If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Observation can lead you astray: and that is clearly the case here if you actually think that air can *pull* on a surface. Why can't air PULL on a surface? Air is made up of molecules. Molecules have mass. Anything with mass can attract anything else with mass, can't it? Gravity? You're not serious. Anti-gravity in this case. If air can push something, why can't it pull something? |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
In article , Ed wrote: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:07:16 -0600, brian whatcott wrote: Stealth Pilot wrote: /snip/ it is the air below pushing you up that lifts the wing. Stealth Pilot In most circumstances, suction on the upper surface contributes about 2/3 rds of the lift, and pressure on the lower surface contributes about 1/3 rd. That's one reason which rib stitching for rag wings is a biggy. Brian W I have never noticed the fabric lifting on my wings, however I have seen the fuel siphon out of a wing tank due to an improperly applied fuel cap. And greater pressure in the tank than outside of it... Right, but in a sealed metal tank, is all that other fuel PUSHING the fuel out of the vent since air can't PULL it out? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Observation can lead you astray: and that is clearly the case here if you actually think that air can *pull* on a surface. Why can't air PULL on a surface? Air is made up of molecules. Molecules have mass. Anything with mass can attract anything else with mass, can't it? Gravity? You're not serious. Anti-gravity in this case. If air can push something, why can't it pull something? Because the push is caused by the impact of countless air molecules with the surface of wing. If those collisions fall to zero (i.e. in a perfect vacuum) then there is zero push. But there is no set of circumstances that can make the number of collisions be negative. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Scott wrote:
Alan Baker wrote: In article , Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Observation can lead you astray: and that is clearly the case here if you actually think that air can *pull* on a surface. Why can't air PULL on a surface? Air is made up of molecules. Molecules have mass. Anything with mass can attract anything else with mass, can't it? Gravity? You're not serious. Anti-gravity in this case. If air can push something, why can't it pull something? No need to postulate anti-gravity to find a case where air can "pull" on a surface - just invoke van der Waals force! :-) |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Ed wrote: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:07:16 -0600, brian whatcott wrote: Stealth Pilot wrote: /snip/ it is the air below pushing you up that lifts the wing. Stealth Pilot In most circumstances, suction on the upper surface contributes about 2/3 rds of the lift, and pressure on the lower surface contributes about 1/3 rd. That's one reason which rib stitching for rag wings is a biggy. Brian W I have never noticed the fabric lifting on my wings, however I have seen the fuel siphon out of a wing tank due to an improperly applied fuel cap. And greater pressure in the tank than outside of it... Right, but in a sealed metal tank, is all that other fuel PUSHING the fuel out of the vent since air can't PULL it out? First of all, the tank is not completely sealed. If it were, the fuel pumps would soon have difficult pumping the fuel out of the tank. So, yes, the greater pressure inside the tank is pushing the fuel out. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote: Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Observation can lead you astray: and that is clearly the case here if you actually think that air can *pull* on a surface. Why can't air PULL on a surface? Air is made up of molecules. Molecules have mass. Anything with mass can attract anything else with mass, can't it? Gravity? You're not serious. Anti-gravity in this case. If air can push something, why can't it pull something? No need to postulate anti-gravity to find a case where air can "pull" on a surface - just invoke van der Waals force! :-) Please, don't! -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
Because the push is caused by the impact of countless air molecules with the surface of wing. If those collisions fall to zero (i.e. in a perfect vacuum) then there is zero push. But there is no set of circumstances that can make the number of collisions be negative. Pedantically speaking, outgassing would occur for a while that would create a force on your wing surface when it is exposed to a vacuum. Pedantically speaking, I don't see why those couldn't be called negative collisions. (Last worked on a fancy high-vaccum system back in college, wherein my lab mate and I attempted to replicate the Lamb-Retherford experiment.) |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
In article ,
Jim Logajan wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Because the push is caused by the impact of countless air molecules with the surface of wing. If those collisions fall to zero (i.e. in a perfect vacuum) then there is zero push. But there is no set of circumstances that can make the number of collisions be negative. Pedantically speaking, outgassing would occur for a while that would create a force on your wing surface when it is exposed to a vacuum. Pedantically speaking, I don't see why those couldn't be called negative collisions. The force they'd create would be in the same direction as the force of regular collisions: toward the surface. If the outgassing molecules have momentum away from the surface then the surface must experience a change in momentum in the opposite direction. -- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
On Dec 1, 6:05*pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: In article , *Scott wrote: Alan Baker wrote: Observation can lead you astray: and that is clearly the case here if you actually think that air can *pull* on a surface. Why can't air PULL on a surface? *Air is made up of molecules. Molecules have mass. *Anything with mass can attract anything else with mass, can't it? Gravity? You're not serious. Anti-gravity in this case. *If air can push something, why can't it pull something? No need to postulate anti-gravity to find a case where air can "pull" on a surface - just invoke van der Waals force! :-) I think I see what Alan is getting at: While there is low pressure on the top of the wing, there is still pressure. There isn't an absolute vacuum, so some pressure is there. But its a lot less than that below the wing, so the wing moves upward. As he says, air can't suck the wing upward, but its pressure can be reduced enough that the pressure below displaces the wing upward. Semantics. We argue about downwash (Newton) and pressure differential (Bernoulli) but they're just two symbiotic approaches to the same phenomenon. Shoot, the air flowing off the top of the wing is accelerated and moving downward with respect to the flight path, so downwash is to be expected. But there's no downwash when a balloon rises. Just displacement. Dan |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
visualisation of the lift distribution over a wing
Alan Baker wrote:
Because the push is caused by the impact of countless air molecules with the surface of wing. If those collisions fall to zero (i.e. in a perfect vacuum) then there is zero push. I don't see what a change in air density (such as taking the extreme case of a vacuum) has to do with lift. Unless you are claiming density change as a requirement? I believe lift can be reasonably computed using inviscid _incompressible_ flow theory (e.g. as far back as Kutta's 1902 dissertation,) so I don't see why any change in _density_ - much less the vacuum edge case - needs to be invoked. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pressure Distribution Charts | sisu1a | Soaring | 0 | September 21st 08 05:53 PM |
Soundwaves Boost Wing Lift | [email protected] | Home Built | 30 | September 5th 05 10:21 PM |
747 weight distribution | Robin | General Aviation | 25 | June 22nd 05 03:53 AM |
Distribution of armor on a B-52 | B2431 | Military Aviation | 12 | August 16th 04 09:07 PM |
Alternator load distribution in a Baron | Viperdoc | Owning | 7 | December 9th 03 10:27 PM |