EPTI think it's kind of awesome that we've created huge machines that completely rely on the displacement of molecules in the air. We should have a statue of a fucking Boeing 747! (or what is the largest/heaviest aircraft?)
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8624
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5185 Posts
I think it's kind of awesome that we've created huge machines that completely rely on the displacement of molecules in the air. We should have a statue of a fucking Boeing 747! (or what is the largest/heaviest aircraft?) | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18348 Posts
On September 01 2017 23:05 KwarK wrote: That Columbus was a genius comparable to the likes of Newton who made an intuitive deduction that the world was round, and not flat, when everyone believed otherwise and set out to invent the United States based upon that deduction. When Newton says "I bet if you dropped a brick and a feather in a vacuum they'd fall at the same rate" that's an amazing deductive leap in defiance of popular wisdom. When Columbus says "I bet India is a thousand miles west of Spain", that's not. #teameratosthenes Except that it wasn't Newton who figured that one out, but Galileo... Other than that, Colombus just had a pretty wrong interpretation of historical science texts and thought the earth was a lot smaller than it actually is. His pear theory only came later (when he reached the Orinoco and they figured there was a giant continent there to feed a river that size... and that didn't make any sense if these were all little islands somewhere near Japan). | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On September 01 2017 23:58 Uldridge wrote: Yeah sorry, this last page felt kind of trolly and I let a certain other thread seep in a little bit with that question lol. I think it's kind of awesome that we've created huge machines that completely rely on the displacement of molecules in the air. We should have a statue of a fucking Boeing 747! (or what is the largest/heaviest aircraft?) Antonov AN-225 edit: for conventional planes, there's other russian things that rely on a "similar" principle (or underlying physics) called Okranoplan or something similar, which are ridiculous in size. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 01 2017 23:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The air goes both under and over the wing. It isn't an either/or issue. Unless somethings gone wrong and there is a stall. Also I don't shower with a curtain so I have no idea what this shower curtain issue is. People have a common misconception about planes and why they can fly. Most planes flying upside down are not as “efficient” as when they are right side up. But they do not fall from the sky like rocks. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
It's not complicated. You don't need complicated words like Bernoulli effect or momentum effect (wtf is this, is that some American terminology?) to explain how an aeroplane fly. | ||
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On September 01 2017 23:58 Acrofales wrote: Except that it wasn't Newton who figured that one out, but Galileo... Other than that, Colombus just had a pretty wrong interpretation of historical science texts and thought the earth was a lot smaller than it actually is. His pear theory only came later (when he reached the Orinoco and they figured there was a giant continent there to feed a river that size... and that didn't make any sense if these were all little islands somewhere near Japan). My bad. I confused acceleration being independent of weight with things continuing to move until a force acted upon them. They're both deductions which can very easily be disproved on earth and which they had no way of verifying in a vacuum, making them pretty cool imo. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18348 Posts
On September 01 2017 23:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote: In the simpliest possible term, a plane/ wing pushes air down when it moves forward. @m4ini, you've never seen a plane fly upside down? Really? It's not horse shit. There's like a million you tube vidoes. I feel like I am living in an alternate reality. Wait, isn't that just as much of a reason for the plane to fall out of the sky when flying upside down? If the wing pushes air down when it moves forward, why doesn't it push air up when flying upside down? You see, we all learned that it's because it pushes air down. It's just not clear why it does that when flying upside down. Also, can boeing 747s also fly upside down? Or only small planes (or those with a specifically shaped wing to be able to fly upside down). E: and if it seems I'm being snarky, I'm really not. I honestly don't know why planes fly (I was taught the same Bernoulli stuff in physics, which you just called bullshit). | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On September 02 2017 00:04 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Of course it is not as "efficient". You also need to increase thrust to mainatin the same velocity and altitude. But it beggers belief that m4ini thinks that it is horseshit, when it's just a simple fact of reality that planes can fly upside down. Friend. I never said planes can't fly upside down. This is you. Yes, it's all lies. With that kind of explanation, planes will fall out of the air if they go upside down. Or rather it's a mishmash of explanations that doesn't make any sense. And that's horseshit. A plane can of course fly upside down. And it's entirely correct what i think Kwark was saying. A commercial plane WILL fall out of the sky if you just go upside down. Lets do it very simple, since we both have apparently flown planes before. Take the stick, roll left until you're upside down. What pitch does the plane have now? And no, we're not talking symmetrical airfoils. A commercial plane. Even your common cessna. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On September 01 2017 23:30 m4ini wrote: Well in a nutshell, they do. I feel like i missed the sarcasm here.  On September 01 2017 23:34 m4ini wrote: Again, can't tell if serious or not, so i'll let that stand and won't engage further. On September 01 2017 23:37 m4ini wrote: So you're saying this is not some kind of "clever" joke, but he actually believes that horseshit? oO Wtf is this m4ni? On September 02 2017 00:06 Acrofales wrote: Wait, isn't that just as much of a reason for the plane to fall out of the sky when flying upside down? If the wing pushes air down when it moves forward, why doesn't it push air up when flying upside down? You see, we all learned that it's because it pushes air down. It's just not clear why it does that when flying upside down. Also, can boeing 747s also fly upside down? Or only small planes (or those with a specifically shaped wing to be able to fly upside down). E: and if it seems I'm being snarky, I'm really not. I honestly don't know why planes fly (I was taught the same Bernoulli stuff in physics, which you just called bullshit). The lift gained from a wing is relative to the angle of attack. A plane is normally designed to produce lift at an angle of attack where the plane is at an angle parallel to the motion. When a 747 is landing for instance, it increase it's angle of attack (among other things) to produces as much lift at as low a velocity as possible. The 747 is actually tilted upwards away from the direction of motion. This is a positive angle of attack. Conversely if a plane wants to fly upside down it will usually have a negative angle of attack, but since it is upside down it's "positive" from the external perspective. Simply put, the plane is tilted towards the sky whilst upside down thorugh balancing the control surfaces, so the lift generated is acting upwards from the upper surface of the wing from the pilots perspective, or downwards towards the ground from the external perspective. A 747 cannot fly upside down. you don't need a specially shaped wing, but enough lift have to be produced whilst upside down at a negative angle of attack to counteract gravity. Either the wing have to be large or differently shaped to produce lift upside down, or the 747 have to be a lot lighter, or it have to fly a lot faster, but changing any of these would mean it is no longer a 747. It is completely possible to design a plane almost as large as a 747 to fly upside down. To fly a plane upside down, ie it can lift off and roll 180 degrees and have a sustained flight, it needs to be designed to be able to do so. A plane designed to be non aerobatic would not be able to, as it would be optimised towards providing as safe as possible, lift at cruising speed, carrying the most payload as possible. As a minimum the plane will need enough thrust to provide velocity, streamlined enough to reduce drag to maximise velocity, lifting surfaces designed to be both able to provide lift, at lift off at a positive angle of attack when upright and able to provide enough lift at sustained flight when upside down at a negative angle of attack, and have the weight to be under both lifts. As it is, I think it is possible that smaller business jets can fly upside down sustained, but I think most people can udnerstand why it isn't preferable to do so. It is just completely best to ignore Bernoulli unless you have a reason to drill thousands of holes in an aerofoil to measure pressure along an aerofoil. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44171 Posts
On September 02 2017 00:06 Acrofales wrote: Wait, isn't that just as much of a reason for the plane to fall out of the sky when flying upside down? If the wing pushes air down when it moves forward, why doesn't it push air up when flying upside down? You see, we all learned that it's because it pushes air down. It's just not clear why it does that when flying upside down. Also, can boeing 747s also fly upside down? Or only small planes (or those with a specifically shaped wing to be able to fly upside down). E: and if it seems I'm being snarky, I'm really not. I honestly don't know why planes fly (I was taught the same Bernoulli stuff in physics, which you just called bullshit). My new understanding is that they point the plane away from the ground and just overpower gravity with thrust. The wing shape helps a little bit when the plane is the right way up and hurts a little bit when it's the wrong way up but if you have giant jet engines then you don't give a fuck either way. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11573 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On September 02 2017 00:14 KwarK wrote: My new understanding is that they point the plane away from the ground and just overpower gravity with thrust. The wing shape helps a little bit when the plane is the right way up and hurts a little bit when it's the wrong way up but if you have giant jet engines then you don't give a fuck either way. That's oversimplification. Yes, you can certainly make anything fly if you strap a rocket on it (at the correct speed/angle, everything can be a lifting surface - as someone who built RC planes from scratch, that's a very early "observation" to make). But that's really not the sole principle behind it, especially considering that we certainly have planes that are able to sustain flight for long times without any engine at all - or electrical ones. edit: if anything, we should transfer this discussion to the NASA thread. Would breath some life in that one too. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On September 02 2017 00:22 m4ini wrote: That's oversimplification. Yes, you can certainly make anything fly if you strap a rocket on it (at the correct speed/angle, everything can be a lifting surface - as someone who built RC planes from scratch, that's a very early "observation" to make). But that's really not the sole principle behind it, especially considering that we certainly have planes that are able to sustain flight for long times without any engine at all - or electrical ones. How long are you going to carry on with this charade m4ini? You are wrong. Aren't you embarrassed? Btw it's not a plane if it doesn't have an engine. By defintion, it's not a plane if it doesn't have an engine. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On September 02 2017 00:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote: How long are you going to carry on with this charade m4ini? You are wrong. Aren't you embarrassed? Btw it's not a plane if it doesn't have an engine. By defintion, it's not a plane if it doesn't have an engine. That's semantics, but cute that you need to refer to that. In common terms, gliders are also called sailplanes. In fact, in germany that's the absolute term, Segelflugzeug. edit: Segel = sail, Flugzeug = plane | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
edit: motorised gliders, what are those? That's a genuine question, since if the definition is "fixed wing, engine, capable of sustained flight" - well, that'd be it. edit: i never once used the term Bernoulli. Or Venturi for that matter. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
| ||
