No one can explain WHY planes fly...

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

henryk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
5,022
Location
krakow,poland
Earth's gravity is what creates pressure.
-hard to agree...
=Earth gravity generate force of moleculas weight (F=m*g)
and thanks them atmospheric air is close to Earth surface.

The pulse (m*V, Veverage=500 m/s !) of N2,O2 molecules
generate the force,which compensate the weight of them
and air is a gas,not a liquid or ice...

E kinetic=0.5 m*V^2
(1 qm of calm air have circa 150 000 J kinetic energy,
=iff work is 1sec. it can generate 150 kW power)
 

Norman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
2,933
Location
Grand Junction, Colorado
E kinetic=0.5 m*V^2
(1 qm of calm air have circa 150 000 J kinetic energy,
=iff work is 1sec. it can generate 150 kW power)
Exactly, the kenetic energy of molecules of air is much higher than the gravitational attraction between them. If it weren't for the gravitational attraction of earth the atmosphere would just fly away.
 

dog

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2019
Messages
232
We do have only the ONE atmosphere,counting again for accuracy ,ONE,whew.
If you mean that there is a difference in the graviational atraction that varies with distance to the planets resulting in a linear change in density.
And that solar heating results in local changes due to uptake of humidity and uneven mixing.Absolutely horrible trying to keep a slide rule ,err,sliding,with all the variables in reality,best just aproximate it.The bit about the absolute need to aproximate(fudge) reality and then clean up with REAL WORLD testing later needs to be more up front for beginners.Also that NO theory for airodynamics is satisfactory,again it realy realy helps to KNOW that its a counterintuitive ,or perhaps truely unimaginable,and boils down to MEMORISING the important bits,and developing a personal fluency,all the above is an attemp to adress the problem with SHARING that fluency.
Dont forget the butterflys flapping the bloody stuff around either,causing huricanes without permits.
 

Jimstix

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2012
Messages
115
Location
LAS CRUCES NM
Instead of Bernoulli, lets talk Newton, more to the point let’s quote him and say Force = mass x acceleration. Lift is the force that hold airplanes in the sky, so what are the mass and acceleration needed to do that? The best way I’ve found to explain lift from an airplane wing is to get a roll of dimes and imagine the wingspan is equal to the diameter of a dime. Further, imagine that the air (represented by the diameter and thickness of the dime, hence the mass of air) acted upon by the wing.

Imagine the nose of the airplane flying down the centerline of the stack of dimes and as the wing passes through each dime it is deflected downward a small amount with a small acceleration. Here the volume of the dime could be thought of as an air mass (in slugs or kilos) that is pushed down by the wing. To push that air mass down it must be accelerated. Force (lift) = mass (air) x acceleration needed to displace the air.

To fly slow, the dimes (air mass) must be accelerated down faster per unit time than they would be if the airplane were flying fast. This analogy helps explain induced drag at low speed vs. that at high speed.
 

jedi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
1,933
Location
Sahuarita Arizona, Renton Washington, USA
Instead of Bernoulli, lets talk Newton, more to the point let’s quote him and say Force = mass x acceleration. Lift is the force that hold airplanes in the sky, so what are the mass and acceleration needed to do that? The best way I’ve found to explain lift from an airplane wing is to get a roll of dimes and imagine the wingspan is equal to the diameter of a dime. Further, imagine that the air (represented by the diameter and thickness of the dime, hence the mass of air) acted upon by the wing.

Imagine the nose of the airplane flying down the centerline of the stack of dimes and as the wing passes through each dime it is deflected downward a small amount with a small acceleration. Here the volume of the dime could be thought of as an air mass (in slugs or kilos) that is pushed down by the wing. To push that air mass down it must be accelerated. Force (lift) = mass (air) x acceleration needed to displace the air.

To fly slow, the dimes (air mass) must be accelerated down faster per unit time than they would be if the airplane were flying fast. This analogy helps explain induced drag at low speed vs. that at high speed.
Finally, a good explanation for why it takes so much money to fly. My plane needs very big dimes and a very long stack. I am trying to imagine flying through a stack of silver dollars thirty feet in diameter and a hundred miles long just to get a hamburger.

:pilot::popcorn::pilot:

Now I know why I frequently just sit at home and have a beer even though I know others are out there flying with their friends. :(:(:(
 
Last edited:

mcrae0104

Armchair Mafia Conspirator
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
3,140
Location
BDU, BJC
Is that not the article from the OP? Since we have come full circle, surely this is proof of circulation. The conversation goes fast, "over-the-top", then it goes backwards for a while (relative to where it should be going), and then we're back where we started at the stagnation point.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
954
Location
Europe
Is that not the article from the OP? Since we have come full circle, surely this is proof of circulation. The conversation goes fast, "over-the-top", then it goes backwards for a while (relative to where it should be going), and then we're back where we started at the stagnation point.

Yes it is...funny I never read the OP poster's link. Until I read it in the library today.
 

PagoBay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2013
Messages
70
Location
US Territory of Guam
From the SA article....
-1-
"For these reasons, Newton’s third law is a more universal and comprehensive explanation of lift than Bernoulli’s theorem."
-2-
Cambridge aerodynamicist Babinsky says, “I hate to disagree with my esteemed colleague Mark Drela, but if the creation of a vacuum were the explanation, then it is hard to explain why sometimes the flow does nonetheless separate from the surface. But he is correct in everything else. The problem is that there is no quick and easy explanation.”
-3-
Drela himself concedes that his explanation is unsatisfactory in some ways. “One apparent problem is that there is no explanation that will be universally accepted,” he says. So where does that leave us? In effect, right where we started: with John D. Anderson, who stated, “There is no simple one-liner answer to this.”


Cambridge Univ. Prof.Babinsky is referenced multiple times in this SA article. From Babinsky's paper referenced here earlier in a post ... "A short, but correct, explanation might start by discussing the existence of transverse pressure gradients in curved streamlines and applying this knowledge to the flowfield around an aerofoil in a similar manner to that shown in figure 9. This should explain why pressures on the two sides of an aerofoil are different. There is no need even to introduce Bernoulli’s equation or discuss the rather subtle significance of friction."

Notice the conclusion is NOT that "No one can explain" lift, but rather that the explanations are hard if not impossible to put into words that others will wholly accept. All the while math does the job needed quite nicely. Bernoulli is not even needed there.
 

Speedboat100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
954
Location
Europe
lift6v.jpg
Yes....some notable persons were mentioned there...even Albert Einstein....who also created an airfoil...and an aeroplane.

lift6.jpg
 
Last edited:

BBerson

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
12,788
Location
Port Townsend WA
I think NASA* could do an experiment:
Build an "airless" wind tunnel. In other words a vacuum chamber.
Instead of air, particles of sand or something similar would be slung at the model in the tunnel.
This would eliminate most of the reduced pressure characteristics of air, but the inertia characteristics of particles would remain. I expect the reaction lift would only occur on the bottom.

A device called a "Wheel-a-brator" could hurl the airless sand. (used for industrial sand blasting)

* NASA could "throw" money at the model.
 
2
Group Builder
Top