What??

jholloway_1

New Member
My instructor just got a job offer from a flight training center (he was to be a private and instrument instructor) but declined when he found out how they wanted him to teach. First, the airplane doesn't fly because air flows faster of the top creating low pressure....that only works in a tube...but it flies because the air hits underneath the wing and pushes it up. The attitude indicator is worthless, and so it'll be covered from day one. Flaps? Wings are designed to fly without flaps, so we're not going to use them. There is no such thing as relative wind.

WHAT!?!?

There were some more cracked out ideas, but I those are the ones that I remember. Has anyone ever heard of these types of flight training? Personally I think its crazy, and hopefully some of you'll agree
 

Derg

New Arizona, Il Duce/Warlord
Staff member
Strange...

But one thing that does have a bit of merit is I usually ended up having to put a view restrictor over the attitude indicator when I had students that spend a lot of time flying Flight Simulator.

Once I covered up the AI for a few flights, their performance improved appreciably.

But the rest of that stuff is a little wacky.
 

C650CPT

Well-Known Member
Jacob
I sent you a pm about this. I believe I know the operator you are speaking of and if so your friend should run, not walk away. I could tell you strories.

Jim
 

kellwolf

Piece of Trash
Seems like they favor the Newton vs the Bournouli (or how EVER you spell it) theory. Other than that, they sound like a bunch of crackpots.

BTW, my physics books stated that an airplane flys b/c of the equal-opposite reaction thing (air is pushed under the wing, wing goes up) and said nada about differential pressure. And this is from ERAU. Ah well, maybe they'll correct it in a later edition.
 

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
I look at the Newton v. Bernoulli as a 70/30 split. About 70% of "lift" is Newton and the remaining 30% is Bernoulli. And I'd even venture to argue that Bernoulli actually does more to explain induced drag than lift. This isn't any thing new. Langwesich talked about "downwash" in "Stick and Rudder" it's in the Jepp manuals ... it's not new.

In the end, though, it's all just therotical and when it come to flying the aircraft on a practical matter you "do what it takes to do what you want."

The other items, however, while having merit in certain situations should not be used as "standard policy."
 

Rugby51

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
it flies because the air hits underneath the wing and pushes it up

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
...Newton v. Bernoulli as a 70/30 split ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Newton and Bernoulli are not mutually exclusive!

The 'effects' of each theory are intertwined, and so lift is not 'divided' between the two.
 

pilot602

If specified, this will replace the title that
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it flies because the air hits underneath the wing and pushes it up

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
...Newton v. Bernoulli as a 70/30 split ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Newton and Bernoulli are not mutually exclusive!

The 'effects' of each theory are intertwined, and so lift is not 'divided' between the two.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said they were mutually exclusive.


And like I said:
[ QUOTE ]
In the end, though, it's all just therotical and when it come to flying the aircraft on a practical matter you "do what it takes to do what you want."

[/ QUOTE ]

 

Rugby51

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

And like I said:
[ QUOTE ]
In the end, though, it's all just therotical and when it come to flying the aircraft on a practical matter you "do what it takes to do what you want."

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed...100%


I don't know if my engineering degrees helps, or hurts me, in my pursuit of flight!
 
Top