Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight

["Glenn A. Carlson" <gcarlson@MAIL.WIN.ORG>]

Redefining angle of attack to make the point reminds me of the
conversation between Alice and Humpty Dumpty:

        "I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.
        Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell
you.  I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you'!"
        "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice
objected.
        "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
        "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
so many different things."
        "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --
that's all."

Regards,

Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
St. Charles County Community College
St. Peters, MO
gcarlson@mail.win.org

> Subject: Re: Misconceptions: Physics of Flight
> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:29:17 -0700
> From: William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>
>
> Perhaps we should think in terms of an
> *effective* angle of attack, rather than determining the AOA of the wing
> through geometry and then fighting over the fact that this determination
> of attack-angle allows cambered airfoils to generate lift at zero AOA.