Why Airplanes Fly - Voids Above A Planar Sheet

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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
I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.



Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello?


Bertie
You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
this guy :-))

I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/

Bertie

"I think so" is on third :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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
I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.



Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello?


Bertie
You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
this guy :-))

I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/

Bertie

"I think so" is on third :-)


OK, well that won't do. I've never heard anthony say anything like "I
think so"


Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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
I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a
counter statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he
has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering
assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.


Did you ever write for Abbot and Costello?


Bertie
You mean the "who's on first; what's on second" routine? Perfect for
this guy :-))

I think we'll put him on third. "I dunno" is on third, isn't he/

Bertie
"I think so" is on third :-)


OK, well that won't do. I've never heard anthony say anything like "I
think so"


Bertie


Granted. I think he's much more of an "I know that" kind of guy :-)

--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
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.

As far as I know, Machado, Schiff, and Gann are experts in piloting, not
aerodynamics. There is very large difference in having a degree in
"Aviation Science" and Aerodynamics. The former seems to typically
include only one course in aerodynamics and an associates degree can be
obtained in only two years. Since no calculus is required, the
aerodynamics presented is likely to be qualitative and not quantitative.
An aerodynamics engineering degree, on the other hand, is at least four
years and a couple years of aerodynamic courses. Calculus is required and
is intended to impart enough knowledge to a student so they could design
aircraft.

But what is in my Jeppensen book and
what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

It could also be considered incomplete, rather than outright 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.

I don't agree with your approach to how you handled the contradictions
you encountered. If you can handle the math and physics, I think you
should move on to that level, not "put on the brakes." The problem is not
one of piloting, but rather understanding the physics and aerodynamics,
so I'm not sure why you chose to post to a piloting group. I would
suggest you post a query asking for authoritative texts and material to
one or more of these groups:

sci.physics
sci.mech.fluids
sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
sci.aeronautics

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.

I do not the fault the experts. They have authored much material on the
subject. But it's a complex subject - just as complex as quantum
mechanics, for example. But some people insist on seeking easy to
undertand or otherwise "intuitive" explanations for systems where
multiple constraints are operating simultaneously. So when explanations
are reduced to comprehensible bits something has to give. I'm not sure
why you appear shocked by this.

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a counter
statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.

What else do you expect for MX's sock puppet?

THAT says it all.

Why everyone continues any conversation with either of them is the question
that is beyond MY understanding.
--
Jim in NC

On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
As far as I know, Machado, Schiff, and Gann are experts in piloting,
not
aerodynamics. There is very large difference in having a degree in
"Aviation Science" and Aerodynamics. The former seems to typically
include only one course in aerodynamics and an associates degree can be
obtained in only two years. Since no calculus is required, the
aerodynamics presented is likely to be qualitative and not quantitative.
An aerodynamics engineering degree, on the other hand, is at least four
years and a couple years of aerodynamic courses. Calculus is required and
is intended to impart enough knowledge to a student so they could design
aircraft.

Hmm....do you think then that it is reasonable to expect a person with
Ph.D. in aviation science (that's what I read somewhere) to know what
causes lift on an airplane, without math?

But what is in my Jeppensen book and
what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

It could also be considered incomplete, rather than outright wrong.

In this case, it is outright wrong. I have the book here with me. I
can retype the entire section, the copy and paste from the NASA link
that you gave earlier, and it will be plainly obvious that two
descriptions are polar opposites.

I don't agree with your approach to how you handled the contradictions
you encountered. If you can handle the math and physics, I think you
should move on to that level, not "put on the brakes." The problem is not
one of piloting, but rather understanding the physics and aerodynamics,
so I'm not sure why you chose to post to a piloting group. I would
suggest you post a query asking for authoritative texts and material to
one or more of these groups:

By "putting on the brakes", I mean that I stopped reading books that
seem to have erroneous explanations of what causes lift.

sci.physics
sci.mech.fluids
sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
sci.aeronautics

I thought about the fluids group, but I thought this group might be a
bit open-minded. Not to say that the fluid dynamicists are not open-
minded, but..after all, unless Jeppesen has fluid-dynamicists on
staff, it is they who started promulgating wrong information in the
first place. Also, if there are scientists lurking in the room who
are thorougly convinced that the NASA article, for example, is
wrong...there might be a tendency to ask me questions like:

1. "Do you have any experience in fluid dynamics?"
2. "Do you understand more than high school math?"
3. "Are you really trained as an engineeer?"

I thought I could avoid all of that by presenting a qualitative
exposition, without the numbers first, to an audience that is almost
guaranteed to have visceral experiences with the descriptions, then,
if there was something more to discuss, move on to rigorous
exploration. I barely got past the double-sheet-of-paper experiment.

I do not the fault the experts. They have authored much material on the
subject. But it's a complex subject - just as complex as quantum
mechanics, for example. But some people insist on seeking easy to
undertand or otherwise "intuitive" explanations for systems where
multiple constraints are operating simultaneously. So when explanations
are reduced to comprehensible bits something has to give. I'm not sure
why you appear shocked by this.

Hmm...I guess that's fair enough. Bernoulli, IMO, is at play above the
wing, but as the NASA article pointed out, it has nothing to do with
the description given by Jeppensen or even an online aero-astro text I
was reading yesterday. I guess it is possible that, a long time ago,
during a conference, someone mentioned Bernoulli and above-the-wing in
same sentence, and people started printing untruth. So maybe the
truth has always been known. But so far, the vast majority of
textbooks I see have printed the opposite of what that NASA article is
saying.

That downwash-Newton-thing, is simply inexcusable. Newton's law of
reciprocity is not complicated at all. Someone who understands this
law could look at the the description and see that it is incorrect
while understanding essentially zero about aerodynamics.

I just realized that when I take my KT, there is a good chance that
there will be a question that asks about the theory of lift. If that
NASA article is correct, there will be a small white lie for the
points.

Also, since you are the one who posted the NASA link, I have two
questions:

1. Do you understand thoroughly NASA's explanation why they think the
other authors are wrong?
2. Do you agree with them?

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

I can't believe the sheer inaccuracy of this person's posting.

He openly, aggressively and pedantically I might add, presents a counter
statement to a non existing premise......a premise that he has
misinterpreted to boot :-)
His comment is totally moot, as the statement he is countering assumes
experience simply EXISTS, rather than implying it has been STATED.

What else do you expect for MX's sock puppet?

THAT says it all.

Why everyone continues any conversation with either of them is the question
that is beyond MY understanding.

If you noticed, my posts are always directed to third parties dealing
with this person. I actually don't post to him directly feeling no
desire to do so. This style is my choice on how to deal with the situation.


--
Dudley Henriques

Le Chaud Lapin wrote in
ups.com:

On Oct 6, 1:59 pm, Jim Logajan wrote:
As far as I know, Machado, Schiff, and Gann are experts in piloting,
not
aerodynamics. There is very large difference in having a degree in
"Aviation Science" and Aerodynamics. The former seems to typically
include only one course in aerodynamics and an associates degree can
be obtained in only two years. Since no calculus is required, the
aerodynamics presented is likely to be qualitative and not
quantitative. An aerodynamics engineering degree, on the other hand,
is at least four years and a couple years of aerodynamic courses.
Calculus is required and is intended to impart enough knowledge to a
student so they could design aircraft.

Hmm....do you think then that it is reasonable to expect a person with
Ph.D. in aviation science (that's what I read somewhere) to know what
causes lift on an airplane, without math?

But what is in my Jeppensen book and
what Barry Schiff wrote is wrong.

It could also be considered incomplete, rather than outright wrong.

In this case, it is outright wrong. I have the book here with me. I
can retype the entire section, the copy and paste from the NASA link
that you gave earlier, and it will be plainly obvious that two
descriptions are polar opposites.

I don't agree with your approach to how you handled the
contradictions you encountered. If you can handle the math and
physics, I think you should move on to that level, not "put on the
brakes." The problem is not one of piloting, but rather understanding
the physics and aerodynamics, so I'm not sure why you chose to post
to a piloting group. I would suggest you post a query asking for
authoritative texts and material to one or more of these groups:

By "putting on the brakes", I mean that I stopped reading books that
seem to have erroneous explanations of what causes lift.

sci.physics
sci.mech.fluids
sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
sci.aeronautics

I thought about the fluids group, but I thought this group might be a
bit open-minded. Not to say that the fluid dynamicists are not open-
minded, but..after all, unless Jeppesen has fluid-dynamicists on
staff, it is they who started promulgating wrong information in the
first place. Also, if there are scientists lurking in the room who
are thorougly convinced that the NASA article, for example, is
wrong...there might be a tendency to ask me questions like:

1. "Do you have any experience in fluid dynamics?"
2. "Do you understand more than high school math?"
3. "Are you really trained as an engineeer?"

I thought I could avoid all of that by presenting a qualitative
exposition, without the numbers first, to an audience that is almost
guaranteed to have visceral experiences with the descriptions, then,
if there was something more to discuss, move on to rigorous
exploration. I barely got past the double-sheet-of-paper experiment.

I do not the fault the experts. They have authored much material on
the subject. But it's a complex subject - just as complex as quantum
mechanics, for example. But some people insist on seeking easy to
undertand or otherwise "intuitive" explanations for systems where
multiple constraints are operating simultaneously. So when
explanations are reduced to comprehensible bits something has to
give. I'm not sure why you appear shocked by this.

Hmm...I guess that's fair enough. Bernoulli, IMO, is at play above the
wing, but as the NASA article pointed out, it has nothing to do with
the description given by Jeppensen or even an online aero-astro text I
was reading yesterday. I guess it is possible that, a long time ago,
during a conference, someone mentioned Bernoulli and above-the-wing in
same sentence, and people started printing untruth. So maybe the
truth has always been known. But so far, the vast majority of
textbooks I see have printed the opposite of what that NASA article is
saying.

That downwash-Newton-thing, is simply inexcusable. Newton's law of
reciprocity is not complicated at all. Someone who understands this
law could look at the the description and see that it is incorrect
while understanding essentially zero about aerodynamics.

I just realized that when I take my KT, there is a good chance that
there will be a question that asks about the theory of lift. If that
NASA article is correct, there will be a small white lie for the
points.

Also, since you are the one who posted the NASA link, I have two
questions:

1. Do you understand thoroughly NASA's explanation why they think the
other authors are wrong?
2. Do you agree with them?



You don't know enough to decide that either is wrong.

You're an idiot, anthony

Bertie

"Dudley Henriques" wrote

If you noticed, my posts are always directed to third parties dealing with
this person. I actually don't post to him directly feeling no desire to do
so. This style is my choice on how to deal with the situation.


Yep. That is about what I have come down to, also.

I think "the chad" character appeared, because a couple days ago, MX posts
were getting mostly no responses, or only a couple responses.

So we were on the way to successfully eliminating what a troll wants.
Feedback.

The chad pops up, and many (what I should have typed before, instead of
"everyone") are biting, like carp sucking down fish heads. Sad, indeed.

Come on people! Wise up, and ignore "the chad" and his ridiculous posts.
Don't feed the obvious attempt at trolling.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
"Dudley Henriques" wrote

If you noticed, my posts are always directed to third parties dealing with
this person. I actually don't post to him directly feeling no desire to do
so. This style is my choice on how to deal with the situation.


Yep. That is about what I have come down to, also.

I think "the chad" character appeared, because a couple days ago, MX posts
were getting mostly no responses, or only a couple responses.

So we were on the way to successfully eliminating what a troll wants.
Feedback.

The chad pops up, and many (what I should have typed before, instead of
"everyone") are biting, like carp sucking down fish heads. Sad, indeed.

Come on people! Wise up, and ignore "the chad" and his ridiculous posts.
Don't feed the obvious attempt at trolling.

Apparently I don't take either the troll situation or the forum for that
matter as seriously as some other people on the group.
Personally I see no problem whatsoever in allowing troll posts to be
handled as individuals see fit.
The problem with actively attempting to control this issue by posting
advice and lecturing people on what they should be doing to handle it is
that before you know it, the "suggestion and lecture posts" become as
much a problem or even more of a problem than the issue they are
attempting to address.
I personally try and avoid direct contact with those on Usenet I
disaprove of for some reason.
Trolls are a fact of life on Usenet. Trying to control a troll by trying
to control how others deal with that troll is a fruitless venture
destined to failure as in many cases the person attempting this control
on the forum innocently becomes a troll themselves.
DH

--
Dudley Henriques