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

I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside of
the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the wing,
including both top underside and bottom overside, and thereby
nullifying any effect it would have on the wing.

Correct.

"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?

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

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

-Robert

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.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what causes lift on a plane. You can read from the link below.
Please note that about 80% of the post are mostly ad hominem attacks
and should be ignored. There are some small bits of real discussion.

/b85a49e900a0c791/bb11fa289cd7864a#bb11fa289cd7864a

I am an electrical engineer with experience in analag design and
software, with math and physics background that you would expect of
an electrical engineer.

There are many points made in the discussion, but I would like to
focus on one in particular for the sake of progress.

There are people in the pilot's group, who think that lift on a wing
is analyzed as such:

1. There is air on outside of top of wing that is pushing down, but
reduced because of aerodynamics.
2. The *inside* of the wing contains air pushing up against the
underside of top of wing .
3. Let us ignore that the same air inside the wing pushes down on the
overside of bottom part of wing.
3. The difference in pressure against the underside of the top wing
on the inside of wing and top of wing on outside, is what gives plane
lift.

Note that they ignore the pressure inside the wing that pushes
downward on the wing.

I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside of
the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the wing,
including both top underside and bottom overside, and thereby
nullifying any effect it would have on the wing. Lift is caused by a
difference in pressure between the underside of the bottom of the
wing, and the overside of the top of the wing.

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

Note that some of these people have been flying aircraft for years,
even decades, while I am still a student pilot.

Comments from anyone who knows physics welcome.

1) Acrobatic airplane wings are essentially symmetric in
cross-section. They fly equally well rightside-up or inverted. Angle
of attack is important.

2) Bernoulli's law is strictly a 2-D analysis.

3) Dr. Penelope Smith rigorously derived vortex shedding is a major
lift component in 3-D. Don't be Cessna behind a jumbo.

Le Chaud Lapin wrote:

Hi All,

There is a long discussion ongoing in rec.aviation.piloting about
what causes lift on a plane. You can read from the link below.
Please note that about 80% of the post are mostly ad hominem attacks
and should be ignored. There are some small bits of real discussion.

/b85a49e900a0c791/bb11fa289cd7864a#bb11fa289cd7864a

I am an electrical engineer with experience in analag design and
software, with math and physics background that you would expect of
an electrical engineer.

There are many points made in the discussion, but I would like to
focus on one in particular for the sake of progress.

There are people in the pilot's group, who think that lift on a wing
is analyzed as such:

1. There is air on outside of top of wing that is pushing down, but
reduced because of aerodynamics.
2. The *inside* of the wing contains air pushing up against the
underside of top of wing .
3. Let us ignore that the same air inside the wing pushes down on the
overside of bottom part of wing.
3. The difference in pressure against the underside of the top wing
on the inside of wing and top of wing on outside, is what gives plane
lift.

Note that they ignore the pressure inside the wing that pushes
downward on the wing.

I am trying to convince them that, if there is air on the inside of
the wing, it pushes against all sides of the inside of the wing,
including both top underside and bottom overside, and thereby
nullifying any effect it would have on the wing. Lift is caused by a
difference in pressure between the underside of the bottom of the
wing, and the overside of the top of the wing.

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

Note that some of these people have been flying aircraft for years,
even decades, while I am still a student pilot.

Comments from anyone who knows physics welcome.

1) Acrobatic airplane wings are essentially symmetric in
cross-section. They fly equally well rightside-up or inverted. Angle
of attack is important.

2) Bernoulli's law is strictly a 2-D analysis.

3) Dr. Penelope Smith rigorously derived vortex shedding is a major
lift component in 3-D. Don't be Cessna behind a jumbo.