That's perfectly fine, so long as I am "the Man."See your already thinking what "the Man" wants you to think.
That's perfectly fine, so long as I am "the Man."See your already thinking what "the Man" wants you to think.
And this is someone who's an educator. Let that sink in for a minute.
And this is someone who's an educator. Let that sink in for a minute.
God help his students
Ya, but the crazy was really starting bleed through, plus the whole created a puppet so he could have someone agreeing with him thing.
Now y'all know why I regularly go off about California public schools in Chat.God help his students
That is a poor standard as by that standard the large majority of carrier-based planes wont count as airplanes if taking off from a carrier, as they cant take off from a carrier without a strong enough wind(even if said wind can be generated by simply moving).Up until the "Wright Brothers were responsible for WWI" I thought he might have a point. When there are a ton of people trying to invent the same thing giving credit to the "First one who invented it" can be murky. It can often come down to definition such as "Is this a glider with a engine on it or a true airplane?".
In theory in borderline situations it might not be clear, even to the inventor. I could see (I don't know if this actually happened or even if it is really possible not knowing much about flight) a borderline glider/airplane might look just get enough lift to take off with a stiff wind with the engine putting it barely over the top. Is it an airplane or a glider? It can get off the ground with a stiff wind at its back but it can't without a wind. I would assume it would be considered a glider but I am not sure. But it does show that it can get murky.
Better:
That is a poor standard as by that standard the large majority of carrier-based planes wont count as airplanes if taking off from a carrier, as they cant take off from a carrier without a strong enough wind(even if said wind can be generated by simply moving).
True, but they can very much get off the ground on land, wind direction be damned.Better:
That is a poor standard as by that standard the large majority of carrier-based planes wont count as airplanes if taking off from a carrier, as they cant take off from a carrier without a strong enough wind(even if said wind can be generated by simply moving).
Witnesses do not mean anything - in a court of law, they do not hold water. You need a photograph. The Wrights had the foresight to bring a camera to prove they did it.
It can get off the ground with a stiff wind at its back but it can't without a wind.
OK, like I said I wasn't an expert. What would you see as the main difference then?
The Chrysler SERV guy from several years ago has a serious challenger now.
Man, this whole thread is like some belated Christmas gift.
*runs away to make popcorn, happy to read this insanity*
And this is someone who's an educator. Let that sink in for a minute.
Up until the "Wright Brothers were responsible for WWI" I thought he might have a point. When there are a ton of people trying to invent the same thing giving credit to the "First one who invented it" can be murky. It can often come down to definition such as "Is this a glider with a engine on it or a true airplane?".
In theory in borderline situations it might not be clear, even to the inventor. I could see (I don't know if this actually happened or even if it is really possible not knowing much about flight) a borderline glider/airplane might look just get enough lift to take off with a stiff wind with the engine putting it barely over the top. Is it an airplane or a glider? It can get off the ground with a stiff wind at its back but it can't without a wind. I would assume it would be considered a glider but I am not sure. But it does show that it can get murky.
Uhm, that is not how the Bernoulli Lift Effect FOR A WING works. (There is something else to add to it so read further.) Basically, the wing moves into the wind, whether bird, glider, or aeroplane.
Powered aircraft that use Bernoulli Effect generate that wind over wing lift effect by using Newton's Third Law of Motion. The plane's motive device applies thrust to the rear of the plane's forward motion. The plane then moves through a fluid medium generating a current flow along its lift device all the wing. The lift effect is caused by the shape of the lift device (the wing) moving through a fluid (air but any fluid capable of current flow such as water will do) or a fluid moving across the lift device in the opposite direction of the lift device's forward motion. Now the way lift is generated is by a difference in current flow speed determined by the shape. The "upper" surface of the wing is curved in such a fashion as to cause a longer travel path for the current flow, than the flatter underside. What this physically does is cause a current separation at the wings leading edge where the current divides and then comes together with a speed differential causing that pressure drop. For reasons still not entirely understood, this creates a "pressure drop" on the "top" surface of the wing. The result is that the whole wing moves in the direction of the pressure drop. Coanda Effect is also involved.
Hope that helps.
McP.
That the wing shape provides lift I knew already, my question is what would differentiate a glider with an engine on it and a true airplane. I would think a glider would have the same wing shape.
There is a lift coefficient cut off number in wing for vehicle size and MASS whereby a glider is lifted by wind alone. The cutoff here for an aeroplane is that you have to apply on board generated thrust to the winged object to produce enough wind over wing speed to lift a HEAVIER THAN THE AIR CAN LIFT BY WIND ALONE MACHINE. This is usually shortened to heavier than air aircraft, which is why some (a lot more of them than one would suspect) people get that confusion between [even powered] glider and powered aircraft. The camber *(thickness and curvature form of a wing) is an incredibly complex trial by error process to fit the right wing to the plane being designed. NASA's predecessor, the NACA, spent a fortune of taxpayer's dollars trying to create a "wing form bible" that very much serves a similar function for aircraft designers what standardized ballistics tables do for gun makers. America's mistake was sharing what should have been a state secret with the world.
In the above explanation, the powered glider, does not require 50% or more of its maneuver ability to be supplied by the thruster. The aeroplane does which is why powered flight with 2-D three axis control is a more complete and accurate description of the Wright accomplishment. And as has been pointed out in this thread, at least six other aviation pioneers, especially Curtiss and Bleriot, were on the right course of research to achieve controllable manned powered flight by a machine that could not be lifted and controlled by wind passing over wing alone. The proof is in the turn inside the radius of the unpowered corner speed of the first Wright Flyer. That was Orville by the way. As an aside, even unpowered gliders require thrust, which is entirely supplied by gravity.
By the way, a glider requires a much larger wing area to mass than a powered aircraft though the camber might be identical. An example is the U-2. Without its jet engine it's wing would need twice the surface area just to get off the ground, although it corresponds to what might be called a "powered glider" at altitude.
Which does show how murky it could be in theory to say who was first. I am fine with the Wright Brothers getting credit but like all credit with inventions credit could change with different definitions.
This was one of the most bizarre threads Ive ever participated in.
Ultimately this is the truth. Others may have gotten there first but the Wrights publicized the fact. There was a Kiwi who also claimed to have first powered flight, but again little evidence and eye witnesses.
This was truly a bizarre hill to die on. The war-mongering wright brothers conspiracy.