IntroductionA pilot dont have to understand the exact scientifically cause of flight necessarily. The understanding of the physical causes while flying makes not a better pilot necessarily. There are only a few aspects of aerodynamics which are important for a pilot. If he interprets the weather correctly, intuitively is one with the air, understands and feels that flying is essentially the observance of minimum speed, at any time he has to be in a controlled state, dominates the operation of the aercraft, especially during takeoff and landing and risks recognize and avoid, then he is on a good way. Glider pilotes also need a model of the vertical movements of the air to benefit of it.
Models in Nature
It can be assumed that birds do not have a deep understanding of aerodynamics. Also experience and training plays a subordinate role for them. Amazing how the characteristics and genetic predisposition puts them to survive the first flight reasonably undamaged in this situation. They also do not have to worry about the flight stability, the possibilities are already constructively setted.
When a person wants to fly, then he needs aid. He must trust in the aerodynamic characteristics of the device and at least familiarize itself with the operation. The next step would be, even to build a flying machine and of course to fly it. This also can happen with little knowledge of aerodynamics when someone build it by existing and proofed plans. Even by non pilots can and may build a man-carrying aircraft without proof of sufficient knowledge of aerodynamics, flight stability and all other considerations. A rule set of checks and approvals of reproduction of manned aircraft, ensures that the requirements of the designer are adhered to.
A designer must not give technical evidences of strength only - but also flight performance and stability relevant evidence before the construction can be started. Similarly, when modifications of existing aircraft. Apparently minor modifications can affect the flight behavior and the stability. Who does not have intimate knowledge of aerodynamics can not even decide whether the changes make sense at all and allowed are - possibly they are even dangerous. "Try and error" can use in building model aircrafts - and that makes inter alia the charm of it - but not accepted in the manned aviation.
New terms against old ways of thinking
Aircraft and racing cars are now largely developed highly, if someone wants to achieve improvements, he has to deal with details. If the general understanding is wrong, then someone does not come far. To leave the biggest obstacle to entrenched ideas and semi school wisdoms is the non-use of the term "flow" consistently . Again and again it is drum into us and the "flow stall" is the flying meltdown. Therefore, all are prompted to propose alternative terms.
Due primarily this is an air pressure system onto the wing and in particular around the aerofoil section and the small displacements of air particles in proportion to the speed of the wing are not relevant, the term "flow" is misleading. It is "pressure spread" proposed until further notice (the flow => the pressure spread) and "pressure collapse" (stall => the pressure collapse). Admittedly not as elegant but it is correct and with the same article, so that the terms can be easily replaced (maybe only in the german language).
| ⇒ What's aerodynamics