Flatboarding: the flying style

"pigo" wrote in message news:7e717290-0703-49ff-

That's quite true; if there's lift, the airplane will climb.

Are you sure?

If a plane is not falling out of the sky like a stone there is lift,
right? So when a plane decends from 36K to 10K gradually, over many
minutes, there is still lift, right? But it's not climbing?

=====

Correct. The airplane will climb when lift EXCEEDS the weight of the plane.
Level flight occurs when lift EQUALS or balances the weight of the plane.
Descent happens when the weight exceeds the lift. Falling like a rock occurs
when the weight greatly exceeds the lift.

In fact even the rock has SOME lift. If not it would continue to accelerate
at a rate of (If I remember correctly) 120 ft/sec/sec. It eventually reaches
a terminal velocity and accelerates no further due to wind resistance which
is, in fact, lift. Not much lift but it is present and measurable.

Forward motion, which is affected by thrust, is one of the factors which
determines lift. Without motion there will be no lift unless we are talking
about a helicopter. (in which case it is actually the forward motion of the
blades so it still holds true) So thrust is usually an essential part of the
equation because forward motion must be maitained, but lift is determined by
the shape and angle of whatever control surface is present and the speed at
which that surface moves in relation to the air. A radical shape or angle
may require more thrust to avoid a stall.

The only way an aircraft with a symetrical wing and zero angle of attack can
maintain level flight is if the craft is weightless, ie gravity is also
zero. Perhaps Itchie has been speaking of spaceships all along and our
partitioned minds could not comprehend this.

"taichiskiing" wrote in message
...
On Dec 26, 10:49 am, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
... at "level flight," there is no "Lift."

That's quite true; if there's lift, the airplane will climb.

No. That's quite untrue. Lift and "climbing" are two different things.

Maybe, in a layman's jargons. You are confused the meaning of "lift"
in natural language and the meaning in aerodynamic language; i.e.
jargons.

Lift is certainly present in level flight. It counteracts the force of
gravity on the plane and make level flight possible.

So, there's no force to move the airplane upward in level flight,
there's no "lift." That's only simple physics.

That was pretty easy, and I don't even read most of your crap.

That was your problem, little knowledge, drawing conclusion from
incomplete reading.

No Itchy. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Laughable. Your little knowledge's denial is not a logical conclusion,
i.e. wrong, wrong, wrong.

Happy Holidays all...

I'll go next:

Pilotsweb Webpage:

"the angle of attack is defined as the angle between the chord line (of
the airfoil) and the relative wind."

Itchy:

" A flying lawn mower has neither "wing" nor "angle of attack.""

Yup, according the definition, if there's no "wing," there is no
"angle of attack."

But we have established that the "flying lawn mower" is simply a RC
model airplane with wings, a standard engine, and control surfaces.

No, you said "wing," and I said "flying body," different prospective,
but your statement did not "contradict" my statement, only reflects
your narrow-mindedness.

There is a wing, and that wing has lift, and by virtue of simply passing
through the air it has an angle of attack.

"You are confused the meaning of "lift" in natural language and the
meaning in aerodynamic language; i.e. jargons."


What's the "angle of attack on this airplane,
http://www.amazingpaperairplanes.com/Basic_Dart.html

Here you go again, trying to find an airplane that doesn't follow the
laws of physics.... Sadly, for you, it does.

There's no such thing/airplane as "an airplane that doesn't follow the
laws of physics"

"When you contradict Newton's Mechanism, you are wrong."

On a paper airplane, the wing's "angle of attack is both 1) unknowable
and 2) subject to change.

1) The "angle of attack" remains "the angle of attack is defined as
the angle between the chord line (of the airfoil) and the relative
wind." You have quoted it right, but you don't know what does it mean,
that's why it is "unknowable" to you.

2) As "angle of attack" is formed between the "chord line," in this
case, the thin paper edge, and the "relative wind," which is always
opposite to the "flight path," so yes, it's subject to change; it is a
no-brainer.

1) The initial angle of attack (or the angle between the chord line and
the relative wind) of a PAPER airplane depends on the angle that it
leaves the thrower's hand. If you tell me exactly what angle you throw
your paper airplane, I will tell you the initial angle of attack.

Actually, it doesn't matter how you throw it, the paper airplane would
initially follow/fly the direction of throwing force; i.e. zero "angle
of attack."


2) A paper airplane is a glider and nearly 100% of it's kinetic energy
comes from the initial throw. "Level flight" is unattainable except for
a brief period as thrust can not be added and control surfaces can't be
changed after the initial toss.

As the paper airplane gliding "downward," where and what is the
"lift"?

I don't expect you to recognize or accept this fact.

Your jargons don't shed the light.

Therefore, a wing in motion ALWAYS has an angle of attack, whether it's
5 degrees, -5 degrees or 0 degrees.

Jargons; how about 20 degrees?

Sure why not? Since you picked that particular number, which is the
angle of attack that can produce a stall on a high performance aircraft,

So, increasing the "angle of attack" doesn't always produce "lift"?

I'm going to assume that you are going to say something silly like you
did above where you claim that lift is not present if the airplane isn't
climbing.

Yes, that's only simple physics, silly you.


Please do ---

I'll be awaiting my apology.

You haven't proved that contradicts my statement.

I have. You are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. Walt and
Allan certainly have proved your statements wrong too.

You gappers lack of basic knowledge of physics.

"When you contradict Newton's Mechanism, you are wrong."

(Actually I'll be awaiting some name calling and some comically stupid
rambling on how Itchy thinks flying should work.)

Of course, this comment has nothing to do with the "discussion" on
hands, "gapper netkook."

And there it is! The frustrated name calling.

No, that is actually your official title now, as you are still in
denial, and I don't expect you're going to apologize for your foolish
acts, so, given the criterion set forth in the top post, you are now
official "gapper netkook."

Good power skiing all around the Tahoe area.

If there is good powder skiing in the Tahoe area today, it will be the
first thing I've known you to be right about. If that's the case, I
will suspect it's a coincidence.

Don't have "weather channel," or just speculating your arrogant denial
here?

The more you talk, the less your little knowledge.

Yes Ichie, and it's getting funnier all the time. You really are a moron.

At least now we know it's not just us being confused by you murdering the
language. You really can't think.

Thanks for making it so clear.

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

No. That's quite untrue. Lift and "climbing" are two different things.

Maybe, in a layman's jargons. You are confused the meaning of "lift"
in natural language and the meaning in aerodynamic language; i.e.
jargons.

Let's clear this up right now. You disagree with the pilotsweb web site
that YOU CHOSE to be the "gold standard" for physics regarding flight.
You "challenged" me to prove you wrong using this web site and now that
I have (several times) you claim their use of aeronautical terms is
wrong and your casual and non-scientific ones are right?



Lift is certainly present in level flight. It counteracts the force of
gravity on the plane and make level flight possible.

So, there's no force to move the airplane upward in level flight,
there's no "lift." That's only simple physics.

No. You are either very stupid or pretending to be very stupid. Lift
is the upward force on the airplane that counteracts gravity from your
own "gold standard" web site:

http://pilotsweb.com/principle/forces.htm

"Assuming a straight and level flight, lift must be equal to weight and
drag must be equal to thrust. If this equilibrium is violated, i.e.,
lift becomes greater than weight, then an acceleration upward will
occur. Conversely, if the weight is greater than the lift, an
acceleration downward will occur."

In level flight lift is not zero or the plane would (LITERALLY) drop out
of the sky like a brick.

No Itchy. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Laughable. Your little knowledge's denial is not a logical conclusion,
i.e. wrong, wrong, wrong.

Look, you can get all spiritual with skiing. You are still wrong. When
it comes to flight though, the physics have been studied and worked out
for decades. There is no disagreement. Some people may argue nuances
behind the forces that contribute to lift, but no one besides you is in
disagreement about the mere presence of quantifiable lift in level
flight.

Here's on for you. A plane is flying at 100 feet off the deck and then
passes over the Grand Canyon. Suddenly they are 5380 (100 feet + 5280)
off the deck. Where did the lift come from?

Here's a better one. A plane that weighs exactly 1000 pounds with fuel
and passengers is in level flight. What is the "lift" acting on the
airplane? What would happen to the plane if the lift was zero? Show
your work.

" A flying lawn mower has neither "wing" nor "angle of attack.""

Yup, according the definition, if there's no "wing," there is no
"angle of attack."

According to WHAT definition? Where is the a definition that states
this model airplane doesn't have wings?

But we have established that the "flying lawn mower" is simply a RC
model airplane with wings, a standard engine, and control surfaces.

No, you said "wing," and I said "flying body," different prospective,
but your statement did not "contradict" my statement, only reflects
your narrow-mindedness.

So if we I humor you and pretend that your "flying body" (which is
still shaped like a wing and has all the characteristics of a wing but
you want to call it a "flying body" AND despite this device not existing
based on your own "gold standard" web site pilotswebs.com (a subsidiary
of mensweb.com?)) you still claim that the "not a wing" that allows the
RC model airplane to fly does not have an "angle of attack" then please
describe the physics behind it's flight. Remember you are claiming that
it doesn't possess a wing and that whatever you choose to call it's
airfoil, that airfoil lacks an "angle of attack."

Go!


There is a wing, and that wing has lift, and by virtue of simply passing
through the air it has an angle of attack.

"You are confused the meaning of "lift" in natural language and the
meaning in aerodynamic language; i.e. jargons."

Which definition of "lift" are you using? the aeronautical one or the
casual one? Keep in mind, there is no "natural language." If there is,
please reference it, the term doesn't appear on your pilotsweb web site.


Here you go again, trying to find an airplane that doesn't follow the
laws of physics.... Sadly, for you, it does.

There's no such thing/airplane as "an airplane that doesn't follow the
laws of physics"

But there are planes that lack wings and fly without an angle of attack?


"When you contradict Newton's Mechanism, you are wrong."

You mean like claiming that lift is absent unless a plane is climbing?


On a paper airplane, the wing's "angle of attack is both 1) unknowable
and 2) subject to change.

1) The "angle of attack" remains "the angle of attack is defined as
the angle between the chord line (of the airfoil) and the relative
wind." You have quoted it right, but you don't know what does it mean,
that's why it is "unknowable" to you.

No, I don't know it, because there wasn't enough information in your
question to calculate it. If I ask you "how much does this box weigh?"
you can't answer it, not because you don't understand what mass and
grivity are, but because I haven't given you enough information to
calculate the answer.

2) As "angle of attack" is formed between the "chord line," in this
case, the thin paper edge, and the "relative wind," which is always
opposite to the "flight path," so yes, it's subject to change; it is a
no-brainer.

Really? The way you describe it, the paper airplane should be able to
fly forever. ' If the "relative wind," ' ' is always opposite to the
"flight path," ' then your paper airplane, once thrown straight should
just fly on and on. Unless there are other forces acting on it. What
forces are acting on a paper airplane? (hint: there are 4 of them)

1) The initial angle of attack (or the angle between the chord line and
the relative wind) of a PAPER airplane depends on the angle that it
leaves the thrower's hand. If you tell me exactly what angle you throw
your paper airplane, I will tell you the initial angle of attack.

Actually, it doesn't matter how you throw it, the paper airplane would
initially follow/fly the direction of throwing force; i.e. zero "angle
of attack."

Really? Initially zero? Why would it ever change?


2) A paper airplane is a glider and nearly 100% of it's kinetic energy
comes from the initial throw. "Level flight" is unattainable except for
a brief period as thrust can not be added and control surfaces can't be
changed after the initial toss.

As the paper airplane gliding "downward," where and what is the
"lift"?

I don't expect you to recognize or accept this fact.

Your jargons don't shed the light.

Therefore, a wing in motion ALWAYS has an angle of attack, whether it's
5 degrees, -5 degrees or 0 degrees.

Jargons; how about 20 degrees?

Sure why not? Since you picked that particular number, which is the
angle of attack that can produce a stall on a high performance aircraft,

So, increasing the "angle of attack" doesn't always produce "lift"?

No more than using your brake pedal always stops the car. But it would
be silly to say brakes don't work because a skid is possible if certain
conditions are met.


I'm going to assume that you are going to say something silly like you
did above where you claim that lift is not present if the airplane isn't
climbing.

Yes, that's only simple physics, silly you.

You're saying that I'm the silly one for arguing that the force of lift
acts against gravity in an airplane in level flight? I am silly, but
only for arguing with such a silly and stupid man.


Please do ---

I'll be awaiting my apology.

You haven't proved that contradicts my statement.

I have. You are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. Walt and
Allan certainly have proved your statements wrong too.

You gappers lack of basic knowledge of physics.

Really?



"When you contradict Newton's Mechanism, you are wrong."

(Actually I'll be awaiting some name calling and some comically stupid
rambling on how Itchy thinks flying should work.)

Of course, this comment has nothing to do with the "discussion" on
hands, "gapper netkook."

And there it is! The frustrated name calling.

No, that is actually your official title now, as you are still in
denial, and I don't expect you're going to apologize for your foolish
acts, so, given the criterion set forth in the top post, you are now
official "gapper netkook."

Which "foolish acts" would those be? You've accused me of being wrong,
lying and plagiarizing but been unable to back any of that up. You are
lying and stupid and owe me several apologies for your naming calling.

Dave

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

On Dec 26, 9:46 am, pigo wrote:
On Dec 26, 7:02 am, taichiskiing
wrote:

That's quite true; if there's lift, the airplane will climb.

Are you sure?

If a plane is not falling out of the sky like a stone there is lift,
right? So when a plane decends from 36K to 10K gradually, over many
minutes, there is still lift, right? But it's not climbing?

Study the portion titled "The forces during the glide."


IS

You study it. You're the one who lacks understanding.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

"Dave Cartman" wrote in message
...

Here's on for you. A plane is flying at 100 feet off the deck and then
passes over the Grand Canyon. Suddenly they are 5380 (100 feet + 5280)
off the deck. Where did the lift come from?

Here's a better one. A plane that weighs exactly 1000 pounds with fuel
and passengers is in level flight. What is the "lift" acting on the
airplane? What would happen to the plane if the lift was zero? Show
your work.

How about another. According to Itchie, A plane in level flight has no lift, yet
can maintain altitude. A plane rolling on the ground at 1 mph obviously has no
lift. Roll it off the edge of the grand canyon. Since it has exactly the same
lift as a plane in flight, according to Itchie, it will obviously maintain level
flight - RIGHT?

In article ,
"Norm" wrote:

"pigo" wrote in message news:7e717290-0703-49ff-

That's quite true; if there's lift, the airplane will climb.

Are you sure?

If a plane is not falling out of the sky like a stone there is lift,
right? So when a plane decends from 36K to 10K gradually, over many
minutes, there is still lift, right? But it's not climbing?

=====

Correct. The airplane will climb when lift EXCEEDS the weight of the plane.

Actually, no.

The aircraft accelerates vertically when lift exceeds the weight of the
aircraft.

In a steady climb, lift is once again equal to weight.

Level flight occurs when lift EQUALS or balances the weight of the plane.
Descent happens when the weight exceeds the lift. Falling like a rock occurs
when the weight greatly exceeds the lift.

In fact even the rock has SOME lift. If not it would continue to accelerate
at a rate of (If I remember correctly) 120 ft/sec/sec. It eventually reaches
a terminal velocity and accelerates no further due to wind resistance which
is, in fact, lift. Not much lift but it is present and measurable.

Forward motion, which is affected by thrust, is one of the factors which
determines lift. Without motion there will be no lift unless we are talking
about a helicopter. (in which case it is actually the forward motion of the
blades so it still holds true) So thrust is usually an essential part of the
equation because forward motion must be maitained, but lift is determined by
the shape and angle of whatever control surface is present and the speed at
which that surface moves in relation to the air. A radical shape or angle
may require more thrust to avoid a stall.

The only way an aircraft with a symetrical wing and zero angle of attack can
maintain level flight is if the craft is weightless, ie gravity is also
zero. Perhaps Itchie has been speaking of spaceships all along and our
partitioned minds could not comprehend this.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg

On Dec 27, 12:49 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:
No. That's quite untrue. Lift and "climbing" are two different things.

Maybe, in a layman's jargons. You are confused the meaning of "lift"
in natural language and the meaning in aerodynamic language; i.e.
jargons.

Let's clear this up right now. You disagree with the pilotsweb web site
that YOU CHOSE to be the "gold standard" for physics regarding flight.

No, I don't disagree with pilotsweb web site, and I use it as a
reference is because it is well written in English, presumably by some
English-speaking pilots, so there's no excuse for not understanding
due to the "bad" English.

You "challenged" me to prove you wrong using this web site and now that
I have (several times) you claim their use of aeronautical terms is
wrong and your casual and non-scientific ones are right?

Not sure what you try to say, but no, I did say their use of the
aeronautical terms is wrong, but yours is, so it is jargons.

Lift is certainly present in level flight. It counteracts the force of
gravity on the plane and make level flight possible.

So, there's no force to move the airplane upward in level flight,
there's no "lift." That's only simple physics.

No. You are either very stupid or pretending to be very stupid. Lift
is the upward force on the airplane that counteracts gravity from your
own "gold standard" web site:

http://pilotsweb.com/principle/forces.htm

"Assuming a straight and level flight, lift must be equal to weight and
drag must be equal to thrust. If this equilibrium is violated, i.e.,
lift becomes greater than weight, then an acceleration upward will
occur. Conversely, if the weight is greater than the lift, an
acceleration downward will occur."

In level flight lift is not zero or the plane would (LITERALLY) drop out
of the sky like a brick.

In aerodynamic terminology, there are always four forces act on the
airplane during a flight: Thrust, Drag, Lift, and Weight. As they have
a precise aerodynamic meaning, let's capitalize the terms so they
serve as special terminologies. In a steady level flight, Trust=Drag
and Lift=Weight. We all know the force of Lift goes up, and the force
of Weight goes down, so when they are equal, they cancel each other,
so the *net* force equals to zero; "no going up" means "no lift,"
common language. Yup, you were played by your jargons.

(now, for extra credit, given Thrust=Drag, what moves the airplane
forward?)

No Itchy. You are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Laughable. Your little knowledge's denial is not a logical conclusion,
i.e. wrong, wrong, wrong.

Look, you can get all spiritual with skiing. You are still wrong. When
it comes to flight though, the physics have been studied and worked out
for decades. There is no disagreement. Some people may argue nuances
behind the forces that contribute to lift, but no one besides you is in
disagreement about the mere presence of quantifiable lift in level
flight.

Given English partitioned nature, special terminologies are some times
necessary for precise meanings and speedy communication for the
experts in the field. Only when laymen use them to pretend that they
are knowledgeable, they become jargons.


Here's on for you. A plane is flying at 100 feet off the deck and then
passes over the Grand Canyon. Suddenly they are 5380 (100 feet + 5280)
off the deck. Where did the lift come from?

A flying airplane doesn't see the ground, be that one foot or 10,000
feet.

Here's a better one. A plane that weighs exactly 1000 pounds with fuel
and passengers is in level flight. What is the "lift" acting on the
airplane? What would happen to the plane if the lift was zero? Show
your work.

Lift=1000 lb., and lift=0.


" A flying lawn mower has neither "wing" nor "angle of attack.""

Yup, according the definition, if there's no "wing," there is no
"angle of attack."

According to WHAT definition?

Cute, you were not talking about "angle of attack"?

Where is the a definition that states
this model airplane doesn't have wings?

No; we were talking "flight theory in general," not "this model
airplane."

You are trapped in your narrow-minded interpretation, in hope to win
an argument to lip-serve you mutated ego.

But we have established that the "flying lawn mower" is simply a RC
model airplane with wings, a standard engine, and control surfaces.

No, you said "wing," and I said "flying body," different prospective,
but your statement did not "contradict" my statement, only reflects
your narrow-mindedness.

So if we I humor you and pretend that your "flying body" (which is
still shaped like a wing and has all the characteristics of a wing but
you want to call it a "flying body" AND despite this device not existing
based on your own "gold standard" web site pilotswebs.com (a subsidiary
of mensweb.com?)) you still claim that the "not a wing" that allows the
RC model airplane to fly does not have an "angle of attack" then please
describe the physics behind it's flight. Remember you are claiming that
it doesn't possess a wing and that whatever you choose to call it's
airfoil, that airfoil lacks an "angle of attack."

Go!

Let's say it is not even a "wing"/airfoil shape but a bathtub, balance
it, and give a big enough engine, yup, it will fly. Actually, a
missile gives quite vivid example.

There is a wing, and that wing has lift, and by virtue of simply passing
through the air it has an angle of attack.

"You are confused the meaning of "lift" in natural language and the
meaning in aerodynamic language; i.e. jargons."

Which definition of "lift" are you using? the aeronautical one or the
casual one? Keep in mind, there is no "natural language." If there is,
please reference it, the term doesn't appear on your pilotsweb web site.

Read the explanation above.


Here you go again, trying to find an airplane that doesn't follow the
laws of physics.... Sadly, for you, it does.

There's no such thing/airplane as "an airplane that doesn't follow the
laws of physics"

But there are planes that lack wings and fly without an angle of attack?

Yup, whether or not they are practical is another question.

"When you contradict Newton's Mechanism, you are wrong."

You mean like claiming that lift is absent unless a plane is climbing?

Read explanation above.

On a paper airplane, the wing's "angle of attack is both 1) unknowable
and 2) subject to change.

1) The "angle of attack" remains "the angle of attack is defined as
the angle between the chord line (of the airfoil) and the relative
wind." You have quoted it right, but you don't know what does it mean,
that's why it is "unknowable" to you.

No, I don't know it, because there wasn't enough information in your
question to calculate it. If I ask you "how much does this box weigh?"
you can't answer it, not because you don't understand what mass and
grivity are, but because I haven't given you enough information to
calculate the answer.

Of course, in you partitioned English/mind, without numbers you cannot
comprehend anything, yet, you can't produce any number yourself. Your
bewilderments are hopeless.

2) As "angle of attack" is formed between the "chord line," in this
case, the thin paper edge, and the "relative wind," which is always
opposite to the "flight path," so yes, it's subject to change; it is a
no-brainer.

Really? The way you describe it, the paper airplane should be able to
fly forever. ' If the "relative wind," ' ' is always opposite to the
"flight path," ' then your paper airplane, once thrown straight should
just fly on and on. Unless there are other forces acting on it. What
forces are acting on a paper airplane? (hint: there are 4 of them)

Jargons; for the forces acting on an airplane, read the explanation
above.

Nothing flies forever (don't we wish), once the power is off, the Drag
would become greater than the Thrust, which slows the airplane down,
which reduces the Lift, then the Weight becomes greater than the Lift,
then the airplane goes down.

1) The initial angle of attack (or the angle between the chord line and
the relative wind) of a PAPER airplane depends on the angle that it
leaves the thrower's hand. If you tell me exactly what angle you throw
your paper airplane, I will tell you the initial angle of attack.

Actually, it doesn't matter how you throw it, the paper airplane would
initially follow/fly the direction of throwing force; i.e. zero "angle
of attack."

Really? Initially zero? Why would it ever change?

Read the explanation above.

2) A paper airplane is a glider and nearly 100% of it's kinetic energy
comes from the initial throw. "Level flight" is unattainable except for
a brief period as thrust can not be added and control surfaces can't be
changed after the initial toss.

As the paper airplane gliding "downward," where and what is the
"lift"?

Answer?

I don't expect you to recognize or accept this fact.

Your jargons don't shed the light.

Therefore, a wing in motion ALWAYS has an angle of attack, whether it's
5 degrees, -5 degrees or 0 degrees.

Jargons; how about 20 degrees?

Sure why not? Since you picked that particular number, which is the
angle of attack that can produce a stall on a high performance aircraft,

So, increasing the "angle of attack" doesn't always produce "lift"?

No more than using your brake pedal always stops the car. But it would
be silly to say brakes don't work because a skid is possible if certain
conditions are met.

Wrong analogy; according to you, "angle of attack" is what sustains
the flight, not "breaks" it. It'd be really bad when what sustains you
suddenly becomes the one that breaks you, won't it?

I'm going to assume that you are going to say something silly like you
did above where you claim that lift is not present if the airplane isn't
climbing.

Yes, that's only simple physics, silly you.

You're saying that I'm the silly one for arguing that the force of lift
acts against gravity in an airplane in level flight? I am silly, but
only for arguing with such a silly and stupid man.

Actually, you are silly only because you don't know you are such a
silly and stupid man.

Please do ---

I'll be awaiting my apology.

You haven't proved that contradicts my statement.

I have. You are either too stupid or too proud to admit it. Walt and
Allan certainly have proved your statements wrong too.

You gappers lack of basic knowledge of physics.

Really?

Really.

"When you contradict Newton's Mechanism, you are wrong."

(Actually I'll be awaiting some name calling and some comically stupid
rambling on how Itchy thinks flying should work.)

Of course, this comment has nothing to do with the "discussion" on
hands, "gapper netkook."

And there it is! The frustrated name calling.

No, that is actually your official title now, as you are still in
denial, and I don't expect you're going to apologize for your foolish
acts, so, given the criterion set forth in the top post, you are now
official "gapper netkook."

Which "foolish acts" would those be?

Your kooky netkook behaviors.

You've accused me of being wrong, lying and plagiarizing
but been unable to back any of that up.

I have backed them up alright; only your kooky netkook behaviors deny
it, which also proves/"backs up" what I said.

You are lying and stupid and owe me several apologies for your naming calling.

You are what you do; you've earned them titles.


IS


Dave

On Dec 27, 8:38*am, taichiskiing
wrote:
On Dec 26, 9:46 am, pigo wrote:

On Dec 26, 7:02 am, taichiskiing
wrote:

That's quite true; if there's lift, the airplane will climb.

Are you sure?

If a plane is not falling out of the sky like a stone there is lift,
right? So when a plane decends from 36K to 10K gradually, over many
minutes, there is still lift, right? But it's not climbing?

Study the portion titled "The forces during the glide."


IS

I don't read much of you **** itchy. I get a headache trying to
translate it to a known language. :-)

On Dec 27, 10:01*am, "Norm" wrote:

Forward motion, which is affected by thrust, is one of the factors which
determines lift. Without motion there will be no lift unless we are talking
about a helicopter. (in which case it is actually the forward motion of the
blades so it still holds true)

I've heard that the "blade" is actually more correctly called a "wing".

On Dec 28, 8:26*am, pigo wrote:
On Dec 27, 10:01*am, "Norm" wrote:

Forward motion, which is affected by thrust, is one of the factors which
determines lift. Without motion there will be no lift unless we are talking
about a helicopter. (in which case it is actually the forward motion of the
blades so it still holds true)

I've heard that the "blade" is actually more correctly called a "wing".

The current US DOD nomenclature for helicopters is "rotary wing
aircraft".