>> ...> The results were exactly as anyone who understands why an airfoil
>> > provides lift would expect. First, under no conditions was there the
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>Yep, typical response from a model airplane guy who knows nothing at
>all about much of anything.
Also a typical response from anyone who understands fluid dynamics.
> Terminal stupid is really hard to cure
>even with the evidence right in front of their eyes.
Uh -- sure there, buddy.
> Exactly how can
>turning a gas flow pull on an airfoil?
How can it not? Turning the gas flow requires that the gas be
accelerated, which requires a force -- this force comes from the airfoil,
and is called "lift".
> Air is not a rope moron.
Actually, I didn't know there was such a thing as a "rope moron".
"Punctuation" is also in Wikipedia, by the way.
Air _is_ a fluid, with mass, and acts like a fluid with mass -- up to and
including the fact that to accelerate it requires a force, and to exert a
force on it beyond aerostatic forces will make it accelerate. Just, in
fact, like any other mass.
Newton was one smart dude.
>Subsonic lift is the result of what happens to air flow IN FRONT OF
>THE AIRFOIL pure and simple.
No. Not even by your model. But if you have _trustworthy_ sources that
contradict the NASA sources that Glenn cited, please put 'em down!
>Want to explain supersonic flight by your downwash nonsense? Behind a
>supersonic airfoil the direction of flow is ALWAYS up without
>exception.
Says you. Citations? Reasonably trustworthy ones?
>You might also think a bit about an autogyro where air flow behind the
>rotor blade is ALWAYS UP without exception.
Again according to you. Again -- citations?
>Yes, a subsonic airfoil can be operated under conditions such that air
>flow is downwards behind the airfoil. This down wash has everything
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>could not pick conditions where there was downwash due to limits of
>the experiment they designed.
Indeed, "due to the limits of the experiment they designed".
You have two choices: either an aircraft is supported by magic, or
Newton's laws apply. Since the air is acting on the wings to support the
aircraft, the wings must act on the air. Since the wings are acting on
the air, and the air has mass, and the air has no support (in the absence
of confounding factors like wind tunnel walls), the air must go down.
Hence downwash.
That's not a modeler misunderstanding the situation, that's basic
physics. There's no need for voodoo -- just a need to understand
Newton's laws.
_Every_ serious text on aerodynamics that I have read (and I've read a
few) go over the Bernoulli model, then they point out how that downward
force on the air causes downwash. No one who's trying to educate an
airplane designer tries to say that downwash doesn't exist.
And those folks _aren't_ all modelers.

Signature
www.wescottdesign.com
flyrcalot - 18 Jan 2010 21:10 GMT
> >> ...> The results were exactly as anyone who understands why an airfoil
> >> > provides lift would expect. First, under no conditions was there the
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> --www.wescottdesign.com
Did I ever say a thing about Newton being wrong? Hardly, as Bernoulli
is a direct consequence of Newton. Dirt easy to derive the Bernoulli
equations directly from Newton if you know a tiny amount of math.
The NASA demo did not use a airfoil that went from wall to wall. In
fact the span of the airfoil was only about 1/2 the width of the air
tunnel. Not that it really makes a bit of difference in terms of air
flow towards the center of the air foil. It does make a difference at
the ends of the airfoil as tip vortex needs to have an open end.
In terms of providing citations I am not going to waste my time. You
could not understand them if I did and as a result would just say they
are wrong. They are scattered all over the net just like airfoils
providing subsonic lift without any downwash are all over the net.
One major problem is people read about things like the circulation
model and do not understand what a change in point of reference does.
In a circulation model you are assuming the air foil is not moving
relative to the surrounding air a span away from the airfoil. The
circulation model is a perfectly good way to calculate the size of the
Bernoulli effect that causes lift. That is exactly what it was
developed to do. But that circulation is caused by the change in
reference point and does not represent, in the slightest, the actual
flow of air past an airfoil moving through the air. You obviously do
not understand this aspect at all or you would not have raised the
issue. Or maybe you actually think air flows forwards underneath your
models wings? It is possible you are that incredibly ignorant. You
would not be the first.
I have several college level texts on lift that do not say a thing
about downwash causing lift. I have one that says "Anyone who thinks
downwash causes lift does not understand lift." You might want to
read Von Mises "Theory of Lift" book. It was good enough to be used
as a text at Harvard Univ. for many, many years. Of course if you
have only had calculus you are not going to understand it. Your
failure to recognize that Bernoulli is a direct consequence of, and
derived directly from, Newton's Laws tells me you never went to
college and took physics so I doubt if you know enough math to
understand any book on lift.
Tim Wescott - 18 Jan 2010 22:11 GMT
Yup, it's a troll.

Signature
www.wescottdesign.com
MJKolodziej - 20 Jan 2010 20:09 GMT
> Yup, it's a troll.
I knew from the topic. I might have to give him credit for research,
researching this group.............
mk
Tim Wescott - 21 Jan 2010 03:21 GMT
>> Yup, it's a troll.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> researching this group.............
> mk
The best way to drive away trolls is to ignore them.
But that leaves their drivel unchallenged.
So I usually refute it a bit, to provide food for thought to the Google
Groupers.
Then I (try to) stay out of it.

Signature
www.wescottdesign.com
Glenn - 18 Jan 2010 22:35 GMT
...
> airfoils
> providing subsonic lift without any downwash are all over the net.
...
Hey flyrcalot
Maybe you are mistaken the "missing" airfoil lift, with the thrust
(vectoring) of a propeller, jet engine or a rocket engine.
The jet engine does 2 thing during normal use:
* accelerate air (e.g. turbo fans...)
* use some air to burn fuel with the consequence - accelerate burned
fuel gasses out at the exhaust end.
These engines expels/sends gas at high speed preferable in one direction
only.
If (enough high speed) exhaust/air is directed downward the
rocket/airoplane will ascend/climb (e.g. vertically) - then airfoils
might not be needed/used if the engine in itself generate enough lift.
No airfoil downwash needed - engine downwash is enough:
Pure vertical lift:
Harrier Jet Vertical Takeoff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4oD-BltCY
F35 JSF take off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm7_PPE-8nk
Mixed airfoil and thrust lift:
F22 going vertical:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1B6vmDDHw
757 Going Vertical:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-m5mCRAc3Fk
-
Lift is a force generated by turning a flow - and/or accelerating gas
downwards. Actually impulse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse
-
How are solar sails possible? If photons have no mass, how can they push
on something?:
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae270.cfm?CFID=24788988
Citat: "...This momentum is what gets transferred when wind hits a
normal sail[airfoil!]. But photons have momentum without having mass!..."
Glenn
Glenn - 18 Jan 2010 22:48 GMT
...
> airfoils
> providing subsonic lift without any downwash are all over the net.
...
Hey flyrcalot
At high speed no traditional wings are needed, the lift the fuselage as
an airfoil generates as downwash, is enough:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body
NASA Dryden Fact Sheet - Lifting Bodies:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-011-DFRC.html
Quote: "...
Aerodynamic lift - essential to flight in the atmosphere - was obtained
from the shape of the vehicles rather than from wings as on a normal
aircraft.
...
To reduce the costs of constructing a research vehicle, the Air Force
returned the X-24A to Martin for modifications that converted its
bulbous shape into one resembling a "flying flatiron"
..."
Glenn