Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Main Page | Report this Page

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

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

Airplane Pilot's As Physicists

Author

Message

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1191960500.523747.53460@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:

[quote:3ab9465cec]Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about what
causes lift on a plane.
[/quote:3ab9465cec]

No, there isn't. There are people who know perfectly well how it works
trying to tell a ccouple of k00ks who think they know

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

"Morgans" <jsmorgan@charterJUNK.net> wrote in news:EKUOi.35$KS3.30
@newsfe03.lga:

[quote:eafff2c446]
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote

BS and more BS.
***********************
And another sock puppet is born. Sheesh.
[/quote:eafff2c446]
Nah, he's not a sock. just someone who isn't up to speed on aerodynamics
that Anthony sucked in with a crosspost.

His sock didn't work so he's looking for reinforcements elsewhere.

Told you it would get good!

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Le Chaud Lapin <jaibuduvin@gmail.com> wrote in news:1191974445.830019.13730
@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

[quote:faaf30b63b]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.

[/quote:faaf30b63b]

Good god.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Ray Vickson <C6L1V@shaw.ca> wrote in news:1191971717.488856.299560
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:

[quote:44ee0a3122]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:44ee0a3122]
Bernoulli still works when you're upside down.

Even with a flat bottomed wing..

Doesn't work so good, BTW, which only strengthens the bernoulli
position, but it does work.

Bertie
[quote:44ee0a3122]
[/quote:44ee0a3122]

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Randy Poe <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1191971527.977955.5310@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

[quote:84d3fcd383]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?
[/quote:84d3fcd383]

Oow, you ned a sarcasm detector. I can put one up on Ebay for you if you
like.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Jim Stewart <jstewart@jkmicro.com> wrote in
news:fuadncVFovbKlJHanZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@omsoft.com:

[quote:0241d3bfa5]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.

[/quote:0241d3bfa5]

Fair enough.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

"Gatt" <gatt@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote in news:13gnvaq8g7a7e25
@corp.supernews.com:

[quote:fc82607d26]
"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.

[/quote:fc82607d26]

Doesn't matter really. all k00ks are basically the same. Whether they're
the same person or not isn't all that relevant. But it's only natural for
them to start feeling a bit lonely and overwhelmed after a while. And when
the worl doesn't deliver some salvation in the form of a friend, then thye
just invent one!

Bertie
[quote:fc82607d26]

[/quote:fc82607d26]

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

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

[quote:75b9036e7a]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.....

[/quote:75b9036e7a]
Take a tums, it'll get better

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

"Gatt" <gatt@damnnearwiley00.com> wrote in
news:13gnulp1n2ugb3b@corp.supernews.com:

[quote:e4cec79557]
"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

[/quote:e4cec79557]
Why, cuz they're adopting different arguments?

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

Bertie
>

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in
news:citng3lra51r7e8gh3mqe2r3ubbhgvq4to@4ax.com:

[quote:5273284fe1]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.
[/quote:5273284fe1]

Name one, aside from a chuck glider.

(and good chuck gliders have camber, BTW, fjukkwit

Anyway, the purpose of the curve is to
[quote:5273284fe1]reduce drag and increase the stall angle, not to produce lift.

[/quote:5273284fe1]

Nope.

Bertie

Nomen Nescio

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

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

[quote:40a56c68b7]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.
[/quote:40a56c68b7]

Nope, wrong again fjukkwit.

[quote:40a56c68b7]
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.
[/quote:40a56c68b7]

Nope, worng again.

[quote:40a56c68b7]
Answered by: Frank DiBonaventuro, B.S., Physics, The Citadel, Air
Force officer

I guess even the Citadel is passing on some bad information.

[/quote:40a56c68b7]
Nope.

They fly, you don;t.

You never will,.
Nor wil your sockpuppets.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in
news:frsng31ker7sut8pstfk9hrbfdl7tpi6nq@4ax.com:

[quote:0d1b9c7bc7]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.

[/quote:0d1b9c7bc7]
Nope.

bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in
news:slsng31aimhl87v0n7rv9pb1c2s5i40sc0@4ax.com:

[quote:c5db195c61]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:c5db195c61]
You are an idiot.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip

Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 3:08 pm

Guest

Dudley Henriques <dhenriques@rcn.com> wrote in
news:kJSdnfsDTqgEaJbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@rcn.net:

[quote:ddb65a9036]Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
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

Wait a second here; couldn't a sock puppet fly if we used a latex
liner
inside, filled it with Helium and tied it at the bottom before we let
it
loose??
[/quote:ddb65a9036]

They're already full of hot air. /It's only a matter of harnessing that!

Bertie
>

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

All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:08 pm Science Forum Index