Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...

As I said, I lean toward the angle-of-attack arguments now. Take
a flat rectangle, tilt it into the wind. The wind blows against the
front which is also the bottom, not the back/top. So the
forces are on the bottom.

The day the physics guys were passing out good wing designs, the aerospace
designers were all out drinking beer, which is why every airplane since the
Wright flyer has camber when they could have just used flat plywood.

-c

Gatt writes:

The day the physics guys were passing out good wing designs, the aerospace
designers were all out drinking beer, which is why every airplane since the
Wright flyer has camber when they could have just used flat plywood.

Some wings do not have camber. Anyway, the purpose of the curve is to reduce
drag and increase the stall angle, not to produce lift.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Gatt writes:

The day the physics guys were passing out good wing designs, the
aerospace designers were all out drinking beer, which is why every
airplane since the Wright flyer has camber when they could have just
used flat plywood.

Some wings do not have camber.


Name one, aside from a chuck glider.

(and good chuck gliders have camber, BTW, fjukkwit



Anyway, the purpose of the curve is to
reduce drag and increase the stall angle, not to produce lift.



Nope.


Bertie

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gatt writes:

The day the physics guys were passing out good wing designs, the
aerospace
designers were all out drinking beer, which is why every airplane since
the
Wright flyer has camber when they could have just used flat plywood.

Some wings do not have camber. Anyway, the purpose of the curve is to
reduce
drag and increase the stall angle, not to produce lift.

That's simply not correct. Explain why sections for tailless aircraft curve
both ways then.

http://www.desktopaero.com/appliedae...image13_43.gif

On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

R.G. Vickson


I'm no expert, but I heard enough in similar arguments here
to convince me that the angle-of-attack people are right and
the shape of the wing has more to do with controlling
turbulence.

There are people in the pilot's group, who think that lift on a wing
is analyzed as such:

1. There is air on outside of top of wing that is pushing down, but
reduced because of aerodynamics.
2. The *inside* of the wing contains air pushing up against the
underside of top of wing .

Er... that's a new one. OK, I haven't heard this argument
then.

3. Let us ignore that the same air inside the wing pushes down on the
overside of bottom part of wing.
4. The difference in pressure against the underside of the top wing on
the inside of wing and top of wing on outside, is what gives plane
lift.

You can consider that last just a definition of lift. You
won't get lift unless the upward forces are stronger than
then downward forces.

Note that they ignore the pressure inside the wing that pushes
downward on the wing.

A wing doesn't need to be hollow to fly.

I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside of
the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the wing,
including both top underside and bottom overside, and thereby
nullifying any effect it would have on the wing. Lift is caused by a
difference in pressure between the underside of the bottom of the
wing, and the overside of the top of the wing.

I count 8-9 people in the group who are utterly convinced that I am
inept at physics, mathematics, etc.

Note that some of these people have been flying aircraft for years,
even decades, while I am still a student pilot.

Comments from anyone who knows physics welcome.

As I said, I lean toward the angle-of-attack arguments now. Take
a flat rectangle, tilt it into the wind. The wind blows against the
front which is also the bottom, not the back/top. So the
forces are on the bottom.

Why does that translate into lift? I forget the exact arguments
but from first principles if the effect is to change the direction
of the incoming air molecules, then by conservation of
momentum that translates into equal and opposite change
of momentum of the surface, i.e. pressure with an upward
component.

- Randy

Ray Vickson wrote in news:1191971717.488856.299560
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Bernoulli still works when you're upside down.


Even with a flat bottomed wing..


Doesn't work so good, BTW, which only strengthens the bernoulli
position, but it does work.



Bertie

On Oct 9, 7:33 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Ray Vickson wrote in news:1191971717.488856.299560
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:







On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Bernoulli still works when you're upside down.

Even with a flat bottomed wing..

Doesn't work so good, BTW, which only strengthens the bernoulli
position, but it does work.

But the Bernoulli position works best with helicopters.
That's why they were invented for winged weirdos,
who know kust about nothing about Bernoulli.
Other than he once made a principle for
Newton idiots.
c


Bertie



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

" wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 9, 7:33 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Ray Vickson wrote in news:1191971717.488856.299560
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:







On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting
about
what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here
(sci.physics)
many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable
distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Bernoulli still works when you're upside down.

Even with a flat bottomed wing..

Doesn't work so good, BTW, which only strengthens the bernoulli
position, but it does work.

But the Bernoulli position works best with helicopters.
That's why they were invented for winged weirdos,
who know kust about nothing about Bernoulli.
Other than he once made a principle for
Newton idiots.
c



I see

Bertie

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Hmm..more reasoning going on in sci.physics.

R.G. Vickson

I am beginning to think I should have posted my OP in
rec.aviation.piloting to sci.physics.

Very comforting to see people focusing on physics to guide their
arguments.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
oups.com:

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here
(sci.physics) many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Hmm..more reasoning going on in sci.physics.

R.G. Vickson

I am beginning to think I should have posted my OP in
rec.aviation.piloting to sci.physics.

Very comforting to see people focusing on physics to guide their
arguments.



Just as long as you **** off there and don't ever fly an airplane.

All of the posts I have seen in reply to yours are either completely
wrong, partially wrong or just off the wallm so you'll be in good
company.


Bertie