Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
Most importantly, I also notice that there was a ***HUGE***
amount of hand-waving going on, far more than one would expect in a
field that has been researched for over a century. I still need to
find a book that I can trust.

How much math are you willing to deal with?
If you can handle some calculus, then probably the least expensive book I
know of that may fit the bill is:

"Theoretical Aerodynamics" by L. M. Milne-Thomson.
Paperback edition is available from Dover Press.

I went to the WWW and started reading more aero-astro excerpts, and
concluded that not only is theory still in flux, the experts do not
even agree on the basics. The very basics. Huge amounts of money had
been spent on wind-tunnels. But after all that, I could not get two
experts to agree on the basics. And this was a not simply a matter of
different styles, using integral instead of differential form of
equations, for example, or, deciding where to put a constant, as we
electrical engineers do in our expressions of the Fourier
integrals...there was *fundamental* disgreement about what causes lift
on an airplane.

I have no idea what web sites you have visited - all I can say is that
there is _no_ dispute among experts on the very basics. Aerodynamic
models are now run routinely on computers - the field is known as
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - which would hardly be possible if
the very basics were still in dispute!

I asked one of the pilot's again..."How sure are you that the aviation
world understands the basics?" He said he was very sure. He started
rattling off things about NASA.

NASA is an excellent and authoritative source and you'll be very pleased
to discover they have web pages that address the VERY SAME COMPLAINTS you
have about many of the bogus explanations of lift that are floating
around. Here are two of the most relevant pages you should read:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

Excerpt from the above:
"Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton's
equations and because they over-simplify the description of the problem
of aerodynamic lift. The most popular incorrect theory of lift arises
from a mis-application of Bernoulli's equation."

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

Excerpt from the above:
"There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of
the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some
textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students.

The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely circulated,
incorrect explanations. The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path"
theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory."


So I started imagining, with no mathematics, what goes on with fluids
around surfaces, which lead me to these various experiments.

It is a great idea to experiment - even with things others already
understand. I do it too.

If you are interested in some books on the subject I'd be happy to
make some suggestions.

Sure.

In addition to the above, there are a couple of other (expensive, alas)
books I would suggest:

"Introduction to Flight" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
Contains a history of the science of flight and also goes into details on
some of the more common mistakes people make in explanations of lift. I
do not own this book, but others also give it great reviews.

"Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
A well regarded, though mathematical, text on the subject. I do not own
this book either, but I expect it is good, based on my knowledge of the
next book I mention:

"Computational Fluid Dynamics" By John D. Anderson.
I bought and read through this book a couple years ago and it does a
great job of introducing CFD. I mention it here only because it is how I
know the style and quality of Anderson's writing to confidently recommend
two of his other books (above) that I have not read! He carefully disects
and explains each of the differential equations of the various types used
for computational modeling, among the many things covered.

"Gatt" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
"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?

Don't remember. IIRC he was babbling about how Bournouli was wrong
and how upper camber is irrelvant. Do you remember?

Sounds vaguely familiar - but no specifics come to mind.

"Gatt" wrote:
Hey, I found it: It's under the thread "John Travolta Sues His Home
Airport" circa August 10.

The person's exact words were "Camber does not produce lift" and he
quoted a NASA site that contradicted him. He also said
"Many pilots don't understand that angle of attack is everything.
That's why many of them get into trouble in unusual situations. "

I'll give you guys ONE guess who that person was, and you probably
don't need a hint, but he's undoubtedly the most accomplished Flight
Simulator pilot on the newsgroup.

Oh - I rarely read his posts, so that may be why I missed it.

On Oct 5, 8:31 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
How much math are you willing to deal with?

I am comfortable with graduate-level mathematics.

If you can handle some calculus, then probably the least expensive book I
know of that may fit the bill is:

"Theoretical Aerodynamics" by L. M. Milne-Thomson.
Paperback edition is available from Dover Press.

Dover. I will assume it is cheap and take a look.

I have no idea what web sites you have visited - all I can say is that
there is _no_ dispute among experts on the very basics.

Well, someone should have told me that Rob Machado and Barry Schiff
are not experts. I did read once that Rod Machado has a Ph.D. in
aviation science, and the foreword to Barry Schiff's book is by Ernest
K. Gann, whom I presumed from his credentials is highly respected in
field. Yet Rob Machado and Barry Schiff said the exact opposite,
Barry clearly stating that what Rob stated was non-sense. Note that
there were not talking about something esoteric how precipitation
beings as condensation on nuclei...they have different opinions on the
most basic phenemenon that _any_ student fascinated with flying would
be inclinded to ask: "Why does the plane stay in the air?" Then we
have Jeppesen, a leaders in edcuation of GA. You would think that,
with such a fine product (no sarcasm meant), that they would have
people whom they trust, experts, at the very high-end of academia, who
could verify what's in the text. But what is in my Jeppensen book and
what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

Now I could have gone to some university in the U.S., Germany, France,
and found someone with stratospheric credentials in aero-astro, but
after seeing one expert say that the other is wrong, and then seeing
an incorrect application of Newton's law (yes I still believe it's
incorrect), I had to put on the brakes.

Aerodynamic
models are now run routinely on computers - the field is known as
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) - which would hardly be possible if
the very basics were still in dispute!

Hmm...how shall I say this. It is very similar to what Ron said in my
defense.

In any field of research, there is mind and hand. For artists in the
field, there are those who have a proclivity to use hand more than
mind, and there are those who have a proclivity to use mind more than
hand. In any case, there are typically multiple paths to discovery,
one major path relying heavily on the imagination, the other path
relying on experimentation. Typically there is a combination. Based
on the small amount of the field of aerodynamcis I have seen so far,
and the disputes and inconsistencies, I would not be surprised if
there is an enormous amount of money being spent on experimentation.
Granted, experimentation is very necessary to validate (or invalidate)
what was conceived, but in many fields, there are researchers who
adopt the brute force approach, not completely, but much more than
someone who, lacking $100's of millions in funding would.

I asked one of the pilot's again..."How sure are you that the aviation
world understands the basics?" He said he was very sure. He started
rattling off things about NASA.

NASA is an excellent and authoritative source and you'll be very pleased
to discover they have web pages that address the VERY SAME COMPLAINTS you
have about many of the bogus explanations of lift that are floating
around. Here are two of the most relevant pages you should read:

I will read that...but there seems to be a contradiction of what you
are saying. OTOH, you're saying that there is no disputes amond
experts. On the other hand, you're saying that other people
(institutions) are complaining about the same thing.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

Excerpt from the above:
"Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton's
equations and because they over-simplify the description of the problem
of aerodynamic lift. The most popular incorrect theory of lift arises
from a mis-application of Bernoulli's equation."

Ok, I just read that entire page, and yes, it is comforting to see
that NASA is at least dispelling the myth that is being put forth by
Jeppensen's book and Rod Machado's book. I guess Barry Schiff was
right.

Excerpt from the above:
"There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of
the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some
textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students.

Entirely unnecessary.

The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely circulated,
incorrect explanations. The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path"
theory, or the "Equal Transit Time" theory."

So I started imagining, with no mathematics, what goes on with fluids
around surfaces, which lead me to these various experiments.

It is a great idea to experiment - even with things others already
understand. I do it too.

Oh, I plan to.

In addition to the above, there are a couple of other (expensive, alas)
books I would suggest:

"Introduction to Flight" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
Contains a history of the science of flight and also goes into details on
some of the more common mistakes people make in explanations of lift. I
do not own this book, but others also give it great reviews.

"Fundamentals of Aerodynamics" by John D. Anderson, Jr.
A well regarded, though mathematical, text on the subject. I do not own
this book either, but I expect it is good, based on my knowledge of the
next book I mention:

"Computational Fluid Dynamics" By John D. Anderson.
I bought and read through this book a couple years ago and it does a
great job of introducing CFD. I mention it here only because it is how I
know the style and quality of Anderson's writing to confidently recommend
two of his other books (above) that I have not read! He carefully disects
and explains each of the differential equations of the various types used
for computational modeling, among the many things covered.

A lot of J. D. Anderson.

Another note:

On my way to and from a party tonight, I thought in more detail about
Bernoulli's theorem, and I am more certain that not that I understand
the venturi tube, why the fluids, move, the distribution of pressures,
etc. Bernoulli's theorem is, indeed, at work over an airfoil, but is
has nothing to do with the descriptions that are being put forward by
the incorrect texts [really nothing]. All that business about one
side being longer is *not* the reason.

I guess the most important thing I learned from this experiences is
that, if it is true that the field of aerodynamics is fully-cooked,
the experts need to tell everyone else so that they stop printing (as
late as 2006) erroneous information in textbooks about the very
basics.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
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).


I have.



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.




You haven't done either, fjukkktard


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

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.




Actualy, with you , either would be impossible.

You have the one redeeming feature of being a reliable target, though. A
bit like a Whack A Mole


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

I am not a Naval Aviator. That title is reserved for the finest
pilots in the world.

There might be some Air Force pilots who disagree with that.

You know Moore, if you spent a bit less time trying to discredit me
and a bit more simply engaging me on a slightly more friendly basis,
you and I might actually get along.

You dislike personal attacks?

You're choice; you can have the debrief notes, or you can stop this
constant under posting of me requesting backup information on me.

Or he can continue to attack you.



How can it be an attack if you don' care a whit for anyone's opinion?




You're an idiot.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

If eveyone in this group would simply take the advice that you just
wrote, I think it would be a better group. I have been here only a
few days, and I count no less than 7 insults by people I have never
known.

I imagine these individuals as being overweight and constipated,
reading my posts, debating whether they should take a laxative or
fire off an insult, the latter choice leaving them in the same state
they were before they read my post.

They are simply the typical males of USENET who have more testosterone
than intellect and behave accordingly. It is a type of background
noise that never goes away, so one must learn to ignore it.




Bull****, you ignore nothing, wannabe boi

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

A little more tact and just a bit less aggressiveness might be
helpful in making your Usenet aviation experience more satisfying
considering the experience levels ranging in decades rather than mere
hours you will find on these forums.

Claims of experience are valueless on USENET, because anyone can make
claims. The only way to earn respect is to demonstrate competence, not
to merely claim it. Credentials are a dime a dozen in this venue.


So, ardly anyone makes claims of experience. They relate experiences, but
make few claims.

You , OTOH...



Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
news
Gatt writes:

What you should imagine are pilots who risk their lives countless
times between wings that are proven to work being told to do
experiments by somebody who challenges proven technology and expects
everybody to do experiments just to indulge your accusation that
basically everything they know about aerodynamics is wrong.

But that would not be accurate.



Anyd you are a liar.


Bertie