Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Deal of the Month: 50% Discount on Windows 7 (Limited Amazon.com offer)

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Page 3 of 12 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12 Next

Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Author

Message

Le Chaud Lapin

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:46 pm

Guest

On Oct 9, 4:35 pm, "Gatt" <g...@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote:
[quote:672d92b372]"Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibudu...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1191961859.365082.59830@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

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,

WTF is he talking about? Nobody said anything about air -inside- of a wing.
[/quote:672d92b372]
On Oct 9, 1:00 pm, Phil <pjacob...@comcast.net> wrote:
[quote:672d92b372]Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
If you
don't like the concept that the top of the wing is being sucked upward
by that lower pressure

It is not a matter of whether I like it or not. It is something that
simply does not happen. There is no sucking force.

I think you mis-understood me here. When I say the air below the line
is pressing upward, I am not referring to the air pressing upward on
the bottom of the wing. I am referring to the air _inside_ the wing
pressing upward on the underside of the top surface of the wing. The
air above the wing top surface has lower than normal pressure. The
air inside the wing has normal pressure. So it presses upward on the
top surface of the wing. This is lift generated by the top surface of
the wing.

Phil
[/quote:672d92b372]
-Le Chaud Lapin-

Gatt

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:03 pm

Guest

"Bertie the Bunyip" <Sn@rt.1> wrote in message
news:fegsd1$ojo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
[quote:4cb251aef2]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.
[/quote:4cb251aef2]
There goes my Lapin = MX theory. Apologies to Chaud are probably in order.
(I probably apologize?)

-c

Jim Stewart

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:07 pm

Guest

Mxsmanic wrote:
[quote:57cfffdc3a]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.
[/quote:57cfffdc3a]
I feel as though I am in the presence of
genius.....

Gatt

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:08 pm

Guest

"Le Chaud Lapin" <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191966091.630049.115340@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

[quote:3d95aa710b]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.
[/quote:3d95aa710b]
Who said there was "total agreement"? Try to be scientifically exact here.
Can you?

[quote:3d95aa710b]...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.
[/quote:3d95aa710b]
If you expect pilots and aircraft professionals to take time to indulge your
theories, you will learn to treat them with respect or you will take your
lumps. Nobody's obligated whatsoever to focus on your physics or to treat
you whatever manner you prefer regarldess of how you present yourself.

[quote:3d95aa710b]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.
[/quote:3d95aa710b]
Imagine that. Even the flight instructors are ignoring you. See my
previous statement.

-c

Gatt

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:10 pm

Guest

"Robert M. Gary" <N7093v@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191965845.623590.142160@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
[quote:9b5d775cfa]I don't understand the subject of the post. "Airplane Pilot's" what?
Why are you using a possessive noun here?
[/quote:9b5d775cfa]
....but not "physicists" which ends with the same two letters.

Science and engineering require precision and attention to detail. I was a
little surprised too. When you're defending the accuracy of your statements
it helps if you look like you have your poop in a group.

-c

Gatt

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:14 pm

Guest

"Bertie the Bunyip" <Sn@rt.1> wrote in message
news:fegu4d$s0$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
[quote:8bc1729132]"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.
[/quote:8bc1729132]
Ah, unfortunately I'm not up on sock tactics.

-c

Jim Stewart

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:06 pm

Guest

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
[quote:a90f178d91]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[/quote:a90f178d91]
stop. I think that will clear my head.

Randy Poe

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:12 pm

Guest

On Oct 9, 4:25 pm, Bertie the Bunyip <S...@rt.1> wrote:
[quote:f108951f00]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.
[/quote:f108951f00]
"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?

- Randy

Nomen Nescio

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 6:51 pm

Guest

Le Chaud Lapin

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Guest

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:a8ac2aa6a7](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.
[/quote:a8ac2aa6a7]
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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Le Chaud Lapin

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:04 pm

Guest

On Oct 9, 6:15 pm, Ray Vickson <C6...@shaw.ca> wrote:
[quote:ee0e5b73a6]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.
[/quote:ee0e5b73a6]
Hmm..more reasoning going on in sci.physics.

[quote:ee0e5b73a6]R.G. Vickson
[/quote:ee0e5b73a6]
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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Morgans

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:09 pm

Guest

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

BS and more BS.
***********************
And another sock puppet is born. Sheesh.
--
Jim in NC

Nomen Nescio

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:30 pm

Guest

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com>

[quote:eb61837225]A little bit more focus on the physics, a loss less focus on the
poster.
[/quote:eb61837225]
As an "engineer" (yea, right) you should be able to focus on the
main reason that your thoughts don't match the conventions that
achieve accurate results.

The reason is that you are an IDIOT.

case closed.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQCVAwUBRwyEfZMoscYxZNI5AQF4OgQAghcTj1KaAzcP0fBtwv+SwV9jAgCR6MwJ
EpXoYPhhAfdxJwqx8fXBZCI/a2BL7Wu2eskd8Pz3b+Pz9ngVa5uJhLa5zc+pw2lV
y9jnMdRV5NqsX9HhqBlrnh8UvW7YLAVIgU8AtX27KNNXhffKkz9SZiOPkecSF6Hc
/YsKzorPFz4=
=aMtG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Le Chaud Lapin

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:24 pm

Guest

On Oct 9, 8:18 pm, Dan_Thomas_nos...@yahoo.com wrote:
[quote:3a24c728a1]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.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Shoot. And here we used to help the 150 off the ground on a hot
day by pushing up on the ceiling, and if the wind was calm we'd blow
on the windshield, too. Are you saying we were wasting our time?

Seems to me there was ONE guy who talked about the air inside
the wing, but you implied that there were "people" that believed the
air inside had something to do with lift. Not honest about things,
trying to make us all look as ignorant as Mx, or trying to raise your
reputation by finding others to step on. It won't work.
[/quote:3a24c728a1]
MX was not the one talking about air inside the wing.

Also, even though you are correct that there was only one person who
was talking about air inside the wing, there were several other posts
made by different people that demonstrated equally questionable
understanding of basic physics.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:10 am

Guest

"CWatters" <colin.watters@turnersoak.plus.com> wrote in
news:13gp7so797qt5d2@corp.supernews.com:

[quote:45b105188e]
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
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.

How come most wing sections still produce lift at ZERO degrees AOA?..
[/quote:45b105188e]
that is a fact..

[quote:45b105188e]
Why do slow flying aircraft such as gliders have wing sections with
more
camber than fast jets?

[/quote:45b105188e]
Ooooh oooh! let me try.

It's because they have to have thicker wings because their spars are
longer and need more stregth,

or it's because the fast ones are made out of meta and are stronger and
their wings don't have to be as thick.

OR

The lift gremlins that hold up gliders don't get as much exercise and
therefore are fatter and need more room.

Or they just fodo it to make 'em look faster. Same reason they sweep the
wings and tail, cuz it makes 'em look kewl!

Bertie

Page 3 of 12 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 ... 10, 11, 12 Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:57 pm Science Forum Index