|Quoting David L (Reply 5):|
Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 4):
Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 2):BTW said book also calls "angle of attack" "angle of incidence", said I have heard describe the angle of mounting of the wing.
Interesting - I've never heard AoA refer to anything but the angle of the wing with respect to the freestream flow. Similarly, I've never heard AoI refer to anything but the mounting angle of the wing.
I've seen this come up in discussions before. While I don't remember anyone justifying it, I think the general reaction was to cut him some slack because the context makes it clearer and because of the quality of the work - i.e. you just have to "power through" that aspect.
Truth be told, I'd never heard the terms used for anything else either.
The book is more or less legendary and certainly the gentleman writing it seems to have been quite a character. I can't find any records on him easily googlable but I bet he was flying during WWII and then went on into flight test without ever raising his voice once. The way he describes what must have been quite harrowing flight tests in passing and with withering understatement is a pure pleasure. This was way before CFD and all that so who knew what would really happen. This is truly writing from before the PC
age, when men were men and women were secretaries. No excuses, no pandering to sensitivities, just a clear message.
I'm with David. The book is so good that I suppose cutting the man some slack for archaic terminology is warranted. As someone on PPrune said (I paraphrase): "You have no idea how hard the man worked to make the craft you are flying safe."
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - John Ringo