Mxsmanic wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin writes:

If you read carefully, the premise of what they are saying is that, if
you have, for example, a sealed jar with air in it, you are permitted
to consider the air on the _inside_ of the jar, pushing up on the lid
as contributing to a force to lift the jar off the ground, but you are
not allowed to consider the air on the _inside_ of the jar, pushing
down on the jar un the upper surface of the bottom of the jar.

The atmosphere is not a sealed jar. The source of air pressure in the
atmosphere is gravity, not confinement and kinetic energy.

I feel as though I am in the presence of
genius.....

Jim Logajan writes:

Then why does lift increase even though the AOA is fixed as a plane
nears the ground? (a.k.a. Ground effect.)

Ground effect, as the name implies, is a consequence of the
interaction between an airfoil and a moving ground plane, and not of
the airfoil alone.

"Bertie the Bunyip" <Sn@rt.1> wrote in message
news:fegu4d$s0$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
"Gatt" <gatt@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote in

There goes my Lapin = MX theory. Apologies to Chaud are probably in
order. (I probably apologize?)

nah, standard sock tactic. If his creation looked too much like himself
it'd be too obvious.

Ah, unfortunately I'm not up on sock tactics.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Jim Stewart <jstewart@jkmicro.com> wrote in news:4-
OdnYxVNccRZpbanZ2dnUVZ_uPinZ2d@omsoft.com:

Mxsmanic wrote:
Le Chaud Lapin writes:

If you read carefully, the premise of what they are saying is
that, if you have, for example, a sealed jar with air in it, you
are permitted to consider the air on the _inside_ of the jar,
pushing up on the lid as contributing to a force to lift the jar
off the ground, but you are not allowed to consider the air on the
_inside_ of the jar, pushing down on the jar un the upper surface
of the bottom of the jar.
The atmosphere is not a sealed jar. The source of air pressure in
the atmosphere is gravity, not confinement and kinetic energy.
I feel as though I am in the presence of
genius.....


Take a tums, it'll get better

I'd prefer 2 touch-and-go's and a full
stop. I think that will clear my head.

On Oct 9, 4:25 pm, Bertie the Bunyip <S...@rt.1> wrote:
Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote
innews:1191961347.204540.310170@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:





On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here
(sci.physics) many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

I'm no expert, but I heard enough in similar arguments here
to convince me that the angle-of-attack people are right and
the shape of the wing has more to do with controlling
turbulence.
[snip]

Well, thanks be to god that that';s been authoritatively setttled.

"Authoritatively"? Can you read? Can you read the
part where I said "I'm no expert" and where I said that
I was convinced by other people?

On Oct 9, 4:30 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 3:22 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:



On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here
(sci.physics) many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

I'm no expert, but I heard enough in similar arguments here
to convince me that the angle-of-attack people are right and
the shape of the wing has more to do with controlling
turbulence.

There are people in the pilot's group, who think that lift on a
wing is analyzed as such:

1. There is air on outside of top of wing that is pushing down,
but reduced because of aerodynamics.
2. The *inside* of the wing contains air pushing up against the
underside of top of wing .

Er... that's a new one. OK, I haven't heard this argument
then.

3. Let us ignore that the same air inside the wing pushes down on
the overside of bottom part of wing.
4. The difference in pressure against the underside of the top
wing on the inside of wing and top of wing on outside, is what
gives plane lift.

You can consider that last just a definition of lift. You
won't get lift unless the upward forces are stronger than
then downward forces.

Note that they ignore the pressure inside the wing that pushes
downward on the wing.

A wing doesn't need to be hollow to fly.

I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside
of the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the
wing, including both top underside and bottom overside, and
thereby nullifying any effect it would have on the wing. Lift is
caused by a difference in pressure between the underside of the
bottom of the wing, and the overside of the top of the wing.

Thanks Randy,

But before we talk about what causes lift on the plane, we should
clear up the basic physics 1st. Note that what I have described
above has nothing to do with airplanes really.

If you read carefully, the premise of what they are saying is that,
if you have, for example, a sealed jar with air in it, you are
permitted to consider the air on the _inside_ of the jar, pushing up
on the lid as contributing to a force to lift the jar off the ground,
but you are not allowed to consider the air on the _inside_ of the
jar, pushing down on the jar un the upper surface of the bottom of
the jar.

Sure, there's air pressure inside a sealed jar, but:

(1) Sealed jars sitting on tables don't spontaneously start
flying, and

(2) Conservation of momentum (for every action there's
an equal and opposite reaction) says that you can't push
up from the inside. You'll create a counter force pushing
down.

(3) Solid things fly in wind also.

On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what
causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here (sci.physics)
many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On Oct 9, 1:22 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Oct 9, 4:08 pm, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what causes lift on a plane.

Heh. I know the argument. I think it's broken out here
(sci.physics) many times.

(a) It's the Bernoulli effect due to the shape of the
wing cross-section, the way we were all taught as kids.

(b) No, it's just the angle of attack.

Probably true, in large part anyway. Just consider that aerobatics
pilots can fly their planes upside-down over considerable distances.
If Bernoulli were the sole factor this couldn't happen.

Hmm..more reasoning going on in sci.physics.

R.G. Vickson

I am beginning to think I should have posted my OP in
rec.aviation.piloting to sci.physics.

Very comforting to see people focusing on physics to guide their
arguments.

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
(2) Conservation of momentum (for every action there's
an equal and opposite reaction) says that you can't push
up from the inside. You'll create a counter force pushing
down.

Finally, someone speaks reason.

Now all we need to do is see that the jar might as well be a the
volume of a wing, and the same principle applies.

Not possible to have air on inside of wing pushing up against
underside of top of wing without having same said air pushing downward
on overside of bottom part of wing.

"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote

BS and more BS.
***********************
And another sock puppet is born. Sheesh.

"Bertie the Bunyip" <Sn@rt.1> wrote in message
news:fegsd1$ojo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in
news:frsng31ker7sut8pstfk9hrbfdl7tpi6nq@4ax.com:

Le Chaud Lapin writes:

Even though this (new) thread is not about what causes a wing to
lift, I just wanted to say for the record that I agree with this
answer, that it is both AoA and curvature of the wing.

It's just AOA.

Nope.

There goes my Lapin = MX theory. Apologies to Chaud are probably in
order. (I probably apologize?)

-c

Gatt writes:

The day the physics guys were passing out good wing designs, the
aerospace designers were all out drinking beer, which is why every
airplane since the Wright flyer has camber when they could have just
used flat plywood.

Some wings do not have camber.

reduce drag and increase the stall angle, not to produce lift.

On Oct 9, 4:29 pm, "Gatt" <g...@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote:
"Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1191960500.523747.53460@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...

Taking on the science of NASA, for example, challenges the kind of
people who put men on the moon, shuttle aircraft into space and back,
and robots on Mars. What I'm saying is, they've proven their ability
to do math and physics. You're talking about two pieces of paper on
a table or whatever, admitting you don't fully understand
aerodynamics, and then challenging the kind of people who did
research using SR-71 blackbirds and spacecraft.

My initial assertion was that the experts were not in agreement about
causes lift. Many posters said that I was wrong, that there was total
agreement, that I was mistaken.

...in a pilots' forum. What in hell kind of response did you
possibly expect?

A little bit more focus on the physics, a loss less focus on the
poster.

And with regard to the demonstration I presented in my original post,
I was expecting at least one pilot to give a correct explanation why
the lower paper is lifted off the ground, and not only has anyone
given a correct explanation, but no one has given any explanation at
all.=

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about what
causes lift on a plane.