Re: Aero eq.s

Ian Goddard (
Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:38:08 -0500

At 08:13 PM 2/20/99 -0500, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

>> IAN: Michael, can you point me to a physics
>> book that explains how the atmosphere can
>> enable an object to fall faster than the
>> same object dropped in a vacuum? If not,
>> then what's your point?
>No need for a physics book. It is rather simple. If you cannot concede this
>point you are either supremely stupid or supremely stubborn, or both:
>a body is moving forward in flight at 400 mph. It suddenly changes its
angle of
>attack to a negative orientation, as it stalls out, losing upward lift. This
>does not mean that it is no longer moving forward at all. A plane can easily
>stall out at any speed. Stalling is the loss of laminar flow resulting in the
>loss of lift to support a vehicle in flight, which results most easily from a
>vehicle being at an extreme angle of attack (more than 20 or 30 degrees).
>the vehicle stalls out, its nose drops, and will frequently drop far below a
>zero degree angle of attack. The plane will go into a dive, and the forward
>velocity, acting on the negatively oriented lifting surfaces, generate
lift in a
>DOWNWARD direction, thus accelerating the vehicle downward at a rate greater
>than that cause merely by gravity.

IAN: Mike, you're spouting nonsense. You've explained how negative lift can occur but NOT how negative lift can accelerate an object from 0 vertical velocity to a fall rate faster then the fall rate in a vacuum. Please explain how negative lift and accelerate an object faster than the same object dropped in a vacuum.

>If you cannot understand this simple point I can scarcely understand how
you can
>make it through a day. I am sorry to everyone for the level of vitriol in my
>post, but I have really reached the end of my patience with this idiocy.
If Mr.
>Goddard cannot understand matters of extremely simple aerodynamics then he is
>scarcely someone who is even partially qualified to judge what happened to

IAN: Mike, do you still contend that the video says it was the nose that hit at 49 seconds first, or can you not concede even one of your errors?