On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:28:55 +0200
 Erik Hofman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Jon S Berndt wrote:

No, not really. See:

Try this for a start:

An airflow over the wing is causing the downwash at the end of the airfoil. The airflow below the wing is now kind of captured between the airfoil and the layer(s) of air underneath itself.

In this situation it can go in just two directions, up or down, The majority of the flow will go down, bu a tiny fraction of the molecules has to go up. If the number of molecules that go up is high enough it will lift the airfoil up with it.

This is really what DaVinci already had discovered back in 1530-something.

Which is why he never flew. See the argument about "bullets" in the link provided, above.

In the case of the airflow below the wing, it's not really "trapped". It gets out of the way, below. Also, consider the wing of a B-52. I believe it is entirely possible that a wing such as that on the B-52 can have a lower surface that is parallel to the airflow, but still provides lift. That's because it's _mostly_ (or entirely) the "sucking" action above the wing that contributes the most to lift.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to