Flatboarding: the flying style

On Dec 28, 7:39*am, taichiskiing
wrote:

something pricelss

I hereby define the "Davis" as the quantity of aeronautical knowledge
exhibited by Jeff Davis on RSA.

Itchy's last posting measures out at 0.01 Davis.

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

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;

"We" don't know that at all. You are wrong again. The "Weight" of the
plane remains constant (except as fuel is consumed) Lift must overcome
the weight of the plane.

"no going up" means "no lift," common language. Yup, you were played by
your jargons.

That is as silly as me insisting that "a stall" means your engine quit
running, because that is what someone who knows nothing of aeronautical
terms would think.

Dave

"Dave Cartman" wrote in message
...
In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

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;

"We" don't know that at all. You are wrong again. The "Weight" of the
plane remains constant (except as fuel is consumed) Lift must overcome
the weight of the plane.

In addition, lift does not necessarily go up. It can go in any direction,
depending on the orientation and angle of attack of the aircraft. Turn the
plane upside down, and pull back on the stick, the lift accelerates the airplne
towards the ground (otherwise known as "down). Turn the plane on its side and
pull back on the stick, the plane turns one way. Push on the stick, it turns the
other. All these actions apply lift in different directions and magnitudes. Lift
is the force generated by the wing when it has an angle of attack and forward
airspeed. Its only connection to the weight of the plane is that, to maintain
level flight, lift must equal weight.

Lift is, by definition, a force generated perpendicular to the chord of the
wing.

Lift is never zero for a plane in steady level flight. Instead, it is equal to
the weight of the plane and contents. Whether you capitalize it or not.

And, if the wing has a symmetrical airfoil, that requires a positive angle of
attack.
With zero angle of attack, the wing has no lift, and supports no weight.

From:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es..._coef/TH14.htm

"A symmetric airfoil (one that is identical above and below the chord line) has
an angle of zero lift equal to 0°."

Got it yet, Itchie?


"no going up" means "no lift," common language. Yup, you were played by
your jargons.


That is as silly as me insisting that "a stall" means your engine quit
running, because that is what someone who knows nothing of aeronautical
terms would think.

Dave

"pigo" wrote in message news:e6447acd-f198-485f-

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".

========


Seems possible, it performs the same function.

Okay, I'll take a stab....

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 06:02:55 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
wrote:

On Dec 25, 12:40 pm, Dave Cartman wrote:

Pilotsweb Webpage:

Assuming a straight and level flight, lift must be equal to weight.

Itchy:

... at "level flight," there is no "Lift."

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

IS, please dig this:

" Assuming a straight and level flight, lift must be equal to weight."

That "straight and level flight" bit means the airplane is NOT
CLIMBING. And yet, your source says there IS lift (equal to the
weight of the aircraft.). So in the example from your source,
there's lift, but the aircraft ISN'T climbing.

bw

On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 06:02:55 -0800 (PST), taichiskiing
wrote:
" 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." What's the "angle of attack on this airplane,
http://www.amazingpaperairplanes.com/Basic_Dart.html


"Angle of Attack", in YOUR source, is the angle of the chord of the
"airfoil". Whether or not there's a "wing" as you define it, there is
unquestionably an "airfoil" in your Flying Lawnmower examples, so a
flying lawnmower has an angle of attack. OK?

bw

On Dec 28, 11:24 am, "Bob F" wrote:

In addition, lift does not necessarily go up. It can go in any direction,
depending on the orientation and angle of attack of the aircraft. Turn the
plane upside down, and pull back on the stick, the lift accelerates the airplne
towards the ground (otherwise known as "down). Turn the plane on its side and
pull back on the stick, the plane turns one way. Push on the stick, it turns the
other. All these actions apply lift in different directions and magnitudes. Lift
is the force generated by the wing when it has an angle of attack and forward
airspeed. Its only connection to the weight of the plane is that, to maintain
level flight, lift must equal weight.

What I said.

Lift is, by definition, a force generated perpendicular to the chord of the
wing.

Actually, the "lift force" is perpendicular to the "relative wind"/
flight path.

Lift is never zero for a plane in steady level flight. Instead, it is equal to
the weight of the plane and contents. Whether you capitalize it or not.

The "Lift" *component* of the flying force is never zero but the net
"lift" *force* is zero. Capitalize the "lift component" makes better
understanding and better documentation.

And, if the wing has a symmetrical airfoil, that requires a positive angle of
attack.

Doing what?

With zero angle of attack, the wing has no lift, and supports no weight.

Jargons;

From:http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...ies_of_Flight/
Two_dimens...

"A symmetric airfoil (one that is identical above and below the chord line) has
an angle of zero lift equal to 0°."

Got it yet, Itchie?

Got it, jargon. Now, you have to explain why most modern jet fighters/
aerobatic airplanes fly.

This page may shed some light to your question,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1045225AAJ2EyX


IS

On Dec 28, 10:25 am, Dave Cartman wrote:
In article
,

taichiskiing wrote:
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;

"We" don't know that at all.

Ok, you are behind the curve of reasoning.

You are wrong again.

Laughable.

The "Weight" of the plane remains constant (except as
fuel is consumed)

Uh? Gas is weight about 6 lb per gallon, and a jet-liner burns
thousands gallons in an hour, just how "constant" the airplane weight
is?

Lift must overcome the weight of the plane.

Uhh... what about when the airplane is in descending?

"no going up" means "no lift," common language. Yup, you were played by
your jargons.

That is as silly as me insisting that "a stall" means your engine quit
running, because that is what someone who knows nothing of aeronautical
terms would think.

Quit true, so it is a jargon.


IS

Dave

On Dec 28, 8:30 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:39 am, taichiskiing
wrote:

something pricelss

I hereby define the "Davis" as the quantity of aeronautical knowledge
exhibited by Jeff Davis on RSA.

Itchy's last posting measures out at 0.01 Davis.

"The more you talk, the less you know."


IS

In article
,
taichiskiing wrote:

On Dec 28, 8:30 am, Richard Henry wrote:
On Dec 28, 7:39 am, taichiskiing
wrote:

something pricelss

I hereby define the "Davis" as the quantity of aeronautical knowledge
exhibited by Jeff Davis on RSA.

Itchy's last posting measures out at 0.01 Davis.

"The more you talk, the less you know."

Actually, the more *you* talk the more it becomes apparent how little
*you* know.

If you had stuck to your mystical mumbo-jumbo, it would have been harder
to show how stupid you really are. Unfortunately for you, your raging
narcissistic personality disorder caused to you venture into subjects
that *are* "cut and dried."

Over the past two weeks you have demonstrated not you don't know
anything about physics or aerodynamics, but everything you think you
know about them is wrong.

A smarter man would be embarrassed. And a less kooky netkook would
be... someone besides you.

Dave