>>3) Given the velocity field near a wing, we can calculate>the>>lift by considering how the air is deflected and using the>>principle of conservation of momentum.">>>> Point #3 is what I have been emphasizing, that's it. Do>you>>disagree with Denker's point #3? If not, then we are in>>agreement.Ok, so that's my fault. I misread it, thinking Denker was implying that sentence 3) is false, while he was saying it's true. About which, I obviously agree. :)Marco

Interesting thread. I met a guy who tried to build a solid rocket powered free flight supersonic model not long after Yeager's flight. It was a flying wing with one tailstrake; completely flat on the top to avoid shock waves (so the designer thought). I built a downscale glider of it from file cards straws and paper and it flew beautifully.So in this specific case; a plane being completely flat on top; it would seem to be flying on Newton's theory; not Bernouli's.Best Regards, Donald Traill:-waveFLYing? It's cool. Trillions of birds and insects can't be wrong.

>So in this specific case; a plane being completely flat on>top; it would seem to be flying on Newton's theory; not>Bernouli's.Either one. If you read Denker's long paper (link above) he deals with strange airfoils like a 'barn-door'.Michael J.