Maybe this was a bit of my own miscommunication here, by understand I meant apply. Take the formula, combine it with F=MA like you say, and use it to prove to us that Cl does not increase with AOA. Then use it to show us how in ground effect Cl doesn't actually go up.

If you do understand (application/correlation level of understanding) them, kudos to you, but you are doing a horrid job trying to get your point across. Cl does go up with AOA by every accepted academic book in production because accepted theorem proves it.


I agreed with you there, not because your a great guy, but because it was right. Your ideas were clear, you accurately assessed what was happening, you didn't confuse basic terms, and you explained it sufficiently. I added my own explanation for variation but agreed with you.

I disagree with you here, not because everything you are saying is wrong. It might be the revolutionary way, but for now the generally accepted is what a pilot and even an engineer needs. In the process of digging into these unconfirmed theories you demonstrate many misconceptions with various basic aerodynamic principles.

Because you are the "guy with the degree" doesn't mean you cannot be wrong. You have yet to admit any of these wrongs which even further confuses the general reader. Instead you take each one and cover it up with more theory, more advanced aerodynamics, and more things that only few will comprehend to hide your fallacies. As a leader on the forum, that is a poor, closed minded approach, to reading and replying to a forum post.



Again, I am not trying to say your wrong with everything your saying. But sir, you have a lot of misconstrued information scattered throughout your posts. Your aim should be to discover, accept, and learn to absolve these scattered miscommunications.