• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Vulcan

"Brian Morrison" <bdm@fenrir.org.uk> wrote in message
news:20090926091635.2224bb6d@peterson.fenrir.org.uk...
>>
>> You've made the same error as Paul. I suggest you Google "equal transit
>> time
>> fallacy".
>>
>> The "school boy" theory of lift from wings does explain the lift
force a
>> flat plate sees and has long been discredited. I'm not sure exactly when
>> it
>> was discredited but I am pretty sure my O level Physics teacher (pre
>> 1973)
>> referred to the "equal transit time fallacy".
>>
>> Newton's Laws are enough to explain lift.
>
> A wing section at zero angle of incidence to the airflow can produce
> lift, while I accept that a flat plate will also work it isn't very
> efficient. a 747 so equipped would run out of fuel  much more rapidly.
>

But that wasn't the issue which caused me to raise the question. You aren't
"doing a Paul" are you?

What was Gareth's comment? Something about "willing to be wrong".

To be fair, the "equal transit time fallacy" isn't that well known outside
of the serious aerodynamicist, your everyday fluid dynamicist, or (of
course) your mathematician who has done maths for fluid dynanicists to earn
"a few" extra £ ;-)

As I said earlier, I think my physics teacher mentioned it in the early 70s-
I think prompted by some TV programme about the Space Shuttle predecessors.
I first came across the maths during my first degree studies, the Lecturer
was fond of  "using sums" to debunk common misconceptions. I've been known
to enjoy that ;-)

--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net

Antworten