"Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
"Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
(OP)
h ttp://www. smh.com.au /world/eng ineer-debu nks-theory -of-flight -20120126- 1qjrc.html
i was hoping for something more radical ... he's going back to the old myht that two molecules of air ahead of the wing join up again after the wing, the longer distance of the path over the wing measn it has to travel faster, ...
no, he says it's the shape of the wing causing lower pressure above ...
which from bernoulli means higher speed ...
i was hoping for something more radical ... he's going back to the old myht that two molecules of air ahead of the wing join up again after the wing, the longer distance of the path over the wing measn it has to travel faster, ...
no, he says it's the shape of the wing causing lower pressure above ...
which from bernoulli means higher speed ...





RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
In the clip all he does is demonstrate that particles going over the top of the wing don't arrive at the back of the wing at the same time as those going under.
However, in the article the talk about curved 'wing' does not match what I was taught, or experiments we got to conduct.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
Cheers
Greg Locock
New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
I also vaguely remember one of the profs mention that the lift may have to do with the coefficient of drag at certain angles of attack. The higher the drag the more momentum is displaced. Then the lift can be derived from there, possibly.
Fe (IronX32)
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
It's the 'why' that still leads to debate.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
So hence I'm pretty confident in the 'theory' that air over a lifting wing is traveling faster than that under it.
This was in response to FeX32's comment.
I wasn't getting as far as applying Bernoulli, and definitely wasn't straying into conservations of momentum or bound vortex territory etc.
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
"Military Standard
Horses, Dead, Beating"
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
I'm not disagreeing with the theory. I would just feel more comfortable if we could relate it to a differential change in momentum somehow.
Anyways, I don't want to beat any horses to death, what did they ever do to us besides provide us with ample transportation for centuries.
Fe (IronX32)
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
Fe (IronX32)
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
Fe (IronX32)
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
At times in the not so distant past they did form the raw material for certain glues (or at least parts of them did). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_glue
The French also eat Cheval. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_meat
How short are you FeX32?
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
I am not a large man. Only large in some ways
Fe (IronX32)
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
Fe (IronX32)
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
The wing in your video looks symmetrical to me.
If the wing were asymmetric and the angle of attack were zero, I think there would be a higher velocity and lower pressure on top of the wing. Also, the air coming down from the top would have more energy, causing the air to be vectored downward, which is of course, the other explanation for airplanes flying.
Beating a dead horse does not cause flight as far as I know.
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
ht
RE: "Engineer debunks theory of Flight"
What is Engineering anyway: FAQ1088-1484: In layman terms, what is "engineering"?