An airplane has 4 forces that must be in equal and opposite proportions:
Thrust - The force that propels it forward
Drag - resistance of the object as it travels through a medium (air)
Gravity - The tendency for all objects to fall unceremoneously out of the sky
Lift - The force that keeps the airplane from doing so
“Geometry” is not a force. The forces of lift and drag, however, are affected by the geometry of the aircraft.
My first remark would be that the Smithsonian link did a pretty good job of explaining why wings produce lift. My complaint would be that the meat of the matter is left to the second paragraph. Angle of attack is almost everything. They tend to overemphasize (though they blissfully do not mention him) Bernoulli and the idea that curvature is somehow necessary for lift.
An airplane in unaccelerated flight has three forces (vectors) that add up to zero.
Thrust - The net force of the power plant, be it prop or jet.
Gravity - Straight down, proportional to mass.
Aerodynamic force - the net integral of the air pressure upon the airframe.
There isn’t anything else. The forces on an aircraft are usually broken out to conform to the two dimensions of a rectilinear graph. This helps and hurts at the same time.
Thanks, Whack-a-Mole
I believe it’s a treadmill.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have just ended the thread. Thank you, and please be sure to recycle your 3D glasses, keeping our theaters green…
welcome all
Technically, aerodave spoke as science advisor. Evidently not enough fingers were crossed.
There is no need to keep any busy awhile. Sometimes truth rings more clearly as few. The post DSYoungEsq’s specifically addresses cuts right to the heart of the matter. I could not have said it better myself.
I say pages and pages make my point very clearly.
I say truth embedded between untrue does not necessarily make falsehood true.
I will say again as fluently as am able:
“A wing is shaped and tilted so inertia in verse fluid mass forces lower pressure above. Lower pressure above in turn forces lift and air moving faster over the wing.”
force in verse vortex
Would you buy the notion that force is mass in verse acceleration?
Would you buy the notion that force is in verse inertial acceleration?
Would you buy the notion that force is in verse pressure differential?
Would you buy the notion that force by any state or name is still force?
Peace
rwj
No, I wouldn’t buy any of those notions, because I have no idea what verse is supposed to have to do with anything. Unless you meant “inverse”, in which case I wouldn’t buy any of that because it’s just plain wrong.
Would you buy the notion that mass tends toward relative rest?
Would you buy the notion that force is proportional to the time rate change of momentum?
Would you buy the notion that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?
Would you at least try the notion that even green eggs and ham might be more savory than first appears.
Peace
rwj
I am somehow reminded of another guy that had trouble with his tock of his clock.
Is it just me, or is this thread turning just a tiny bit timecubey?
No, unless there’s some sort of frictional force between them, and even then only on a macro scale.
Yes, it’s not only proportional to the time rate of change of momentum; it’s equal to it. That’s the definition of force.
Yes, if by that you mean Newton’s Third Law, though I’ve never felt that phrasing of it was very useful. I would prefer to say that whenever one body exerts a force on another, the second body also exerts a force on the first, of the same magnitude but opposite direction.
When I see the subject’s question, “Is geometry a force?” I can’t help but think of a secret cabal of Pythagoreans controlling the world from their secret headquarters below the Flatiron Building.
Have you ever noticed that triangles are everywhere? 
Or the threads like [thread=478016]this one[/thread] and [thread=516292]this one[/thread] where he spewed gibberish and insulted other posters who attempted to honestly answer his nonsensical questions. Responding to rwjefferson is like hunting the proverbial snark.
Stranger
I am remnded that you tend to post nonsense a lot in Great Debates.
Your “in verse” attempt at a pun has already been carried far beyond whatever negligible humor it might have had and you do yourself no favors when you ignore factual posts to ask meaningless questions.
If you continue in this mode, I am going to lock this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
rwjefferson, if I may, what are you simply not buying? What’s your point? What are you getting at? Who or what do you think is misguided?
It’s silly to expect you to answer in plain, conversational english, I know. But try and rise to the challenge, for once.
ETA: Also, are you quoting Suess, because that’s all they’ll let you read?
Back off. We’re still in GD.
[ /Modding ]
Aye aye.
A wing attacks air at an angle.
Zero angle of attack means zero lift.
Positive angle of attack means lifting situation.
Except for shape of cambered!
Sorry. I do not buy exception; no matter even exclaimed.
Mass tends toward relative rest.
Pressure tends toward equalize.
newton.bernoulli
A wing forces down on air; pressure forces wing back and up.
force is mass acceleration
force is inertial differential
force is pressure differential
No dark force of camber or warp or shape or tilt or other geo metry need apply.
peace
rwj
Are you arguing with yourself?
I will agree that there is no reason to further argue or debate against simple truth.
I felt this might be a good time for restatement.
frustration is not the same as hostility
True.
However, the frustration of deraling with someone who posts gibberish can lead to hostility.
This nonsense is closed.
[ /Modding ]