Reworking established science, and perpetual motion machines

Robin2:
Do please explain, or provide a link to the explanation.

...R

Did you ever try to search for serious answer?
Wikipedia, for example, has a very detailed explanation of this problem.

Budvar10:
Did you ever try to search for serious answer?

I have several books on aerodynamics and fluid mechanics - bought with hard-earned money.

...R

Robin2:
I have several books on aerodynamics and fluid mechanics - bought with hard-earned money.

...R

Do you understand any of them? Are they newer than NACA?

Entropy is a fact despite theories as to why it is so.

Robin2:
...bought with hard-earned money.

...R

Do you have some other money? Money that wasn't hard earned?
Oh!

PerryBebbington:
Do you have some other money? Money that wasn't hard earned?

Alas, no.

Unlike the Royal Family.

...R

GoForSmoke:
Do you understand any of them?

Not a word of them.

Are they newer than NACA?

I was not aware that the laws of Phyisics had changed in the recent past.

...R

I was not aware that the laws of Physics had changed in the recent past.

The laws of physics never change, our imperfect understanding of them changes often.

Well written.

PerryBebbington:
The laws of physics never change, our imperfect understanding of them changes often.

Indeed. But planes were flying when NASA was called NACA. And my Fluid Mechanics textbook is dated 1990.

...R

As far as I know the laws of aerodynamics that keep planes aloft are well understood, although I only have an outline understanding of them. What do you think is not understood?

I'm thinking of the old NACA days before 1940. They didn't know higher than .5 mach so well, or maybe slower given airspeed gauges even later.

We know more about friction, boundaries and turbulence than before without changing a single physical law.
Go back a ways, NACA didn't knows Reynolds numbers. It wasn't until about 1929 that wings got decent with the Clark Y.

The air goes over the top of the wing faster than underneath, makes a pressure difference and if the air speed is calculated based on the speed of the plane and shape of the wing it turns out there's not enough lift.

But at the sharp trailing edge of the wing the slow underwing flow mixes with the fast overwing flow and makes a vortex that actually sucks air over the top of the wing and drives what is called circulation, air well in front of the wing moves up and into the effect. When air splits over top and bottom of the wing, the bottom air reaches the vortex well after the top split air is rolling below and behind the plane.

The foil makes a vortex that throws a mass of air downwards hard enough to keep the plane up. The pressure difference and the throw down are the opposite and equal forces, there is never just one force/hand pushing/clapping.

GoForSmoke:
The air goes over the top of the wing faster than underneath,

Why?

But at the sharp trailing edge of the wing the slow underwing flow mixes with the fast overwing flow and makes a vortex that actually sucks air over the top of the wing and drives what is called circulation, air well in front of the wing moves up and into the effect. When air splits over top and bottom of the wing, the bottom air reaches the vortex well after the top split air is rolling below and behind the plane.equal forces, there is never just one force/hand pushing/clapping.

Do you have a reference for a text book or online source that explains that?

If you are (or were) a practicing aerodynamicist working for a state-of-the-art airplane maker I may be interested to discuss the matter further but there is no point in the blind leading the blind.

...R

See this e-book
https://www.av8n.com/how/

See section 3, and 3.12 for Circulation discussion.

It is a measured fact that with a foil designed for lift given a positive angle of incidence the air over the top moves faster than underneath.

It is a measured fact that airplanes give air behind and below downward momentum. That's why it's dangerous to land too soon after a big plane lands, like a minute later if you're in a light plane and there's no wind.

You only get lift under certain conditions, the why includes those. It includes the paths that air takes around the wing. It includes the vortex

I had months of answers from 2 aerodynamicists, one finishing his PhD to go back to SA. I did a good bit of reading to be able to ask questions that got those answers. I had my own interests going back to 1968 when I learned to make gliders with 1910 concepts.

You can find the basics on the NASA site and more if you poke around but then you have your books.

See if you can find a usenet cache with Mark Drexler's explanation of lift, I did paraphrase but he has the degree.

Oh yeah, TKS Bob! I had forgotten See How It Flies! He's Caltech and FAA.

"He's Caltech and FAA."

The author, not me. I'm just an instrument rated pilot and aircraft owner.

My airplane has a high wing, and uses 30 degrees of flap when landing. When I come in and the engine is turning really slow (like 500-600 RPM), it is pretty quiet. I'll approach the runway at an angle, like 3-5 degrees. When I get over the runway, and pull the noseup (by pulling the yoke back which tilts the stabilator and pushes the tail down), the pitch of the wings also goes up, and you can hear the air being pushed down by the tilted wing/lowered flap combination.

Yes, John Denker. Enough pedigree for Robin2 I hope?

I heard that you can make a small fortune with an airplane. You start with an airplane and a big fortune.

Robin2:
Why?

The shape of wing profile is a key. The top surface is longer than the bottom surface in terms of the air flow. If the air flow is laminar then upper flow near to surface must be faster and this results in a pressure drop above top surface. This difference in air pressure causes the lift force.
Of course some types of airfoil have symmetrical shape. Here the same effect is reached by tilting the wing.

It is a physics for elementary school in at least Slovakia.

Experiment:
Hold two sheets of paper flat approximately 3 cm apart. The distance is not very critical. Blow into the gap between them.
What will happen?