visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing

Alan Baker wrote:

"Those weren't my words." You didn't have enough confidence in Mr.
Bachelors and Masters from MIT, Ph.D. from Stanford's words to defend them.

They don't need defense.

But you weren't sure yesterday, so you needed it?

I found your airplane! It's all about downwash.
http://www.amvaircraft.com/html/gallery_2.html

Alan Baker wrote:
Beryl wrote:
...
Right. And I can push against the hill across the road with my
voice. Not much, but enough to move the diaphragm in a
microphone over there, in a split second. The air expelled from
lungs is never going to make it across the road.

No, sorry. You don't push the hill with your voice.

Of course I do.

The pressure waves contain both positive and negative phases.

So you think that a positive won't push because a negative will be
coming along shortly?

I think their will be no net push, yes.

See the difference: sound waves, no net flow: no net push.

Sound waves, no net flow: more push than I can apply to the hill across
the road.

http://www.tech-faq.com/acoustic-levitation.shtml
http://science.howstuffworks.com/aco...evitation2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_levitation

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.

Beryl wrote:
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.

No, it's worse than I thought.


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

A and B That's it, my statement.


if C then D
C therefore D
That's your understanding of it.

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

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

An A&P is uninformed in an area outside is area of training and
expertise.

B = A PhD guy could be a dummy as well

But you think that a Ph.D. in aeronautics doesn't understand...

....aeronautics.



A and B
That's it, my statement.


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

Nope.

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

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Beryl wrote:
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.

No, it's worse than I thought.


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

A and B That's it, my statement.


if C then D
C therefore D
That's your understanding of it.

LOL

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

In article ,
Beryl wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

An A&P is uninformed in an area outside is area of training and
expertise.

The examples (other than chloroform in grass) were well inside his area
of training. He holds an A&P Certificate. It's FAA test material. The
stuff he goofs up on is the stuff that he's teaching A&P students. You
want your airplane repaired by someone who narrowly squeaked by his
exams with a 70% score?

You really are a ninny aren't you? Learning about chloroform as it
pertains to aircraft doesn't teach you a thing about plants and what
they actually contain.


And the Navy didn't do any better with him.

So, just like A&P Master Instructors, and their students, and their
students on down the line, the Ph.D.s among us may be every bit as good
as those they learned from.

This is about you suggesting that because you once knew an A&P
instructor who spouted off a lot of foolishness outside his areas of
training and expertise, that therefore a Ph.D. in aeronautics won't
(alright "might not") understand aeronautics.

And it's laughable.

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