Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and
approach the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then make
reference to something from a thread that was discussed a month ago.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one that
I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the Internet.



Snort!


Bertie

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 5, 10:30 am, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:02 am, "Gatt" wrote:

The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago
under a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same
guy.

The vitriol is because it's intellectually dishonest to come in and
approach the group as if you're new to the discussion, and then
make reference to something from a thread that was discussed a
month ago.

I have never assumed any other alias on USENET other than the one
that I a currently using in the 20 years I have been using the
Internet.

Correction:

Several years ago due to problems with email, I used a different
alias. But beyond that, my aliases has always been the same.

In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
post in this group.


Yeh, right.


Bertie

"Le Chaud Lapin" wrote in message
ups.com...

In any case, I have never assumed any alias other than the one that I
am currently using in this group, because I've only recently begun to
post in this group.

Fair enough. Just understand then that on occasion somebody comes in here
claiming that their physics trumps established, documented science, and
usually these people don't actually fly airplanes.

Of course, actually flying airplanes is only relevant because 1) this is a
"piloting" newsgroup and 2) lots of people come out on the internet claiming
to prove or disprove everything, such as 9/11 conspiracies, but they have
nothing to show for it.

Somebody else posted a link to the SR-71 Blackbird flight manual. I
daresay, the people who developed that understood aviation a whole hell of a
lot better than most engineers, and so whatever science they used to derive
that design (and the P-38, and the U-2) is good enough for me. To suggest
that the likes of Kelly Johnson's understanding of aerodynamics is flawed in
a pilot's forum is going to be met with hostility by many here. Especially
if your tone, delivery and style conspicuously match that of people who have
previoulsy challenged aviation here.

-c

"Gatt" wrote:
The same person posted the same sort of stuff a month or so ago under
a different name, and hasn't acknowledged that he's the same guy.

What name might that be?

On Oct 5, 12:55 pm, "Crash Lander" wrote:


You sold your set of Encyclopaedias too then? I had no use for mine, as the
wife knows everything.

Unless of course you have a teenager in the house.
Then even the wife has a 99% error rate

:-)

On Oct 4, 11:35 am, John Godwin wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin wrote groups.com:

What will I see?

Lots of pictures which is probably all you can comprehend.

hehehe, that actually isn't how I meant it. I find that many of the
pictures in the book do an excellent job of describing stall
progression. I've been known to pick up my copy and just thumb through
the pictures on occassion.

-robert

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I never thought that my explanation was complete or accurate. I
offered it because, IMO, it has a sificant influence on airfoil
dynamics. But after reading several books that ignore the partial
vacuum, and one book that was wrongly employing Newton's thereom...
[which is intolerable on any grounds, let alone aerodynamics], I had
to read more.

Newton had only one theorem? Wow, I always thought he had several...

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

I never thought that my explanation was complete or accurate. I
offered it because, IMO, it has a sificant influence on airfoil
dynamics. But after reading several books that ignore the partial
vacuum, and one book that was wrongly employing Newton's thereom...
[which is intolerable on any grounds, let alone aerodynamics], I had
to read more.

Newton had only one theorem? Wow, I always thought he had several...

Matt

Not many are familiar with Newton's 4th Law --- "One Fig to a Cookie"

TP

Gatt writes:

I recommend building an airplane sometime. The ultimate way to prove your
theory is to be like the Wright Brothers; build it and fly it.

Folks on this forum have logged hundreds of thousands if not millions of
collective hours and all of them have put their asses on the line based on
the aerodynamic principles in books ...

But they have not built airplanes, as you suggest (with a few rare exceptions,
and even then they did not design them).

About once a month somebody comes in here and wants to talk about how
aerospace science is all wrong but the thing is, none of 'em ever seems to
have flown an airplane.

Flying an airplane wouldn't help, although designing one (successfully) would.

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Given the ratio of ad hominem attacks I have experienced in my first
few days here versus true exploration, I was beginning to wonder if
the 10 people or so who have been responding are representative of
this group, since they do seem to generate the most messages.

Those who engage rapidly in personal attacks are the most active posters, but
are not necessarily representative. Personal attacks are very easy to
construct and thus can be launched very quickly. Rational argument or debate
is much more difficult.