Airspeed of military planes

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...
(Ron) wrote:

When Mike flies, he is not abusing Bernoulli, he is abusing Hefty

I fly sailplanes too (e.g: damn expensive fiberglas). Borrowing one of
Tarver's lines? Good grief, you're reached a new low Ron. I don't
know where you and tarv are getting this plastic "trash bag" crap from
anyway. GMAFB! Just so ya know, the stuff my wing is made from is a
new generation of high-tech fabric called "Hydranet" which is the same
stuff that state-of-the-art, high-dollar sailboats use. Guarantees
incomparable longevity and resistance to tearing.

Man from Glad, man from Glad, in flight emergency ...

From: Mike Marron


(B2431) wrote:

We used to have one fly in fairly regularly here at Eglin AFB. No matter how
many times I have seen it fly it just doesn't look like it can.

The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mike Marron, FAA Cerfified Flight Instructor - Instrument )


Obviously it flew. Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Mike Marron wrote:
Michael Zaharis wrote:

Mike Marron wrote:


The Guppy flies just fine and I'd be happy to teach you how it can
fly, sergeant. My ground school lessons are reasonable and you will
learn all about how airplanes can fly such as Bernoulli's principle,
Newton's laws of physics etc. Interesting stuff!



Stop abusing Bernoulli!


http://www.av8n.com
http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.html


Uh oh....here we go again with the ol' Bernoulli vs. Newton debate.
If I were teaching a newbie (like sergeant dan who loves to argue
just for the sheer sake of arguing because he has nothing better
to do with his miserable life) I'd have to simply explain to him that
BOTH Newton and Bernoulli are important. Sure, the links you
provided above (BTW, good website I refer to it often myself) show
that airplanes can fly with the "Bernoulli side" down, however, like
I said both Bernoulli AND Newton are important when it
comes to explaining how subsonic airfoils create lift.



Stop abusing Newton, too!

I really wasn't trying to start a Newton v Bernoulli debate. Actually,
I think that trying to use either of them to describe lift is a bit like
the 3 blind men trying to describe the elephant.

I need to figure out a way to write a "circulation theory of lift for
dummies" book. The websites I referred to are a bit more like
"circulation theory of lift for those who have a somewhat better than
layperson understanding of fluid dynamics."

Mike Marron wrote:
Michael Zaharis wrote:

Uh oh....here we go again with the ol' Bernoulli vs. Newton debate.
If I were teaching a newbie (like sergeant dan who loves to argue
just for the sheer sake of arguing because he has nothing better
to do with his miserable life) I'd have to simply explain to him that
BOTH Newton and Bernoulli are important. Sure, the links you
provided above (BTW, good website I refer to it often myself) show
that airplanes can fly with the "Bernoulli side" down, however, like
I said both Bernoulli AND Newton are important when it
comes to explaining how subsonic airfoils create lift.

Stop abusing Newton, too!

I really wasn't trying to start a Newton v Bernoulli debate. Actually,
I think that trying to use either of them to describe lift is a bit like
the 3 blind men trying to describe the elephant.

I need to figure out a way to write a "circulation theory of lift for
dummies" book. The websites I referred to are a bit more like
"circulation theory of lift for those who have a somewhat better than
layperson understanding of fluid dynamics."

One thing ya gotta love about Usenet is that there's a wacko around
every corner. OK, so lemme get this straight, mensaboy. According to
you, neither Bernoulli -OR- Newton have anything to do with how an
airfoil develops lift??

Waiting with baited breath for explanations. This oughta' be good....

Ron wrote:
Mike Marron, FAA Cerfified Flight Instructor - Instrument )



Stop abusing Bernoulli!



When Mike flies, he is not abusing Bernoulli, he is abusing Hefty

I really am joking Mike, I just couldnt resist..lol Those look like a lot of
fun


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)


I really wasn't trying to start a Bernoulli V Newton theory of lift
debate. My "Stop abusing Bernoulli" cry was (somewhat) tongue in cheek,
paraphrasing the title of another book that covers circulation and
Newtonian theories of lift. I was just trying to use it as an excuse to
toss out what I feel is the best website I've seen to explain the
theories of lift that are actually used to design an airplane.
Circulation theories of lift are hard to conceptualize and explain, and
this one does a better job, with fewer errors, than anything else I've seen.

BTW, is my understanding of the Newtonians weak, or do they not say very
much about how an airfoil actually imparts an action to the airflow? It
seems to me that they talk quite a bit about action and reaction, but
never really go into the mechanics of how an airfoil works, or why a
given airfoil has a particular pressure/velocity distribution.

(B2431) wrote:

Obviously it flew.

Of course it flew, sergeant dan. That's what airplanes are designed
to do.

Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.

As I said, when you're ready to learn HOW airplanes fly my instruction
rates are quite reasonable.

"Mike Marron" wrote in message
...

Waiting with baited breath for explanations. This oughta' be
good....

It would be even better if you were waiting with bated breath. ;-)

From: Mike Marron


(B2431) wrote:

Obviously it flew.

Of course it flew, sergeant dan. That's what airplanes are designed
to do.

Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.

As I said, when you're ready to learn HOW airplanes fly my instruction
rates are quite reasonable.

No thanks, I learned from someone competent.

Thanks for honouring me by using my title.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

Of course it flew, sergeant dan. That's what airplanes are designed
to do.

Please stop before you make even more a fool of yourself.

As I said, when you're ready to learn HOW airplanes fly my instruction
rates are quite reasonable.

No thanks, I learned from someone competent.

Riiiiight. We all believe this latest revelation of yours that you're
a certicated pilot sergeant dan. Suuurrre we do...

Thanks for honouring me by using my title.

I see that spelling, not unlike aviation, still ain't your forte. Next
time you're at the VA hospital picking up your monthly welfare
check, be sure to say 'hey' to your good buddy Autocollimator
in the psych ward for me would ya? )

"Felger Carbon" wrote:
"Mike Marron" wrote:

Waiting with baited breath for explanations. This oughta' be
good....

It would be even better if you were waiting with bated breath. ;-)

Freudian slip I guess (this place is crawling with trolls...