Opinions on NASA lift theory?

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Interesting read...

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

I've also heard that it is the impact of ascending angels on the lower surface of the airframe, but they take breaks sometimes to pray, usually along with the pilot :-)

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 06:42:46 -0700, Scott Williams wrote:

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Interesting read...

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

I've also heard that it is the impact of ascending angels on the lower
surface of the airframe, but they take breaks sometimes to pray, usually
along with the pilot :-)

A similar theory about how competition free flight model aircraft was
around several years ago, only instead of demons, its creatures were
small, fat, furry Bernoulli Balls. Like the demons, these hold onto
models wings to support them when they are flying and won't go near a
really ugly model.

However, they are also responsible for thermals, which occur when crowds
of Bernoulli Balls dance around because they are warm, happy and excited.
Models that enter a thermal are grabbed and included in the dance. This
also explains why there are no thermals at night - the BBs are all
sitting on the ground, worn out by their day's activities.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

So how does all of this (lift demons, CDU, etc.) explain the fact that
British aeroplanes [sic] also fly?Â* They make some of the ugliest planes
in the world, except for the Spitfire, there must have been a Frenchman,
an Italian, or an American involved in that design.

God bless the Queen!

On 7/2/2018 8:39 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 06:42:46 -0700, Scott Williams wrote:

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 9:08:44 AM UTC-5, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Interesting read...

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html
I've also heard that it is the impact of ascending angels on the lower
surface of the airframe, but they take breaks sometimes to pray, usually
along with the pilot :-)
A similar theory about how competition free flight model aircraft was
around several years ago, only instead of demons, its creatures were
small, fat, furry Bernoulli Balls. Like the demons, these hold onto
models wings to support them when they are flying and won't go near a
really ugly model.

However, they are also responsible for thermals, which occur when crowds
of Bernoulli Balls dance around because they are warm, happy and excited.
Models that enter a thermal are grabbed and included in the dance. This
also explains why there are no thermals at night - the BBs are all
sitting on the ground, worn out by their day's activities.



--
Dan, 5J

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:38:52 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:

So how does all of this (lift demons, CDU, etc.) explain the fact that
British aeroplanes [sic] also fly?Â* They make some of the ugliest planes
in the world, except for the Spitfire, there must have been a Frenchman,
an Italian, or an American involved in that design.

Yep, most Blackburns and some planes from Fairey were ugly, but there are
even uglier so, after due consideration, I'd have to give the ugly prize
jointly to various prewar French and Russian aircraft, particularly their
big multi-engine stuff.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

This article contains the best physical argument for lift I've seen. The author simply explains why any shape that introduces curvature into the flowfield necessarily generates lift.

http://www3.eng.cam.ac.uk/outreach/P...wwingswork.pdf

WRT wings, you do need to accept attached airflow as an article of faith.

Larry

That article appears to be a reasonable effort.

Doug McLean in his book, "Understanding Aerodynamics", spends 37 pages to describe the various means used to define lift, along with the shortcomings of most of them. These pages then finish with his thoughts on how to define lift. This highlights the sheer number of ways that his has been explained.

This book is quite good, but I only suggest it to a serious aerodynamicist.

On a more serious note, the folks who design and build gliders probably
have a good idea of what creates lift.Â* Why not ask them? Or do you
suppose that they know "how" but not necessarily "why"?

On 7/3/2018 12:38 AM, wrote:
That article appears to be a reasonable effort.

Doug McLean in his book, "Understanding Aerodynamics", spends 37 pages to describe the various means used to define lift, along with the shortcomings of most of them. These pages then finish with his thoughts on how to define lift. This highlights the sheer number of ways that his has been explained.

This book is quite good, but I only suggest it to a serious aerodynamicist.



--
Dan, 5J

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:38:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
That article appears to be a reasonable effort.

Doug McLean in his book, "Understanding Aerodynamics", spends 37 pages to describe the various means used to define lift, along with the shortcomings of most of them. These pages then finish with his thoughts on how to define lift. This highlights the sheer number of ways that his has been explained.

This book is quite good, but I only suggest it to a serious aerodynamicist.