Hi,

If you’ve ever wondered whether the official explanation of how planes fly (as taught to pilots) is BS, well it is. In fact, it’s total BS. There’s no proof for it.  None.  
I explain this in an 11 minute youtube video  : 

How airplanes stay airborne - SUMMARY;  by N Landell. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yw81t7N6vY

There’s also a longer more technical video:

How planes stay airborne - FULL
https://youtu.be/VtrYHgBubvY  
(37 minutes)

I show that planes stay airborne based on the same principles as how birds fly; by pushing enough air downwards. 

I’ve asked the CAA, FAA, EASA, Boeing, Airbus, flying instructors, aerodynamics professors, aviation engineers, … and none had any proof. No proof, then the theory is wrong. The CAA don’t know how planes fly. 

If you have the proof, I’d love to hear it.

After 100 years of aviation this should be a piece of cake for the FAA / CAA.  Really, how hard can it be to prove how planes fly?

I hope that you find this interesting and useful.

regards
Nick
--- 

Everyone knows that money is what makes airplanes fly.

Nick,

It would help yor credibility if you also posted your credentials.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!
Those videos were almost the funniest videos I've watched on Youtube recently. They rank right up there with those Chemtrails videos. Someone gets a little bit of knowledge but still doesn't understand the subject matter and is afraid to admit that they aren't as smart as they think they are. So they throw a few big words out there to try to impress but only reinforce the fact they they don't have a clue. Love the rant at the end of the long video. How dare all those pilots, instructors, manufacturers and government agencies lie to you! Good thing you're here Nick. Finally someone who will take a stand and illuminate the truth. And who cares about the naysayers or the truth.

Cute video Nick, I really hope you are Nicky Nicky 2.0, I miss him.

For those of you genuinely interested in Aerodynamics, I suggest the following:

Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies ... 80t-80.pdf

Or, for those interested in a little extra free education from reputable sources, EDx.org has some amazing options:

Introduction to Aeronautical Engineering by Delft University of Technology
https://www.edx.org/course/introduction ... -ae1110x-0

or

Introduction to Aerodynamics by Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://www.edx.org/course/introduction ... -16-101x-0

or

Flight Vehicle Aerodynamics by Massachusetts Institute of Technology
https://www.edx.org/course/flight-vehic ... -16-110x-0

For the latter two, you college grads can put your calculus to work.

E

Denker is still far and away the best resource for pilots, in my opinion:

http://www.av8n.com/how/

Anyone read Stick and Rudder from the 40s? Airplanes do push air down they do not get sucked up. If they were being sucked up then you would never have ground effect.

Actually airplanes both push air down and get sucked up; you can't have one without the other. To try to "assign" lift to one or the other is as fallacious as trying to decide if the cart is pulling back on the horse or the horse is pulling forward on the cart.

photofly wrote:you can't have one without the other. To try to "assign" lift to one or the other is as fallacious as trying to decide if the cart is pulling back on the horse or the horse is pulling forward on the cart.

What he said!

Too many people don't realise that the "Bernoulli" explanation is actually the same as the "Newton" explanation. They are 2 different ways of simplifying the same physical phenomenon.

photofly wrote:Actually airplanes both push air down and get sucked up

Naaaaah. Airplanes pull air down and get pushed up!

How do they fly upside down?

That's easy - the wing blows instead of sucks.

photofly wrote:That's easy - the wing blows instead of sucks.

But not nearly as much as the OP's explanations.

trampbike wrote:

photofly wrote:Actually airplanes both push air down and get sucked up

Naaaaah. Airplanes pull air down and get pushed up!

You may joke - but if you look carefully at relatively low angles of attack you see that the wing is both sucked up, and sucked down - the pressure over the top and the bottom is in both cases mostly less than atmospheric pressure. But the pressure on top is way lower so the net force is upwards.

To quote Denker:


Fig 3.6

"For the airfoil in figure 3.6, under cruise conditions, there is almost no high pressure on the bottom of the wing; indeed there is mostly suction there. The only reason the wing can support the weight of the airplane is that there is more suction on the top of the wing. (There is a tiny amount of positive pressure on the rear portion of the bottom surface, but the fact remains that suction above the wing does more than 100% of the job of lifting the airplane.)"

That's awesome, I never knew it was the case! Do you know if this is true of most speed and AoA?

More information here:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/airfoils.ht ... p-versus-v

trampbike wrote:That's awesome, I never knew it was the case! Do you know if this is true of most speed and AoA?

It varies to some extent with AoA, airfoil design, and the point of measurement. At the extreme end you have a post stall AoA which would produce significant positive pressure (think cobra maneuvre), but even within a more normal range a thin, long chord wing with little camber could have positive pressure beyond some AoA.

Tanker299 wrote:Anyone read Stick and Rudder from the 40s? Airplanes do push air down they do not get sucked up. If they were being sucked up then you would never have ground effect.

Several times... I have a copy of the book that I bought from the local library branch's discard sale. I think I paid $1

All anyone has to do is look through the numerous reports of people leaving fuel caps off to show that there is a lot of suction on the top of a wing.

The need to rib stitch fabric to prevent it from ballooning is more evidence.

I gave it 51 seconds. 51 seconds I'll never get back...

Canoehead wrote:I gave it 51 seconds. 51 seconds I'll never get back...

the same for me.


There are several forces that act simultaneously in order to make the plane fly, float, levitate, whatever the name you want to give it. Remember that the Air is a Fluid but is not liquid, it does not have neither the consistency or the composition of liquid so if a plane is airborne it is not floating its flying as all history has named it.

It is indeed something as weird to hear as chemtrails. This knowledge may help understand aerodynamics and flight in a way that you understand, I think its misleading and it wont get you the credentials, the credibility or the information you will need to help you make better decisions when flying.

But its interesting nonetheless.