Backwash Causes Lift?

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
changes.
Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
glider.


Bertie
Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves
his point here.
If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll
ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it

God I hope he starts on gliders.

I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.

Bertie
Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The
threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the
drivel he posts just amaze me.
You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those
like him.
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time
to
deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
serious flying forum.
The complete information about lift including all the corrections for
the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily available
a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
on....and on......and on!
Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
:-))

Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?

OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time...


Bertie


More fun this way!


--
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
:

writes:

Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
changes.
Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
glider.


Bertie
Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves
his point here.
If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up
there
with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those
l'll
ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it

God I hope he starts on gliders.

I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.

Bertie
Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The
threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the
drivel he posts just amaze me.
You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those
like him.
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the
physics
department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time
to
deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on
a
serious flying forum.
The complete information about lift including all the corrections
for
the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily
available
a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
on....and on......and on!
Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
:-))

Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?

OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time...


Bertie


More fun this way!



Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit of
fun as well.



Have you looked at free.usenet?

Weird.


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
:

writes:

Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
changes.
Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
glider.


Bertie
Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that proves
his point here.
If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up
there
with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those
l'll
ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
God I hope he starts on gliders.

I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.

Bertie
Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not for
those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out. The
threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to the
drivel he posts just amaze me.
You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and those
like him.
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the
physics
department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time
to
deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on
a
serious flying forum.
The complete information about lift including all the corrections
for
the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily
available
a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it goes
on....and on......and on!
Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
:-))
Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?

OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time...


Bertie

More fun this way!



Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit of
fun as well.



Have you looked at free.usenet?

Weird.


Bertie

Things here have been a bit busy lately with some health issues. Haven't
had much time other than dealing with my usual Usenet haunts.
I use RCN on an Intel IMac with Thunderbird as my News and Mail program.
Works fine so far with 0 issues for me.


--
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:
Dudley Henriques wrote in
:

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote in
:

writes:

Nope. The lift/drag vectors are different as the AOA
changes.
Powered aircraft are gliders when the engines are off.
WEll, your engine has been off for some time and you're not a
glider.


Bertie
Well......I guess ole' Mx could perform an experiment that
proves his point here.
If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up
there
with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those
l'll
ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it
God I hope he starts on gliders.

I got as thousand nopes in my pocket waiting.

Bertie
Some of the stuff he posts would simply be hilarious were it not
for those taking him on in vain attempts to straighten him out.
The threads involving all these elaborate counter explanations to
the drivel he posts just amaze me.
You're right; "nope" is absolutely the way to go with him and
those like him.
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the
physics
department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the
time to
deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
comprehension. I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life
on
a
serious flying forum.
The complete information about lift including all the corrections
for
the misuse of Bernoulli in some of the texts are so readily
available
a 5 year old child could both find and understand them. Yet it
goes on....and on......and on!
Anyway, it's entertaining if nothing else!
Yup.........definitely....."Nope" is the way to go.
:-))
Zactly Why waste your breath telling them?

OTOH if he wants to pay me for my time...


Bertie

More fun this way!



Exactly,. His latest bud or sockpuppet, as the case may be,. is a bit
of fun as well.



Have you looked at free.usenet?

Weird.


Bertie

Things here have been a bit busy lately with some health issues.
Haven't had much time other than dealing with my usual Usenet haunts.
I use RCN on an Intel IMac with Thunderbird as my News and Mail
program. Works fine so far with 0 issues for me.


OK, it'll only take a second. John Doe psots there.

Nobody else but him...

Sppoooooky.


Bertie

Dudley Henriques wrote:
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to
deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
comprehension.

I obviously can only speak for myself, but I post under the expectation
that the reading audience is more than just the person whose post I'm
replying to. For example, when I posted references to some of the material
on NASA web pages at least one person said they appreciated the references
and said they came away with a better understanding of lift because of that
material. And unlike the OP, left it at that.

Just because the OP of this or any other thread refuses to budge doesn't
mean followups are entirely futile. At least that is what I'd like to
believe. (But I do sometimes make the mistake that I should try to budge
the OP and then I post more than I should. Say one's say and try to leave
it at that - that's my modest goal.)

I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
serious flying forum.

This is a serious flying forum? Shirley you're joking.

Jim Logajan wrote:
Dudley Henriques wrote:
I've been watching some of these folks who are right on in the physics
department taking on this hot rabbit character on the lift issue.
Why the living hell anyone in their right mind would take the time to
deal with this from a serious standpoint is beyond my level of
comprehension.

I obviously can only speak for myself, but I post under the expectation
that the reading audience is more than just the person whose post I'm
replying to. For example, when I posted references to some of the material
on NASA web pages at least one person said they appreciated the references
and said they came away with a better understanding of lift because of that
material. And unlike the OP, left it at that.

Just because the OP of this or any other thread refuses to budge doesn't
mean followups are entirely futile. At least that is what I'd like to
believe. (But I do sometimes make the mistake that I should try to budge
the OP and then I post more than I should. Say one's say and try to leave
it at that - that's my modest goal.)

I've never seen so much utter bull**** in my life on a
serious flying forum.

This is a serious flying forum? Shirley you're joking.

Jim, if you think that dealing with this nutcase is beneficial to the
rest of the group then I'd be the last guy in hell to tell you to stop
doing it. All I'm saying to you and to others having serious science
knowledge is that the answers to this moron's constant repetition of
utter crap can be found in a single publication; that publication is
"Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators". A simple link to this book is all
that's necessary for anyone to post to steer this creep in the right
direction.
Pardon me for saying this, but I've been teaching aerodynamics for 50
years and from my point of view, what you are doing in sparring with
this character is useless on the educational line as his entire purpose
in posting to the forum is to push himself as a "cut above" the people
answering him.
If it pleases you to take this bait, as I said, I'm not the internet
police. Go get um!
Just be advised, most of the people who post on these forums are fairly
well versed on the issues surrounding lift and don't require additional
tutoring on the issue.
Assuming you find a few who do need this tutoring, I suggest you
consider simply pointing them to the source I have mentioned as a more
bandwidth friendly way of "helping educate them".
All this having been said, I realize that you are not me and have a mind
of your own fully capable of dealing with things like this and the final
decision as to whether or not you're being used as cannon fodder by this
idiot will of course be yours.
Personally, I like Bertie's method the best; "Nope!" :-)))
DH

--
Dudley Henriques

Dudley Henriques writes:

If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll ole'
thermals right over there now shouldn't it

I have pondered that exact question. But the simulation of thermals in MSFS
is not entirely realistic. I rather doubt that anyone has tried it, in
simulation or in real life, but that doesn't mean that it cannot be done.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dudley Henriques writes:

If what he says has merit (God help us :-) that big ole 747 up there
with all 4 shut down should actually be able to CLIMB in those l'll
ole' thermals right over there now shouldn't it

I have pondered that exact question. But the simulation of thermals
in MSFS is not entirely realistic. I rather doubt that anyone has
tried it, in simulation or in real life, but that doesn't mean that it
cannot be done.


Bwawahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwhahwhawhah whahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahw
h!


Bertie

On Oct 9, 1:30 pm, Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

If air inside the wing pushes upward on the underside of the top of
the wing, it also pushes downward on the overside of the bottom of the
wing, thus nullifying any effect of the air inside the wing.


OK, I'm going to try once more. Let's say the wing is standing
still. It is surrounded by normal atmospheric pressure. It has
normal atmospheric pressure inside it. No net effect, right? Now
lets say you could cause an area of low pressure over the top surface
of the wing. You have normal pressure inside the wing pushing down on
the inside bottom of the wing. But you have normal air pressure below
that surface pushing up. These cancel each other, and you have no net
effect from the bottom surface of the wing. But the bottom surface is
not pulling down compared to the top surface. It has no net effect
because the pressure on both the inside and the outside of the bottom
surface of the wing is the same.

But what about the top surface of the wing? You have normal
atmospheric pressure inside the wing pushing up against the bottom of
the top surface of the wing. But outside the wing above that surface
you have lower pressure. That is a net difference, and that would
cause lift. It wouldn't be countered by the pressure against the
inside bottom of the wing because that is countered by the pressure
outside the bottom of the wing.

It's the same situation you have in flight, except then you have the
addition of higher pressure under the bottom of the wing. Both the
high pressure under the wing and the low pressure above the wing
contribute to lift.

Phil

On Oct 9, 7:51 pm, Phil wrote:

Maybe there was a misunderstanding. Your original posts implied that
you were thinking that there was some kind of suction force. Most
importantly, it appear that you were thinking that the molecules on
the overside of the top surface of the wing were somehow pulling up on
the wing.

This last post of yours, is, technically acceptable, but if you look
at it closely, it's like someone asking you if you have $20 in your
pocket, you say, "No, I have a $2, a $5, 3 $1's, and a $10."

Physicists generally don't arbitrarily pick apart an object the way
you are saying. With the point of view you just gave, I could just as
well say that there really is no pressure on the upperside of the
bottom surface of the wing, but 10,000 "mini-pressures", each to be
taken individually and added up.

Then how do you explain what happens when a wing stalls? When a wing
reaches a high enough angle of attack to stall, the bottom surface is
still deflecting air downward. Yet when the airflow over the top of
the wing detaches and becomes turbulent, most of the lift of the wing
is destroyed. If the attached airflow over the top of the wing is not
generating lift, then why does the lift disappear when that airflow
detaches?

If you look at this paragraph that you wrote before, it seems at first
glance that you are not aware that the air, doing good-stream
conditions, is doing nothing more than not pushing down as hard as in
a stall or standstill.

Because the turbulent air on top of a wing during a stall pushes down
on the wing harder than does when the airflow non-turbulent.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

You can also see from the falling line that you imply that there
should be research to support my "theory", but there is no theory or
all.

Do you know of any research that supports that theory?

Perhaps there was just a misunderstanding.

-Le Chaud Lapin-