Originally Posted by Guppy
While I suspected early-on that you had some clue whence you speak on these matters, I'm more and more convinced that you're neither pilot nor engineer, and appear to be tossing smoke in the air for lack of something intelligent to offer. Your posts are tantamount to flame-bait.
Guppy, who I am is no secret, and neither is elementary physics, although both these things seem to be a mystery for some here.
I admit here I really don't know how to discuss with you. Since we're talking physics and aerodynamics, it would seem that a common understanding of the basics of these sciences is necessary to have a fruitful discussion. That isn't there, because one of us apparently doesn't have those basics.
You think it needs new laws of physics to get a ship to sail forward under own-generated wind (your example), whereas any aero student would fail a first course if heshe couldn't see how to do it. You think a wing can't fly under self-generated wind alone, without "forward thrust", whereas in the standard intro-aero text to which I often refer, thrust isn't even mentioned until half-way through, after four hundred plus pages of how airfoils work. We're worlds apart, and I am not about to alter mine, because my day job and those of my colleagues are way too bound up with it. And I'll suggest that yours is too!
When I find out the answers to my questions about the relative contributions of the various engine parts to the loads under reverse thrust, I'll share them here. Thank you, Guppy and HN and others, for a lively debate!
PBL