Why is flawed aerodymics taught in flight schools?

[michal 44]

Again, as I suspected you are reading the stuff without even understanding what you are reading. I have no problem with none of the quotes above and none of them say that 2% of the lift come from the Bernoulli theory. By the way, sorry but I must limit myself to English text only.By the way may I suggest you read this because it is directed at folks as you have knack for twisting facts.http://www.amasci.com/wing/airfoil.htmlAnd please if you read it do not miss this part:Note well: Newton and Bernoulli do not contradict each other. Explanations which are based on Newton's and on Bernoulli's principles are completely compatible. Air-deflection and Newton's Laws explain 100% of the lifting force. Air velocity and Bernoulli's equation also explains 100% of the lift. For the most part they're just two different ways of simplifying a single complicated subject. Much of the controversy arises because one side or the other insists that only *THEIR* view is correct. They insist that only a *SINGLE* explanation is possible, and the opposing view is therefore wrong. In other words, which is the single best way to crack an egg? This is a war between the Big-endians and Little-endians from "Gulliver's Travels." They simply refuse to acknowledge that there are several valid yet independent approaches to solving the problem. They insist that their version must be the single right answer.However, there are also several serious mistakes usually associated with the "popular" explanation described above.....Michael J.

[LAdamson 240]

As we've seen from two days worth of replies, there are numerous links to pages and pages of opinions/theory from individuals with respectable credentials concerning "lift". And as I stated at the beginning of this thread, the theory of lift has many variations, and NO "one" exact answer. It's well known how to design a wing to cover the design needs of an aircraft; yet, exactly how it all works is still highly debated. All these links, and many more, that I've read, support my thoughts on this subject. L.Adamson

[michal 44]

>yet, exactly how it all works is still highly>debated. Larry, only among folks like you, who read but stuff but have no clue what they are reading. ;)Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Just something else to think about, not a reply hence the new branch. I was just reading about the Challenger ground icing incident at Birmingham UK.This go me thiking about how this ma little more about Bernoulli. The assessment is that the accident was caused by hoarfrost on the top surface of the wings, not only that, but because the hoarfrost must have been thicker on one wing than the other due to the way it parted on the ramp.If Bernoulli were not a critical factor in lift and N3 was, it seems to me that this airplane would not have crashed. Certainly in this case, the effect of air being accelerated over the top of the wing induced a sufficient lift differential when compared to the rough hoarfrost surface on the other wing to render the airplane uncontrollable.Not only this incident, but the myriad of other icing related accidents where large suppercooled water droplets have caused sufficient runback that the ice formed aft of the de-ice equipment changing the shape of the wing. If N3 was the the critical component then one supposes that these aircraft would have remained flyable.

[mgh 89]

"... the air accelerates over the wing because the pressure is lower..." Bernouli's theorem says the pressure is lower because the speed is higher so that statement can be re-written as:"..the air accelerates over the wing because the speed is higher ..." Both are equally valid depending what's being looked at. As someone else said the problem with this thread is a failure to recognize that all the established approaches are valid and different ways of looking at the same phenomena.

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Hey Larry,Here's something that will blow your theory out of the water. I ain't never seen no wheel fly :)http://www.flightzone.co.za/media/harvards.wmvGood init :D

[Guest Moonraker]

>Again, as I suspected you are reading the stuff without even>understanding what you are reading. I have no problem with>none of the quotes above and none of them say that 2% of the>lift come from the Bernoulli theory.O.K. You just said that you have problems with ALL of the quotes above. Obviously you don

[LAdamson 240]

>>yet, exactly how it all works is still highly>>debated. >>Larry, only among folks like you, who read but stuff but have>no clue what they are reading. ;)>Okay Michael, I'll hand you the mic..Please give us the "true" description of "lift", without just implying we wouldn't understand.And then we'll see if at least 50% believe it... :-hah L.Adamson

[michal 44]

>O.K. You just said that you have problems with ALL of>the quotes above. This was a mistype. I said I don't have problem with any of them. Do not play smart brat here.>Explanations>of the Bernoulli - principle DO say the airspeed is higher due>the curved form of the object. So this is inherent to most>explanations of Bernoulli! You have to go to school and find out what Bernoulli theorem says and what it doesn't say. Obviously you have major gap in your physics education.The rest of your voluminous writings adds very little to the subject - nothing that wasn't stated here before. Again, you totally failed to support your early claim that only "2% of lift comes from Bernoulii". I have no problem with anything else you wrote.Michael J.http://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/for...argo_hauler.gifhttp://sales.hifisim.com/pub-download/asv6-banner-beta.jpg

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I've grown fed up with this thread... The attitude of one person is spoiling what could be a great learning experience for all. God forbid I would have had a teacher with that condescending a tone and attitude, I would have never made it out of grammar school and ended up in a shrink's office the rest of my life. Michael--your responses and posts do nothing to maintain and enhance self esteem of the members here, and I am certain some are your equal in their contributions to this forum. Seeing as you have pretty much hijacked this thread and turned it into a venue for being the "Don Rickles" of Avsim, I am shutting it down. I will be sending you a PM shortly, once I cool off.-John

[C-JEAN 1]

Hi, virtual and real PICs. One thing is for sure: It is the TOP of thewing, on slow or subsonic planes, that producesthe lift ! ( Most of it. . .) The proof ? What are we told STRONGLY, in flying lessons,about how **clean** the top of the wings MUST be ?Do NOT fly if there is snow, or ice on the surfaces !Do NOT fly, EVEN if it is ONLY a small layer of morning frost ! Remember the numerous crashes we can read about,because of **contaminated** tops of wings. One I remember is a 2 or 3 engine jet, that hit carson a bridge, before crashing in the river a little farther.It was in winter, and there was snow on the wings. People swiming in ice blocks! One guy running in thewater to save a woman, too exhausted to catch thefloater. . .etc. . . It is on videos. . . Remember: The TOP !! B-) Blue skies.