visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

It's true that the exhaust stream doesn't directly push on the inner
surface of a rocket engine.
Yeah, I like that aerospike design, the inside-out nozzle thing.

wing encounters some unmoving air, and the wing then throws the air
downwards, the velocity of the air has been changed, and the wing
will experience an upwards reaction force. At the same time, a
downwash- flow is created.
The wing, remember, is moving forward. "Downwards" is one component of
circulation.
Those weren't my words.

Yes, but Newton's laws tell us that there is a net force down on the
air. No net force down on the air, no net force up on the plane.

Force is change of momentum with respect to time.
BTW, the man whom you are contradicting
I don't think I contradicted anything there. Point it out.

is Scott Eberhardt, Bachelors & Masters Degrees in Aeronautics and
Astronautics from MIT, Ph.D. in the
same field from Stanford, research scientist at the NASA Ames Research
Center, faculty of the University of Washington.

But... ...really...

http://books.google.com/books?id=wmu...T5&dq=Scott+Eb
erhardt+aeronautics+and+astronautics&source=bl&ots =skN-zbDvej&sig=msQ-_Im
p6t-P62ehNWIld7RRYWs&hl=en&ei=GgEeS4f4AYzStgPB5eiCCg&s a=X&oi=book_result&
ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dow nwash&f=false

...what would *HE* know about it compared to you?
Likely a lot, and possibly nothing. I've encountered more than a couple
supposed "authorities" on specific subjects who don't know squat, but
they're masters at bull****ting their ways to lofty titles and
positions. Did you know that a gas cools as it's compressed? One layer
of the atmosphere is called the hemisphere? The stuff in grass that
makes it green is chloroform? A jet fighter cruising straight and level
at high speed experiences tremendous G forces due to the speed?

Sorry, but if I have to trust what you understand versus what he
understands, it isn't even a contest.

Of course.

And I'd like to see you show just *who* is supposed to have said those
things and whether they are actually educated in the appropriate fields.

Those examples are all from one of my A&P school's Master Instructors.
That's the title bestowed upon those at the top. Master Instructors
receive the highest pay, and are qualified to teach any and all of the
classes. He came from the U.S. Navy, where he was a maintenance instructor.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Alan Baker wrote:

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

It's true that the exhaust stream doesn't directly push on the inner
surface of a rocket engine.
Yeah, I like that aerospike design, the inside-out nozzle thing.

wing encounters some unmoving air, and the wing then throws the air
downwards, the velocity of the air has been changed, and the wing
will experience an upwards reaction force. At the same time, a
downwash- flow is created.
The wing, remember, is moving forward. "Downwards" is one component of
circulation.
Those weren't my words.

Yes, but Newton's laws tell us that there is a net force down on the
air. No net force down on the air, no net force up on the plane.

Force is change of momentum with respect to time.
BTW, the man whom you are contradicting
I don't think I contradicted anything there. Point it out.

is Scott Eberhardt, Bachelors & Masters Degrees in Aeronautics and
Astronautics from MIT, Ph.D. in the
same field from Stanford, research scientist at the NASA Ames Research
Center, faculty of the University of Washington.

But... ...really...

http://books.google.com/books?id=wmu...T5&dq=Scott+Eb
erhardt+aeronautics+and+astronautics&source=bl&ots =skN-zbDvej&sig=msQ-_Im
p6t-P62ehNWIld7RRYWs&hl=en&ei=GgEeS4f4AYzStgPB5eiCCg&s a=X&oi=book_result&
ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=dow nwash&f=false

...what would *HE* know about it compared to you?
Likely a lot, and possibly nothing. I've encountered more than a couple
supposed "authorities" on specific subjects who don't know squat, but
they're masters at bull****ting their ways to lofty titles and
positions. Did you know that a gas cools as it's compressed? One layer
of the atmosphere is called the hemisphere? The stuff in grass that
makes it green is chloroform? A jet fighter cruising straight and level
at high speed experiences tremendous G forces due to the speed?

Sorry, but if I have to trust what you understand versus what he
understands, it isn't even a contest.

Of course.

And I'd like to see you show just *who* is supposed to have said those
things and whether they are actually educated in the appropriate fields.

Those examples are all from one of my A&P school's Master Instructors.

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL

BTW, there is nothing exceptional about the answers to questions that
aren't even in his field being wrong.

That's the title bestowed upon those at the top. Master Instructors
receive the highest pay, and are qualified to teach any and all of the
classes. He came from the U.S. Navy, where he was a maintenance instructor.

Great. That doesn't mean he knows anything about physics and fluid
dynamics. Being a Ph.D. in Aeronautics, OTOH...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL

I didn't compare him to anyone.

BTW, there is nothing exceptional about the answers to questions that
aren't even in his field being wrong.

Most weren't answers, nobody asked.

That's the title bestowed upon those at the top. Master Instructors
receive the highest pay, and are qualified to teach any and all of the
classes. He came from the U.S. Navy, where he was a maintenance instructor.

Great. That doesn't mean he knows anything about physics and fluid
dynamics. Being a Ph.D. in Aeronautics, OTOH...

I didn't say he knew much about physics. He was assumed to, required to,
but didn't.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL

I didn't compare him to anyone.

Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could have some
misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would as well.


BTW, there is nothing exceptional about the answers to questions that
aren't even in his field being wrong.

Most weren't answers, nobody asked.

LOL


That's the title bestowed upon those at the top. Master Instructors
receive the highest pay, and are qualified to teach any and all of the
classes. He came from the U.S. Navy, where he was a maintenance instructor.

Great. That doesn't mean he knows anything about physics and fluid
dynamics. Being a Ph.D. in Aeronautics, OTOH...

I didn't say he knew much about physics. He was assumed to, required to,
but didn't.

And this affects the credibility of an actual Ph.D. in the field, how?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.

Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could

Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would as well.

Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident. You're
simply dishonest.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.

Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could

Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would as
well.

Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident. You're
simply dishonest.

LOL

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

And your comparing an Airframe & Power instructor to a Ph.D. in
Aeronautics...

LOL
I didn't compare him to anyone.
Yes, you did. You suggest that since an A&P instructor could
Would.

have some misconceptions about physics that a Ph.D. in Aeronautics would as
well.
Could as well.

You made "could" and "would" switch positions. Not by accident. You're
simply dishonest.

LOL

Step-by-step now, just for Alan.

A = An A&P guy is a dummy
B = A PhD guy could be a dummy as well


A and B
That's it, my statement.


if A then B
A, therefore B
That's your understanding of it.