for eons by CFI's, pilots, and indeed textbooks as well.

It's quite common for someone writing an article on lift to try and make
a distinction that Bernoulli is incorrect by referencing the incorrect
interpretations that have been out here in the community for many years.
Just remember; the incorrect interpretations that misrepresent Bernoulli
are in fact misrepresentations of Bernoulli, NOT proof in any way
whatsoever that Bernoulli's CORRECT theory is wrong.





--
Dudley Henriques

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.