Go build an airplane using just a fin sometime. Video tape and it can
Grab your video cameras, folks!
I never suggested doing so. I simply pointed out that lift is a
I wasn't the idiot who suggested that waving your hand around from
The Bernoulli principle (the one about the faster air flow corresponding"Phil Allison"<phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vj3h1F7nuU1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
It's not unlike a wing. Almost any surface flat on the bottom and curved
on the top can produce lift.
So how come a symmetrical wing, such as might be found on a stunt plane,
still flies, and most asymmetric wings fly quite happily upside down ?
** I ask people who *think* they know how a plane flys that same Q.
Stumps them all the time.
Goes to show how simple explanations are often highly flawed.
..... Phil
I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies. I
don't really remember the details, but it relied heavily on the wing's angle
of attack into the air, to produce the pressure differential, and hence
lift. I seem to recall that it was the opposite way round from the
'conventional' teaching of increased speed of the air over the top of the
wing reducing the pressure, and that this theory had the attack angle
causing compression under the wing, thereby increasing the pressure to
produce lift. I do, however, remember it saying that air has no
'intelligence', and just because two previously adjacent molecules became
divided above and below the wing, there was nothing to say that they had to
form back up in the same way as they left the back edge of the wing, which
would require the air to move faster over the longer upper surface. I
believe it did say that the air actually does travel faster over the curved
face of the wing, and that the fact that it does, does produce a reduction
in pressure. However, this reduction is small, and only contributes a very
limited amount of lift, compared to the main mechanism that's at work.
Arfa
Actually, it is. It might even be an example of a wing, depending on how
Agreed, and that's the way I understood it. In fact as far as I understandOn 3/8/2010 8:53 PM, Arfa Daily wrote:
"Phil Allison"<phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vj3h1F7nuU1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
It's not unlike a wing. Almost any surface flat on the bottom and
curved
on the top can produce lift.
So how come a symmetrical wing, such as might be found on a stunt
plane,
still flies, and most asymmetric wings fly quite happily upside down ?
** I ask people who *think* they know how a plane flys that same Q.
Stumps them all the time.
Goes to show how simple explanations are often highly flawed.
..... Phil
I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies.
I
don't really remember the details, but it relied heavily on the wing's
angle
of attack into the air, to produce the pressure differential, and hence
lift. I seem to recall that it was the opposite way round from the
'conventional' teaching of increased speed of the air over the top of the
wing reducing the pressure, and that this theory had the attack angle
causing compression under the wing, thereby increasing the pressure to
produce lift. I do, however, remember it saying that air has no
'intelligence', and just because two previously adjacent molecules became
divided above and below the wing, there was nothing to say that they had
to
form back up in the same way as they left the back edge of the wing,
which
would require the air to move faster over the longer upper surface. I
believe it did say that the air actually does travel faster over the
curved
face of the wing, and that the fact that it does, does produce a
reduction
in pressure. However, this reduction is small, and only contributes a
very
limited amount of lift, compared to the main mechanism that's at work.
Arfa
The Bernoulli principle (the one about the faster air flow corresponding
to lower pressure) is sort of like the second law of thermodynamics (the
one about heat never spontaneously flowing from cold to hot). It's a
shortcut way to get the right answer, but doesn't have the satisfying feel
of a real physical derivation.
BTW by symmetry, symmetric wings require an angle of attack to generate
lift. Otherwise how do they know which way to push?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Because it's Usenet, and half the fun is the idiotic nitpicking."Phil Hobbs"<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in message
news:4B96EEFD.5010406@electrooptical.net...
On 3/8/2010 8:53 PM, Arfa Daily wrote:
"Phil Allison"<phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vj3h1F7nuU1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
It's not unlike a wing. Almost any surface flat on the bottom and
curved
on the top can produce lift.
So how come a symmetrical wing, such as might be found on a stunt
plane,
still flies, and most asymmetric wings fly quite happily upside down ?
** I ask people who *think* they know how a plane flys that same Q.
Stumps them all the time.
Goes to show how simple explanations are often highly flawed.
..... Phil
I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put
forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies.
I
don't really remember the details, but it relied heavily on the wing's
angle
of attack into the air, to produce the pressure differential, and hence
lift. I seem to recall that it was the opposite way round from the
'conventional' teaching of increased speed of the air over the top of the
wing reducing the pressure, and that this theory had the attack angle
causing compression under the wing, thereby increasing the pressure to
produce lift. I do, however, remember it saying that air has no
'intelligence', and just because two previously adjacent molecules became
divided above and below the wing, there was nothing to say that they had
to
form back up in the same way as they left the back edge of the wing,
which
would require the air to move faster over the longer upper surface. I
believe it did say that the air actually does travel faster over the
curved
face of the wing, and that the fact that it does, does produce a
reduction
in pressure. However, this reduction is small, and only contributes a
very
limited amount of lift, compared to the main mechanism that's at work.
Arfa
The Bernoulli principle (the one about the faster air flow corresponding
to lower pressure) is sort of like the second law of thermodynamics (the
one about heat never spontaneously flowing from cold to hot). It's a
shortcut way to get the right answer, but doesn't have the satisfying feel
of a real physical derivation.
BTW by symmetry, symmetric wings require an angle of attack to generate
lift. Otherwise how do they know which way to push?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Agreed, and that's the way I understood it. In fact as far as I understand
it, any wing, irrespective of its sectional shape, requires an 'angle of
attack' to fly, and how well a wing flies on any particular aircraft, is a
function of balancing angle of attack against drag so caused, and the power
input required to overcome that drag. I also understood that this was partly
the reason that jet aircraft tend to land and take off with a very 'nose up'
attitude, to increase the angle of attack and hence the amount of lift
whilst the airspeed is relatively low.
Accepting that angle of attack, and the necessary power to drive the wing
through the air being available, is the primary mechanism of lift
generation, then I am having difficulty understanding why some here have
contended that holding your hand out of a moving car window with an attack
angle, is not a valid example of lift generation. Your arm certainly gets
lighter when you do this, so is that not lift ?
Way, waaaay off topic, but a bit of a fun discussion ...
Arfa
Wait a second. The air isn't really moving. It's the plane that is"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vj3h1F7nuU1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
It's not unlike a wing. Almost any surface flat on the bottom and curved
on the top can produce lift.
So how come a symmetrical wing, such as might be found on a stunt plane,
still flies, and most asymmetric wings fly quite happily upside down ?
** I ask people who *think* they know how a plane flys that same Q.
Stumps them all the time.
Goes to show how simple explanations are often highly flawed.
..... Phil
I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies. I
don't really remember the details, but it relied heavily on the wing's angle
of attack into the air, to produce the pressure differential, and hence
lift. I seem to recall that it was the opposite way round from the
'conventional' teaching of increased speed of the air over the top of the
wing reducing the pressure, and that this theory had the attack angle
causing compression under the wing, thereby increasing the pressure to
produce lift. I do, however, remember it saying that air has no
'intelligence', and just because two previously adjacent molecules became
divided above and below the wing, there was nothing to say that they had to
form back up in the same way as they left the back edge of the wing, which
would require the air to move faster over the longer upper surface. I
And what's the main mechanism?
They were smart. They built a wind tunnel to see which wing shape had
I think so but maybe not out of wood anymore. Actually funniest home
It's punched out of a flat sheet, but the slot in the fuselage is
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 01:53:39 -0000, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:7vj3h1F7nuU1@mid.individual.net...
"Arfa Daily"
It's not unlike a wing. Almost any surface flat on the bottom and curved
on the top can produce lift.
So how come a symmetrical wing, such as might be found on a stunt plane,
still flies, and most asymmetric wings fly quite happily upside down ?
** I ask people who *think* they know how a plane flys that same Q.
Stumps them all the time.
Goes to show how simple explanations are often highly flawed.
..... Phil
I saw an interesting dissertation on this some time back, which put forward
a much more complex but better believable theory as to how a wing flies. I
don't really remember the details, but it relied heavily on the wing's angle
of attack into the air, to produce the pressure differential, and hence
lift. I seem to recall that it was the opposite way round from the
'conventional' teaching of increased speed of the air over the top of the
wing reducing the pressure, and that this theory had the attack angle
causing compression under the wing, thereby increasing the pressure to
produce lift. I do, however, remember it saying that air has no
'intelligence', and just because two previously adjacent molecules became
divided above and below the wing, there was nothing to say that they had to
form back up in the same way as they left the back edge of the wing, which
would require the air to move faster over the longer upper surface. I
Wait a second. The air isn't really moving. It's the plane that is
moving and the air is pretty much standing still, except where the
propeller blows it around but I don't think that's the whole wing.
So the molecules that were together before the plane got there are
still almost together after the wing slices through the air.
believe it did say that the air actually does travel faster over the curved
face of the wing, and that the fact that it does, does produce a reduction
in pressure. However, this reduction is small, and only contributes a very
limited amount of lift, compared to the main mechanism that's at work.
And what's the main mechanism?
Arfa
