Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 2]
Discussion
walm said:
VladD said:
walm said:
FiF said:
It's a combination of the two. There is low pressure ahead of the sail which provides suction and pressure on the windward side of the sail.
I agree
Then I thought, "he probably hates me and hasn't read this far anyway so I can get away with it".
Damn.
Sorry!
goldblum said:
fomb said:
walm said:
The reason a wing forces an aircraft up is almost entirely due to Newton's third law.
There is a crap load of air being deflected down and the equal and opposite reaction is lift.
If this were true, the shape of the wing cross-section should be irrelevant.There is a crap load of air being deflected down and the equal and opposite reaction is lift.
fomb said:
walm said:
The reason a wing forces an aircraft up is almost entirely due to Newton's third law.
There is a crap load of air being deflected down and the equal and opposite reaction is lift.
If this were true, the shape of the wing cross-section should be irrelevant.There is a crap load of air being deflected down and the equal and opposite reaction is lift.
As for whoever mentioned inverted flight, the nose of the plane will still point up which means the wings are defecting air towards the ground.
Hugo a Gogo said:
I mentioned it, in relation to the 'wrong' bernoulli explanation
an upside down wing would provide a downward force + gravity so would slam you down very quickly if that was correct
No, because other controllable forces (such as drag) are at work. Just look it up on some physics website instead of arguing pointlessly.an upside down wing would provide a downward force + gravity so would slam you down very quickly if that was correct
goldblum said:
No, because other controllable forces (such as drag) are at work. Just look it up on some physics website instead of arguing pointlessly.
you firsthttp://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html
Hugo a Gogo said:
goldblum said:
No, because other controllable forces (such as drag) are at work. Just look it up on some physics website instead of arguing pointlessly.
you firsthttp://amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html
And therefore it's instantly dismissed.
The attack angle approach is right.
Symmetrical wings can create plenty of lift.
Paper aeroplanes don't just drop like stones.
Sure the Bernoulli effect is real but it's tiny in comparison to forcing a huge column of air directly down.
As XKCD points out:
And here's NASA:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.h...
Out of the two of them I would probably trust Randall more since NASA did fake the moon landings.
Symmetrical wings can create plenty of lift.
Paper aeroplanes don't just drop like stones.
Sure the Bernoulli effect is real but it's tiny in comparison to forcing a huge column of air directly down.
As XKCD points out:
And here's NASA:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/wrong1.h...
Out of the two of them I would probably trust Randall more since NASA did fake the moon landings.
walm said:
Sure the Bernoulli effect is real
I knowwalm said:
but it's tiny in comparison to forcing a huge column of air directly down.
Some are so eager to argue it prevents them from actually reading a post fully... . I said the quote below only a few minutes ago."No, because other controllable forces (such as drag) are at work. Just look it up on some physics website instead of arguing pointlessly."
Can you spot that? Just above?
From the link you've just provided:
"In fact, this theory [Bernoulli] is very appealing because many parts of the theory are correct."
walm said:
OK well now I am confused because I thought the whole angle of attack issue was essentially drag?
What's wrong with focusing on the angle of attack?
In fairness, I have heard those flight sims are incredibly good!
Very entertaining for a good couple of years - a surprising (or not as the case may be) amount of knowledge and practice involved I thought. I found Innsbruck incredibly hard to land at. I didn't even progress beyond a Cessna, or take-off procedures from a large airport. What's wrong with focusing on the angle of attack?
In fairness, I have heard those flight sims are incredibly good!
goldblum said:
fomb said:
walm said:
The reason a wing forces an aircraft up is almost entirely due to Newton's third law.
There is a crap load of air being deflected down and the equal and opposite reaction is lift.
If this were true, the shape of the wing cross-section should be irrelevant.There is a crap load of air being deflected down and the equal and opposite reaction is lift.
goldblum said:
From the page above:"This webpage is biased towards the ATTACK ANGLE view."
And therefore it's instantly dismissed.
And therefore it's instantly dismissed.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff