Jump to content

completeaerogeek

Members
  • Content Count

    104
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

About completeaerogeek

  • Rank
    Well-known member

Information

  • Country
    Australia
  1. And sorry-no 'Coanda effect.' If the Coanda Effect exists at all (and there is debate abut this) as a separate phenomenon from viscosity effects, it only occurs in accelerated flows such as Upper Surface lowing not in static air.
  2. Thomo you are half there and half not. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/how-wings-really-work. There are no vacuums (partial or otherwise) in normal space. also www.219sqn.aafc..org.au and click Wings don't suck! for more. or you could read my article in Australian Flying this month. (JAN/FEB 15) A wing doesn't 'suck at all' In fact suction is a very misunderstood and somewhat mythical concept. When a piston moves down in a cylinder atmospheric pressure pushes the air into the increasing space . The 'suction' idea is why so many pilots have problems understanding why a MAP gauge goes up and
  3. Coanda is not the reason the air flows a surface. Static pressure and viscosity are. The Coanda Effect (if is exists at all as a distinct phenomenon) is only present in accelerated flows such as upper surface blowing.
  4. Swings do not need to be cambered they just need AOA. There is no 'suction' on a wing at all. look at www.219sqn.aafc.org.au and click on 'Wings don't suck'. everything y0u need to know is there.
  5. ________________________________ Mr M61- If you were trying to prove that people get their back up because of confirmation bias, you have not, what you have proven is that people get their back up when called stupid, or told bluntly that what they believe (because that's what they were taught) is nonsense. No one asked the question, you essentially just marched on in and told everybody that if they didn't believe you that they were stupid. A lot of emotion in your statement there M61. Firstly, I started the post to offer correct information. That I did and there is no doubt tha
  6. Ahh a retrospective qualification. How is providing information a negative experience? Making a correct statement and then having people abuse you for it is part of public discourse. I don't mind it as long as the overall information and discussion of benefit.If your ego isn't in the way you can learn many new concepts. I have no problem being wrong. it is how we all learn. But if you care going to criticise me then you need to support it with facts and objective assessment. Otherwisse it is just your ego talking. So my question to you is this: Is your statement and that of M61 an objecti
  7. Would you please specify why giving information that some clearly do not understand was arrogant?
  8. Ahhh M61. I see you have twigged. Thanks for your comments. The first part of my purpose was to explain clearly that what may people think is correct is in fact nonsense and hopefully be of help. The second part was to see what sort of response I got. The vociferous arguments based on fallacies are exactly what we in the industry need to fix. An authority figure (instructor or captain) using the cockpit or classroom power gradient consciously or unconsciously can teach new pilots or F/Os all kinds of bad habits or suppress their correct views and the junior pilot will often accept this
  9. ___________________- No that would be a buoyancy problem. Wow you guys really need to read what I am saying and think before you post...Could you please explain why if the relative air speed outside the aircraft was higher than inside (which of course it is) that by his explanation of Bernoulli the air would not go out? Air goes from high to low pressure. Daffyd, in what way is air different to water? (apart from density) I am always happy to learn new things. And I am sorry but you are incorrect. Again...The principle I was describing was a hydrodynamics one not a hydrostatic one..
  10. ____________________- Well Complete, your statement that " the plane is moving and the air is not".. is at best irrelevant and at worst means you have an incorrect understanding of the physics of motion Bruce, I am afraid you have a shovel and you keep digging yourself a bigger hole. I have used this example in a conceptual (not mathematical) context every time I have mentioned it. Conceptually it is important as people ascribe all kinds of properties to the air that it does not have. Still air does not have momentum or kinetic energy. It has inertia and potential energy. Is that irrelev
  11. Mr Turbo, my purpose is to inform and help people be better aviators not to have arguments. The information I have give is correct and in accordance with NASA and other aviation institutions. You may take it or leave it. Entirely up to you.
  12. Hi Daffyd, I have looked up and read several references on this. Biot-Savart is associated with Prandtl's lifting line theory and to do with circulation theory and unbound vortices. A couple of problems I can see: The Kutta condition ceases with vortex breakaway at relatively low speeds. Winglets and swept tips significantly reduce the strength of wing tip vortices and unbound vortices have no influence on the wing. Downwash velocity of wingtip vortices is does not appear to be relevant. In any case this is far too complex for a pilot. Again this can be left to aerodynamicists t
  13. Hi Bruce, My apologies about the Uni bit I have sticky key problems. That was meant for Turbo and his nasty little insults. I agree with you about the National Assessment idea but the variation in lecturers is a problem world wide. I lived and worked in the US for 9 years a lot of that for a major carrier and I was often astounded at the lack of knowledge of college graduates I dealt with. Still the level of education here is far better than many places. OECD shows us 13th in the world where the US/UK are around 35th.
×
×
  • Create New...