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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 15:38:52 -0600, Dan Marotta wrote:
So how does all of this (lift demons, CDU, etc.) explain the fact that British aeroplanes [sic] also fly?Â* They make some of the ugliest planes in the world, except for the Spitfire, there must have been a Frenchman, an Italian, or an American involved in that design. Yep, most Blackburns and some planes from Fairey were ugly, but there are even uglier so, after due consideration, I'd have to give the ugly prize jointly to various prewar French and Russian aircraft, particularly their big multi-engine stuff. -- Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
This article contains the best physical argument for lift I've seen. The author simply explains why any shape that introduces curvature into the flowfield necessarily generates lift.
http://www3.eng.cam.ac.uk/outreach/P...wwingswork.pdf WRT wings, you do need to accept attached airflow as an article of faith. Larry |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
That article appears to be a reasonable effort.
Doug McLean in his book, "Understanding Aerodynamics", spends 37 pages to describe the various means used to define lift, along with the shortcomings of most of them. These pages then finish with his thoughts on how to define lift. This highlights the sheer number of ways that his has been explained. This book is quite good, but I only suggest it to a serious aerodynamicist. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
On a more serious note, the folks who design and build gliders probably
have a good idea of what creates lift.Â* Why not ask them? Or do you suppose that they know "how" but not necessarily "why"? On 7/3/2018 12:38 AM, wrote: That article appears to be a reasonable effort. Doug McLean in his book, "Understanding Aerodynamics", spends 37 pages to describe the various means used to define lift, along with the shortcomings of most of them. These pages then finish with his thoughts on how to define lift. This highlights the sheer number of ways that his has been explained. This book is quite good, but I only suggest it to a serious aerodynamicist. -- Dan, 5J |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
Push forward and the trees get bigger, pull back and the trees get smaller, pull WAY back and they get bigger again. Anything beyond that from a pilot is mental masturbation. I'm going flying.
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
I'm dumb as a post about this stuff. Fortunately it seems I do not have to know HOW lift is created as long as I know that lift IS created - and how to manage it.
I am satisfied that it is differential pressure between the upper surface and lower surface of a wing - and the resulting down-deflecting of a mass of air - that results in the creation of lift. Newton seems to describe the process clearly. What I have yet to come across is an explanation I can understand of why there is relatively lower pressure across the top of a wing. Maybe it actually is described in the calculus. Unfortunately I can barely balance my checking account so calculus is not accessible to me. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 11:38:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
That article appears to be a reasonable effort. Doug McLean in his book, "Understanding Aerodynamics", spends 37 pages to describe the various means used to define lift, along with the shortcomings of most of them. These pages then finish with his thoughts on how to define lift. This highlights the sheer number of ways that his has been explained. This book is quite good, but I only suggest it to a serious aerodynamicist. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
"They make some of the ugliest planes
in the world, except for the Spitfire, there must have been a Frenchman, an Italian, or an American involved in that design." Yeah the French: https://www.flickr.com/photos/varese2002/15650504868 Italians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipa-Caproni and Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-32 sure design nice aircraft, unlike the aesthetically challenged Brits:-) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Vulcan https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/hawker-hunter As to lift theory all I'm can say for sure is that if someone's explanation of lift begins and ends with Bernouilli and the statement that the shape of the airfoil making the air travel a longer path over the top surface and thus reducing the pressure above the wing is what lets a plane fly, you can probably ignore the rest of what they say. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
The Handley-Page "Victor" has to be in the running for "Top Dog."
https://www.google.com/search?q=hand...UcahnoNfvE-PM: |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Opinions on NASA lift theory?
On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 10:08:44 AM UTC-4, Matt Herron Jr. wrote:
Interesting read... https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html At the molecular level, try this. Air molecules have random motions and velocities; they bounce off randomly at all angles to the surface. The lower surface is flatter than the upper surface, and more molecules will bounce off close to normal to the airstream ( the free stream, not the local) than on the top surafce. Hence more push up than push down= lift! JMF Afterthought; maybe heating the lower surface will provide more push as the recoil will be enhanced. a flat wing with zero AoA, with a hot lower and a cold upper surface will produce lift. BTW, the flow could be almost 100% laminar. The student should calculate the power needed for an electric aircraft to fly using the thermo-electric effect in a flat bi-metallic wing. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Theory | John Cochrane[_2_] | Soaring | 9 | October 10th 11 08:47 PM |
Theory Exam | Alan Erskine[_3_] | Aviation Photos | 0 | November 24th 08 02:55 PM |
The 777 crash - another theory | D Ramapriya | Piloting | 82 | January 25th 08 03:27 PM |
[Q] Strikefinder Theory of Operation | [email protected] | Home Built | 11 | September 19th 07 04:47 PM |
so much for the big sky theory | soxinbox | Piloting | 5 | April 24th 06 08:07 PM |