Both are correct, one controls the "quality" of the lift e.g. Bernoulli, and the other is just plain lift from angle of incidence. The both work together in an infinite amount of variations. Heck one can work without the other. The "quality"/"stability" will be less than desirable for sure. c. dow
On Monday, September 15, 2014 8:57 PM, Larry H via KRnet <krnet at list.krnet.org> wrote: Many years ago I did a lot of research on, lift, drag & aerodynamics in general trying to figure out what good cool stuff to do to a airplane design. I've always been interested in fast, cheap to fly efficient airplanes. I looked into the lift thing, boy oh boy are there differing opinions on that subject! The two theories most aerodynamists believed before and at the time was as most of us have heard. Below theory #1 & #2 1: Wings are flat on the bottom, curved or rounded on top. The theory is as the air molecules are separated at the leading edge the bottom of wing molecules just lolly gag sauntering along with no worries at all heading for the trailing edge of the wing, right? The molecules that headed over the top of the wing are really different from the lazy bottom molecules. The top molecules have to be the serious workers racing really fast over the longer distance curved top of the wing so they can meet back up with their buddy molecules they used to be next to before they took the easy, lazy short route across the bottom of the wing. Because the top speedy molecules are racing faster they create a vacuum or LIFT!! This theory number one is what we've all heard of course. I've wondered then and since, if this is true then a guy flying upside down (many have and do) is getting lifted or sucked towards the ground right! I've thought what about the guy flying a pure symmetrical wing, heck he's getting equally sucked up and down. That poor wing has to decide if it likes being high or on the ground ! I'm surprised the pilot can make his symmetrical wing obey and take him skyward! 2. Some believe that the downward force of air off of the trailing edge of the wing creates the lifting force. They say the molecules on top racing to meet back up with their bottom buddy molecules is the most ignorant thing they've ever heard. If you look at a Dr Whittcomb (sp) GAW2 (I think that stood for General Aviation Wing # 2 of the series.) I know he had a 1 and 2 but I'm not sure if he went further or not with the series. Anyone is welcome to correct me you won't hurt my feelings too bad! When you look at the #2 airfoil you will see the bottom near the trailing edge curves upward but then back downward at the trailing edge. The top line where it meets the bottom is below the chord line not on the chord line. It looks as though Dr Whittcomb had the downward thrust of air creates the lift theory going here. I think the Glassair aircraft used this airfoil but could have been the GAW 1, I don't remember for sure now. It's possible that the belly boards on planes KRs especially in this conversation are throwing, pushing, forcing air downward which is creating additional lift then the turbulence is creating drag and a vacuum on the back side of the belly board to help slow the plane while lifting it a little. This is my theory and I'm sticking to it tonight. I may have a new theory tomorrow!! LOL Larry Howell _______________________________________________ Search the KRnet Archives at http://tugantek.com/archmailv2-kr/search. To UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to KRnet-leave at list.krnet.org please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html see http://list.krnet.org/mailman/listinfo/krnet_list.krnet.org to change options
