Re: Flatboarding: the sailing style

On Dec 22, 11:23 am, "Bob F" <bobnos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"taichiskiing" <thedreamofbutter...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bcf845ce-3b3f-4ed9-9437-f526af004f20@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There is wing there alright, which is the fundamental flying device,
but there are a lot more other factors than just a "wing" to make an
airplane.

Really? Exactly what?

Really. Aeronautical engineering is way over your head, let's not get
into that.

This statement is just wrong. Your understanding of basic flight is sorely
lacking.

Laughable, have you ever flown an airplane before?

Again, answer a few simple questions. Come on, really answer them.

Is there an angle of attack at which a symmetrical airfoil has zero lift?

Horizontal/level flight?

What angle of attack is that?

What is your "angle of attack" again?


"Zero"?

Finally. And what must happen for it to have lift? Assuming, of course, that it
has sufficient forward velocity.

No, you are confused "thrust" with "lift." "Thrust" is what maintains
the flight, and at "level flight," there is no "Lift."

Why?

"No lift"?

Exactly. A symmetrical wing at zero angle of attack has zero lift.

Add positive angle of attack, and it will have positive lift. And therefore can
sustain level flight. Without any angle of attack, it will fall out of the sky.

No. With a positive angle of attack, the airplane will climb, and with
negative angle of attack, the airplane will dive, and the airplane is
still flyable. You are confused "why a wing flies" with "angle of
attack."

If you can answer these, then a real discussion can happen on this subject.
If
you can't, you are a troll.

I can answer them alright, question is do you know what were your
questions all about?

I know exactly what they are about. Do you?

No, you only repeat what I said, and without knowing what is "angle of
attack."

Actually it is you confused yourself by trying to be cute; without a
device to pull the nose up and down, you don't have an "airplane."
Pulling up only enhances the wings' lifting efficiency, so the
aircraft can take out on shorter runways, nevertheless, pull up is not
what sustains the fly.

Without positive angle of attack, the plane will not lift off or fly.

Really? Remember the V1 rockets of WW II?

Yes. Do you think the V1's flew without angle of attack?
They may have gotten into the air with rocket thrust, but in sustained flight,
their wings require angle of attack.

No. "You are confused "why a wing flies" with "angle of attack.""

With negative angle,it will accelerate downward. With no angle,
it will have no lift - it will be in a zero-G flight path.

"Angle of attack" only affects the flight path, but it is not main
power that sustains the flying.

Yes, it affacts the flight path. Without angle of attack, lift is zero, as you
previosly said above. The flight path will be a zero G flight path, which
quickly intercects the ground.

You're also confused "level/zero lift flight" with "zero G flight."
Zero lift is what maintains the level flight, and zero G, however,
only happens at the top of a loop, an aerobatic maneuver.

It's pretty clear to everyone here but you.

Of couse, we forgot that you get to re-define the language at your
convenience.

Not that I redefine the language but your original language was
shallow and narrow.

You are an idiot.

And you are a little knowledge.

You've confused the "flying body/fuselage" with "wing."

It looks like a wing, it acts like a wing - it is a wing.

Are you really this stupid, or is it just an act.

No, not I'm stupid but you are stupider.

LOL!

Of course.

You mean "the incompetent bunch"? Not likely you gappers even know how
to distinguish "right" and "wrong." Not that I was wrong, but your
narrow fixation.

Of course - you are never wrong. IS has never made a
mistake. He has never had
to admit an error.

Of course, that's only a high level discipline. As they say there's no
second best in "top gun," you don't survive in the air if you lack of
knowledge and/or keep making mistakes.

You are SOOOOOO full of it.

Guess you don't have the "right stuff."

You may gloat all you want, and I'll make sure you glow.

Dude is that like one of Scott's gay things? I think you need to find a
new role model.

Shine like netkook, you do.

You should talk.

You are sounding more like Scotty every day.

Probably, I start to have feeling that Scoot is actually a victim of
you gappers' net bullying, given how you gappers' clung together, lie,
innuendo, and shameless LOL when get caught. Crude and unskillful as
he is, he still beats you gapers running all over the place.

We aren't bullying. We are trying to get you to actually make sense. Why don't
you actually try to?

It all makes sense if you actually know how to do it.

:)
IS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: would an AOA indicator be helpful in a glider?
    ... Every book on airfoils from the venerable Abbot's "Theory of Wing ... airfoils coefficient of lift vs. angle of attack. ... their time flying near stall don't have them has always puzzled me. ...
    (rec.aviation.soaring)
  • Re: Wind on the Wing
    ... > attack is shown. ... > And in fact the heating of air by the underside of the ... > working wing is seen. ... > At some angle of attack a force of drag increases ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: McLarens "horns"
    ... incidence of the wing to the aircraft, which is somewhat akin to the hand out ... it demonstrates the stall angle of an airfoil (usually around 16 ... your "angle of attack" theory ...
    (rec.autos.sport.f1)
  • Re: Angle of attack - Relative wind
    ... I suspect you think the angle of attack is zero because ... the bottom of the airfoil is ... Supercritical wing, with almost flat uppersurface. ...
    (rec.aviation.student)
  • Re: Stall alarm or sensor and combat manouvers.
    ... airplane with a second epochal invention, the angle of attack ... sensor and aircraft stabilizer. ... It's a stall warning sensor that effectively actuates what is a stick ...
    (rec.aviation.military)