On Oct 9, 8:18 pm, Dan_Thomas_nos...@yahoo.com wrote:
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.

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.

As I said, I lean toward the angle-of-attack arguments now. Take
a flat rectangle, tilt it into the wind. The wind blows against the
front which is also the bottom, not the back/top. So the
forces are on the bottom.

I am an electrical engineer with experience in analag

I count 8-9 people in the group who are utterly convinced that I am inept
at physics, mathematics, etc.

You are trying to convince one person - there is no plural.

Just for the record, I pointed the OP at the following NASA web pages and
after first thanking me, has decided NASA's explanation is somehow suspect:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/lift1.htmlhttp://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/right2.htmlhttp://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/downwash.html

Note follow-ups set to sci.physics only.

"the molecules stay in contact with the solid body"...?????????????

Why?

It's what gases do. The particles are constantly bouncing away from each
other. This is pretty simple physics - something that should almost be
intuitive. If you have a cylinder of gas with an air-tight piston and pull
back on the piston and double the size of the volume do you seriously think
the gas will not expand into the other half as fast as it can to try and
stay in contact with the piston?

If you are having this much trouble on a basic concept of gases, then I see
no value in you or anyone else investing time in dealing with your
questions, which you chose to post to an inappropriate newsgroup anyway.

Grumble. Now I recall why I had established a personal policy to stay away
from discussions of aerodynamics on this newsgroup: futility avoidance.

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 same way that your hand gets pulled upwards if you stick it out the
car window and tilt it. The lift of an airfoil is determined by two
things - the shape of the wing, and it's angle of attack.

So when the lift from angle of attack in the up direction, exceeds the lift from
the shape of the wing ...

Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics, The Citadel, Air Force
officer

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.

As I said, I lean toward the angle-of-attack arguments now. Take
a flat rectangle, tilt it into the wind. The wind blows against the
front which is also the bottom, not the back/top. So the
forces are on the bottom.

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,

"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.

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

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in
news:vnsng39iedrlmkl7qesnlbqng830s4drk8@4ax.com:

Sam Wormley writes:

The same way that your hand gets pulled upwards if you stick it out
the car window and tilt it. The lift of an airfoil is determined by
two things - the shape of the wing, and it's angle of attack.
Actually, only the angle of attack matters.


Nope, wrong again fjukkwit.


So when the lift from angle of attack in the up direction, exceeds
the lift from the shape of the wing ...
All of the lift comes from the positive angle of attack.


Nope, worng again.


Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics, The Citadel, Air
Force officer
I guess even the Citadel is passing on some bad information.


Nope.


They fly, you don;t.

You never will,.
Nor wil your sockpuppets.

Bertie

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.

I don't understand the subject of the post. "Airplane Pilot's" what?
Why are you using a possessive noun here?

-Robert

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.