ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
: http://www.catskill.net/evolution/flight/birdsfly/birdsfly.html

  It has the classical mistake (bad science) of why wings make a plane
(or in this case a bird) fly.
  Yes, the air pressure is a bit lower on the upper surface than on the
lower surface of the wing, but the upwards force caused by this is negligible
and can't hold up a massive object on air. The reason why a plane (or a bird)
doesn't fall is not this force.
  The real force keeping it flying is that the wing is oriented so that it
pulls air a bit downwards. That is, when a plane flies, the wings are oriented
so that it makes the air go down, thus getting enough force for the plane to
keep flying.
  If the reason for the plane don't falling was this mistaken concept of
different air pressures, that would mean that airplanes could not fly too
fast, as it would mean that the force would get stronger and stronger and
pull the plane up. As we know, a plane can go really fast (must faster than
the speed of sound) as well as very slow. The critical variable here is the
orientation of the wing with respect to the direction of flying (if the
plane flies faster, the wing has to be straighter to lessen pulling air
downwards).

  The reason why this mistaken concept if taught sometimes even at
university-level schools goes beyond me.

  There are many pages in the internet explaining this misconception. For
one example, see:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html#wing

-- 
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}//                     - Warp -

Post a reply to this message