This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 62

Common explanation why wings fly is WRONG!

Soumis
 
It’s one of the most tenacious myths in physics and it frustrates aerodynamicists the world over. Now, University of Cambridge’s Professor Holger Babinsky has created a 1-minute video that he hopes will finally lay to rest a commonly used yet misleading explanation of how wings lift. (www.physorg.com) Plus d'info...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


Tuddley3
Someone on YouTube asked, "Now explain why an airplane can fly upside-down?". My answer would be(If I'm correct), "It's the exact same thing, only now the top side of the wing is now the bottom. If you were to perform this same smoke tunnel test with the wing upside down, it would look identical to the video above".
amahran
amahran 0
Not quite, the curved surface would be the lower portion and the air would flow faster on the lower portion of the wing, thus pulling the aircraft downward, which is why (other than structural reasons) 747's can't fly inverted, and an inverted A321 is generally a death sentence.
pfp217
pfp217 2
I will never fly quite the same again!
preacher1
preacher1 2
I think this is something that engineers can argue about. Judging from all the comments here, Pilot don't care as long as it flys.
preacher1
preacher1 1
to add to this: you have your aircraft specs, know your power settings and all about it. You do what you are supposed to and it flies. If you don't, it won't. point is that somebody long before you has came across this in the design phase and there is where it will have bearing, not in a plane that is built and specs given. Fly it by the specs and you have no dog in this fight.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Haha Wayne yes...while the plane is stalling the academic is working out why it stalled without doing anything to correct it. Hahaha...some teach others DO.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 2
If you are an aircraft engineer this is a worthy subject I guess. If you are a pilot, your time is better spent just learning to fly the airplane. Principles won't help you when you are in the air and the engineering has failed.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
I would HOPE that most of us already knew this if we had a science education. Can someone PLEASE tell me why this is regarded as NEW?
umcima1964
guy lever 0
seems that his frustration is with the prevailing thought that the air moving over the top of the wing has to travel faster to reach the end of the wing than the air flowing under the wing. His point is that this is not reality. Lift does not happen due to a low pressure zone on the top of the wing, but rather because of the "drag" created by the curvature of the underside of the wing.
lyonsden
Todd Lyons 1
His explanation is inaccurate
Topper1
W S Webb 1
Babinsky demonstrates his theory with the wind tunnel. But in real world the opposite is happening. As a pilot I move the wing through the air and the professor moves the air by the wing. Is this apples or oranges? Maybe its fruit?
preacher1
preacher1 0
If I understand it right, I don't think it would make any difference as far as how the air went over/under the wing, but it's kinda like I said above, who cares? It will either fly or not and there are many years of experience out here knowing what it takes to get off the ground/fly/land. This might be good for an engineer but i'm just a dumb old country boy that can't understand what this has to do with me.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Engineering at degree level is an really intense kinda experience. It is easy to get mired up in the insignificant stuff. Thats why graduates are rejected in favour of kids who have come up through the "tools" routes. I am not sure what happens in the USA but over here in the UK we have just about lost good "bread and butter" physics education for kids in public schools or on day release practical courses. The rest of Europe still has good education, so has most places.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Could he do winglets?
thunderland2
al fredericks 1
WELL NOW - make airfoils out of FLAT BOARDS, make prop blades out of FLAT WOOD STRIPS, same with turbine blades. supply VAST POWER, add drag devices and we could have a hyber-sonic, super-tonic (airplane?) and hope the H--L the thing gets one inch of the terra firma.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
The people building airplanes somehow understand enough about it because they have built some pretty good planes over the last 7 or 8 decades.
preacher1
preacher1 -1
10-4, that's what I was talking about earlier. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ain't nobody worried about it but him.
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 0
Yea, long as that wing don't fall off I'm not to worried about the exact science. If I was I would have become an engineer instead of a dumb truck dealer/pilot.
elfynh
Elfyn Hanks 1
This says to me that the explination is not wrong just the assumption that the molecules of air that split at the front of the wing meet up again at the back of the wing.
I do think that this video is a bad example. The high angle of attack that the wing has adds other factors to the equation. The explination would be alot clearer if the wing was level and they were demonstating only the airflow around an aerofoil
preacher1
preacher1 1
Heavier than air machines have been flying since the early 1900's and wing lift(or lack of it) seems to have been well understood by Pilots and Engineers since then. While this guy may have come up with something new or a little different, the end result is about the same; either the dang thing will fly or it won't. While something such as this may matter to a design engineer, I don't see much here for a Pilot. Just sayin'
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Love to see him do a demo of windshear Wayne...haha
freeron
Ron Freeman 1
Sorry to say that this is the first I've heard of the incorrect
explanation for airfoil lift!! Ever since I can remember, the correct
pressure differential theory was the accepted explanation!
chalet
chalet 1
What explanation does the good prof. have for the tens of thousands of airfoils (not only wings but recip-endine propellers and jet-engine blades) that were sucssfully designed and built based on what he accuses of being a worng theory. Some of those airfoils have been flying for more than hundred of years, and more are being designed and built as we speak.If a new theory is submitted then the old one has to be proven wrong. He hasn´t. Like Wayne said this is balderdash to put it mildly.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
Myth.. Maybe it comes from my training, but that is always the way that I thought it was and was the way I remember in my training.
dral6503
Ed Berling 1
And here I thought it was magic...
dakota29
John Duffy 1
All it takes is two things.... Money and Magic, run out of either, and you wont be flying any more...
andyn6414
andyn6414 1
Viscosity and air flow turning...I kind of wish this video was more direct about the Bernoulli's principle being the wrong explanation. Awesome proof that NASA has had it right for a long time. Can we finally change the textbooks please! Here it is from NASA Glen Research Center. Thanks to my ground instructor for teaching it correctly

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html
andyn6414
andyn6414 0
WALLACE24
WALLACE24 1
Can't wait to see the "new" wings. What ? They look just like the old ones! Bummer!
preacher1
preacher1 1
lol.!!!!!
preacher1
preacher1 -2
And the sad part is that we spend our good, hard earned money for guys in academia to sit there and think up crap such as this; and I see this is his 2nd attempt. He must be a liberal, in that the results never agreed with HIS thinking the 1st time so he just kept on until he found results that did and that makes him right and all the other millions of us out here wrong. BS
galanti
paul galanti 1
Isn't there enough politics these days?
marledge
marledge 0
That seems un called for Wayne, why go there?
preacher1
preacher1 1
grumpy morning I guess. To me, this is a case of "IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT"so why make a deal out of it. It's just funny to me that thousands of planes fly everyday and here are a small handful of guys worrying about something that the rest of the world has accepted and lived with for years. He has too much time on his hands and somwhere we are footing the bill for what is basically useless research, at least something that nobody seems worried about. I am a practical guy and just don't have any use for that type person. I hold him no malice but I don't have to have tea with him everyday. He is entitled to his opinion and I mine.
irobac
irobac 1
The point of his argument is that pilots are currently being taught and tested on a bogus over simplified explanation of how lift is produced. The common theory of - air accelerates over the top of the wind due to curvature of wing, producing low pressure, thereby lifting the aircraft - is wrong. The entire explanation is bases on the fabricated theory of equal transit times. This is by no means new information, however it is odd that the incorrect theory continues to be taught.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
My teacher at the age of 11 was a genius then, because he taught us in particle theory kinetics... and that was back in 1965. Now I am not quite sure because in all I did 8 years of academic physics and I could have sub consciously built upon his seed but for certain, pressure difference was easily explained.
dbrooks84
David Brooks 1
Well, I don't think the aerospace companies are going to stop engineering the way wings have made for decades. All of that analytical and modeling software and wind tunnels - well it just can not all be wrong. Despite the professor's view and video, I suspect I could put 10 professors of aeronautics in a room you would get 10 different takes on it too.
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen 1
Yawn! I suppose these academics need to try to come up with something new and startling to justify their high pay. Professor Babinsky is starting from the wrong premise. He says that the old explanation is that the air molecules above the airfoil and the molecules below reach the trailing edge of the airfoil at the same time. Whoever told him that? The explanation has always been from the day I made my first solo flight in 1960 that the lower pressure above the wing is created by the speeding up of the air molecules which he himself confirms in his video. You can achieve the same result with a flat board if you give it an angle of attack in the airflow. The curvature only increases the effect until such time as the laminar flow breaks away from the surface and creates drag.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Ole: I came to the same conclusion, comments are above and got blessed out for giving my honest opinion of this academic. Too bad.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Ole: Because inherently I am blue collar and deep down I trust the institutions and those employed in them. Deep down that trust remains..even though they have been wrong so many times. So I will say "how come so many specialist publications picked the sory up.."WHY did they publish this as though it was a BIG deal? Has the press become so DUMBED DOWN as to accept anything that these guys say. The only institution I respect these days is MIT
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen 0
Hi Roland, Sometimes it is good to apply some common sense rather than trust any old thing you read. Did you read that resently 2 researchers after years of investigation involving 10,000 people came to the conclusion that men and women are different (not just physically, which is obvious to us all)? Doh! After 47 years of marriage I could have told them that. I bet my 7 year old grand-daughter could have told them that too. Do you really think it is fair to pay big bucks for those people to come up with that kind of "research" which we all know to be true anyway. In a world where so many people are suffering, I personally think it is sad that we are waisting money in this way. This is NOT to say that ALL researchers are not doing valuable research.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Ole..you are few years ahead of me in terms of experience of life. I certainly expect BS from the people in the social sciences including economics but I really recoil when I read stuff like this. All I can assume is that I had an excellent education compared to the editors of the journals. Just how you can be an editor of a respected technology journal and print this report without due question tells me something is wrong somewhere.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 1
Someone up above (too many to peruse through) hit the nail on the head. This is just fodder to throw out there so they can say that research money went to some sort of productive use. Now, send me another grant so I can discover something else you already know. --- small, unmarked bills please.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 0
Roland - it was you sir.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Yup..this is what this man is about at Cambridge Eng Dept. "Prof Babinsky's research covers the whole range of aerodynamics from power kites and Formula 1 cars to the understanding of supersonic flows. A focus of his work is the study of transonic and supersonic flow phenomena, such as wing flows and helicopter blade flows. In the Department of Engineering, Prof Babinsky is responsible for the aero-lab, which features an extensive range of wind tunnel facilities." Magdalene College Cambridge UK Jan 2012. Basically this is the UK's version of MIT.
Derg
Roland Dent 1
Yes Ole...so WHY is this such a BIG deal? I was taught this back in 1965.
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen 0
That's the whole point, Roland, it's not such a big point. The big point, as you call it, is that we (the public) are employing academic geniuses for "discovering" what we already know. As I see it what Babinsky is telling us is nothing new. Do you not agree?
Derg
Roland Dent 0
I DO OLE! I DO! Yes I see now..thanks for pointing that out. Well said Sir!
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen -1
I'm so pleased. Now perhaps you can tell me what you meant by your question: "WHY is this such a BIG deal?"
CaryA
Cary Alburn 0
It does take money, and it is magic. It's also called the Bernoulli principle. The fallacy in his video is that a wing moves through the air; his air moves past the wing. So my question to him is, what happens to all that air that you say goes faster past the top of the wing and slower under the wing--is it somewhere bottled up in the netherworld, only to pop out in the form of gusts 200 miles behind my little airplane? Inquiring minds want to know. :)
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
It is all relative.... The Air is holding/supporting the plane in flight. it has no fixed pint. It does not matter if the wind is moving or the plane is moving, or both. It is within Relative Respect. Makes no difference. What does make a difference is the angle of attach, how steep the air is catching the wing. A good example if a plane takes off at 50 mph and he is pointed into a 40 mph head wind then he only needs 10 MPH ground speed. Once in the air, as long as he is above minimum airspeed, it is all relative. Once he goes below, well then he falls out of the sky. Devices on the A/C such as Flaps, Slats, Spoilers either adds or removes lift from the wing to affect the minimums.

A good example is Delta flt 191 in Dallas, Texas a number of years ago, L1011 crash. Got into a micro-burst. Had very heavy head wind, on approach, the a severe down draft, followed by a tail wind. At that time, pilots were informed of Wind Shear and Micro-Burst, but it was not in real training yet. When you are flying along at 150 MPH Air Speed, with 100 MPH Head Wind and all of a sudden it changes to a 100 MPH tail wind, you better have a lot of altitude to recover. Delta was on a low approach and did not make it. Check out the FDR/CVR Info on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKwyU1RwPto
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 0
I didn't actually view the video until just now. I can't help but notice that illustrated is a wing that appears to be stalling. Is that the best example to use for this sort of illustration?
zennermd
zennermd 0
I think they chose that angle because it is the most extreme case, thus giving the fastest speed over top and slowest over bottom for better seperation of the air stream.
buddyl
bud landacre 0
So what's new. When I learned to fly in the 60s I was taught and later I taught that it is the pressure differential (venturi effect) that caused a wing to create lift.
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen 0
Spot on, Bud! Exactly the same I learned. I don't recall anyone taking about air molecules meeting at the trailing edge. It is the speeding up of the air which has to travel a longer distance over the top surface which results in a lover STATIC pressure (the pressure on the wing surface) which causes the lift. Whether the air molecules that separate at the leading edge meet at the trailing edge or not, is not the issue. There is nothing new is this professor's research.
galanti
paul galanti 0
OK, how does an aircraft with a symmetrical airfoil manage to get lift? If it is the angle of attack, why doesn't an aircraft flying inverted fly into the ground?
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 0
I am now dumber having watched that video. At least it was short.
Lon33
Lon Sobel 0
So that's why I instinctively grip the controls so tightly! Why, then, does my Instructor keep telling me to relax? And, more importantly, why is my Instructor able to fly the plane so smoothly, with just his finger tips?
Lon33
Lon Sobel 0
So that's why I instinctively grip the yoke and throttle so tightly! But why, then, does my instructor keep telling me to relax? And, more importantly, why is my instructor able to fly the plane so smoothly with just his fingertips?
AccessAir
AccessAir 0
Please tell me if the design of the wing isnt what makes the planes fly, why did Shorts shape the fuselages of their 330 and 360 to resemble the shape of a wing?? Perhaps to provide extra lift that would supplement the lift provided by the wings???
chalet
chalet 0
Apparently you are not aware that what happened was that after receiving from Shorts some 330s, the customer threw the fuselages away and bolted the wings to the crates in which all of this came in (old joke but almost true, LOL!!)
amahran
amahran 0
Actually, I understood both versions for a long time and knew which one was right, since I'm taking university physics.
Quote from the book:
Some discussions of lift claim that air travels faster over the top of a wing because "it has farther to travel." This claim assumes the that air molecules that part company at the leading edge, one travelling over the wing and one under the wing, must meet each other at the wing's trailing edge. Not so! Figure 12.26b [ a computer simulation of air parcels flowing around a wing, showin that air moves much faster over the top than over he bottom,] shows how air parcels flow around an airplane wing. Parcels that are adjacent at the front of the wing DO NOT meet at the trailing edge; the flow over the top of the win is much faster than if the parcels were to meet at the trailing edge. This faster speed is due to the compression of air molecules by the top of the wing choking the air and causing the molecules to travel faster. In accordance with Bernoulli's equation, this faster speed means that there is even lower pressure on the upper surface of the wing, and thus even more lift than the "farther to travel" claim would suggest."


However, on a side note, it mentions that lift is not only due to pressure differences, although it's a major contributing factor:
"We can also understand it on a basis of momentum changes. The vector diagram in 12.26a shows that there is a net downward change in the vertical momentum of the air flowing past the wing, corresponding to the downward force the wing exerts on the air. The reaction force on the wing is thus upward, as we concluded above."


TheMoreYouKnow.jpg
amahran
amahran 0
And to all the above comments, it doesn't matter whether the air is moving or the wing is moving; the important thing is that they're moving with respect to one another.
SvendHN
I forgot to mention that in the F-18s airshow example (two planes, one inverted above the other), the angle of attack is obviously controlled by onboard computers, which the pilots over-ride as soon as they leave the formation.
usaerin
@ Boatinman --

Pretty funny...do you do stand-up comedy in your airplane?
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Now I just happen to have S E T Taylors and H A Parmar's "Private Pilot Studies" fourth edition pulished by R and AD Poyser in the UK in 1979 on the shelf next to me here. ISBN 085661 0204. Cost me £6 back then. On page 133 these two aviator authors set out the "Principals of Flight2 and believe me thse two guys were stellar in the world of aviation. There are 14 pages of text and diagrams. There is no math at all in the discussion and the only clue as to lift is a derived 8.5% lift, bur they see it as PUSH from below on an idealised asymetrical lenticular..ahem! Told yas I went to college! So I withdraw my cristicism Babinsky does indeed have a case. Most aviators were taught BS.
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen 0
Very appropriate then that Professor Holger Babinsky is from University of Cambridge since you UK blokes only had "these two guys [who] were stellar in the world of aviation" (read UK aviation). As mentioned above since 1960 I was taught what Professor Babinsky has now discovered except we never discussed whether the air molecules meet up at the trailing edge, that was never the issue. The issue is that the increase in speed of the molecules over the top surface of the aerofoil produces lift as described in Bernoulli's theorem.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Now Ole let's not bring US vs USA capability into this. The only real way to solve this is by using acetate ping pong balls with mexican insect jumping bean grubs in them. Then we can have a real experiment. Don't be so sure I am a "UK guy" either...hahahha. There must have been plenty of misled people on your side of the Atlantic too..
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen 0
Sorry, mate, I was just trying to be funny. However, notice my name, not exactly American. It is in fact Danish and I was trained as a fighter pilot in the Royal Danish Air Force. Part of the training was in Canada and I can confirm that on both sides of the big ditch they explained aerodynamic lift in the same way. Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion, but I think it is time to move on to something else. How about a discussion on how to maximize laminar flow over the aerofoil to get maximum lift and minimum drag? Oh, and yes, I don't live in Denmark any more, I have lived in Australia for more than 30 years and would you believe it, they also here explain aerodynamic lift the same way. Just pure luck, I guess. All the best, Ole
Derg
Roland Dent 0
I am big fan of the ATSB..only truly independent authority in my view. Great place Australia...
Derg
Roland Dent 0
No wonder the Czechs and Russians built better military planes than the west...this is LAUGHABLE.

Holger Babinsky...hahaha. Philanthropist...
frontrange
Why does it take a cambridge prof. to say the same thing the Mr. Bernoulli explained so long ago. It's all about fluid dynamics. Pressure is inversly proportional to speed of a fluid. As speed goes up, pressure goes down. As air on the top of the wing goes faster, it causes a pressure differential between the top and bottom of the wing, thus an airplane flies. Aerodynamics 101, fun stuff.
Derg
Roland Dent 0
You think these Cambridge UK academics are bad....A bunch from Oxford UK convinced

RR that the T972...the uprated engine in Qantas 388s..was perfectly safe.

Never EVER take what an academic says or writes without a great deal of caution.

Many of them are on a selfish mission to get further funding or get published.
tuba
tuba 0
If I remember correctly, Langewiesche got it wrong in "Stick and Rudder"... I should dust it off and check. Well-loved, "folksy" classics can do a lot of damage.
billme
Bill Johnson 0
Guess I had a good flight instructor ...he agreed with the Profesor.
Boatinman
Boatinman 0
I thought we all debunked this a long time ago. An airplane's lift is directly in relation to how tight one holds the controls.
galanti
paul galanti 1
Actually it is will power that creates lift. I remember back in 1973 my wife and infant son were flying from London to New York and I kept that 747 in the air by shear will power. Then I realized they were flying home the next day and I had to do it all over again. Talk about mental exhaustion!
preacher1
preacher1 0
When you have plenty of power/speed and rotate the heifer, it should fly.lol
Derg
Roland Dent 0
Jeremy nah, you got that wrong..other way round surely..has to be.
mcguipe
I don't understand what the revelation is here. As best I can see Professor Babinsky has illustrated with his video and described with his narrative that, well, when a fluid speeds up (top of the airfoil) pressure is less, than at the bottom of the airfoil wherein the speed is lower. Hello! Have we heard this somewhere else?

It doesn't seem to me that whichever molecule, from the top or bottom of the airfoil, gets to the rear end of the airfoil first upsets the lower pressure on top, higher pressure on bottom standard understanding of an airfoil performance.

But, that's just me. Interesting work though. I just don't get the revelation.
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 0
The revelation is that the commonly held idea that the molecules that are together at the leading edge must meet at the trailing edge (simultaneous transit) is incorrect. In fact, the molecules going over the wing move much faster, thus the pressure differential is even higher than if they molecules simultaneously transited the airfoil.
OleEskildsen
Ole Eskildsen 0
Well put, Jeremy!

Gentlemen, I propose we all support an application for a professorship in aeronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for Mr Jeremy Kudlick to conduct experiements in fluid dynamics. His field of specialty should be to determine, not WHETHER two adjacent air molecules which separate at the leading edge of an aerofoil, one travelling above and the other travelling below the aerofoild, meet at the same time at the trailing edge of the aerofoil, Herr Professor Holger Babinsky of University of Cambridge has adequately established that that is not the case, but WHY that is the case. As an initial experiment, I submit that Professor Kudlick should proceed to travel in his car with one hand extended out of the side window, the hand should be held flat, similar to the way the hand is held in a military salute. Then he should twist the hand slightly so that the leading edge of the hand is moved upward to determine whether he can feel a resultant upward pressure on the hand. This should be followed up by twisting the hand in the opposite direction so that the leading edge of the hand is moved downward to determine whether he can feel a resultant downward pressure on the hand. If successful these initial experiments should be followed up by experiments with different kinds of aerofoils: a flat piece of plywood, a bird's wing, a wing from a model aircraft, a banana, and so forth. Professor Kudlick should submit a detailed report of his findings of no less than 500 pages within the next 10 years. Professor Kudlick should be adequately remunerated for his important work with an initial annual salery of $250,000 plus expenses, to be adjusted in accordance with the consumer price index every year on April 1.

All in favor say: "Aye!"
Derg
Roland Dent 0
AYE hahaha...was hoping we could use ping pong balls but that would eat into the budget hahah
preacher1
preacher1 0
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 0
Well, I did study Aerospace Engineering at the Naval Academy (before getting dismissed for bad grades), so I've go the salute and some basic understanding of fluid dynamics in the bag already.

When do I start bilking - I mean educating - the public? :D
bill54494
bill54494 0
A wing forces air down, which causes an equal reaction opposite that force. Isaac Newton said something similar a few years ago.
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 0
"This is why a flat surface like a sail is able to cause lift." I'm not sure if Babinsky has ever noticed, but sails are not flat when they are raised and there is a breeze. In fact, they turn into airfoils, which is why boats with triangular sails can actually sail INTO the wind! I know it isn't aviation, but the principle is exactly the same. This guy wasted a bunch of money and time to reiterate the basic principle rather than just leave it alone.
jladro
John Allison 0
You figure !
preacher1
preacher1 0
2 days and 86 comment over a 1 minute video. dang.lol
JD345
JD345 0
There's a minute of my life I'll never get back.
galanti
paul galanti 0
Did you ever learn anything in school? I guess not, or you wouldn't make that comment.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 0
Paul, we cant tell who you are trying to insult... But for the record, I didnt get my degree at Univ of Phoenix so I guess I did learn something beyond point and click.
ExCalbr
Victor Engel 0
Wings don't fly. They provide lift so that the plane they're attached to can fly. The airfoil is not the most important part of what gives a wing its lift. Anybody can figure this out by simply sticking their hand out an open window of a car driving fast down the highway.
chalet
chalet 0
You are right Engel, wings don´t fly, the STAY FIRMLY ON THE GROUND. And of course the airfoil is not the most important part that gives a wing its lift, but I have stuck my hand out an open window of a car at 100 MPH and we did not lift off, all I got was a stern look from my father (LOL!!).
jaylink1971
Jay Link 0
You're joking, right?? He means your hand goes up if you rotate it slightly, not the car.
thunderland2
al fredericks 0
thank you chris. WHEW!
SvendHN
I read through the entire blog and found only a couple of references to the obvious: It is the angle of attack. That's why two identical planes, say two F-18s, can do a fly-by at an airshow, one plane right side up, the other plane inverted a couple of feet above the other plane - at almost the speed of sound. The two pilots must control the angle of attack on their wing foils with incredible precision (they must have exactly opposite values), so that both planes fly at their precise altitude, just feet apart, one plane with positive angle of attack (right side up), the other with negative angle of attack (inverted). Again, it is the angle of attack! Military pilots know this 'secret'. Aeronautical engineers know this 'secret'. Only professors like the one making this video don't know. Why hasn't someone asked this professor to explain how military jets and aerobatic planes can fly inverted at airshows? By the way, the reason the two airshow F-18s mentioned in above example always fly cockpit-to-cockpit, not belly-to-belly is equally obvious: The pilots must be able to see each other's plane. (And in the Top Gun movie they can also hand signal each other (:-) .
thunderland2
al fredericks 0
O.K., O.K. lets settle this. lets ask the air molecules. hopefully they should know.
StymieHo
Chris Donawho 0
I just asked one... Like Wayne, they dont give a damn either... ;)
preacher1
preacher1 -1
LMAO!!!! I love your comment about the grant money up above.lol. Heck of a way to start off a weekend. It's just too bad that peckerwood don't read this forum to find out what the real world thinks about his research.lol
chalet
chalet 0
Wayne if you or anybody has the personal adddress of this British genius, please let me have it for I would like to send him a few river pebbles which I just sent spinning and jumping to the other bank of the creek; they are roundish and the curvature hitting the water surface is opposite to his theory, I think (LOL!!)
preacher1
preacher1 -1
I guess you can just send them in care of the university.lol. I don't have it and don't want it.lol
thunderland2
al fredericks 0
as to flying upside down or right side up. the airplane does not realize the difference when it comes to airflow. its just the pilots and gravity that makes us the factor of up an down. the aircraft has no sense of this orientation.
mpradel
Marcus Pradel -1
There's NO 'lift'. at least not on top of the surface.. Airplanes fly on 'drag'

A flat board will fly at the right angle of attack!
pfp217
pfp217 0
and so will the F-104!
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 0
I still wanna see an explanation using the new "theory" in aerodynamics as to how helicopters fly.

Se connecter

Vous n'avez pas de compte? Inscrivez-vous maintenant (gratuitement) pour des fonctionnalités personnalisées, des alertes de vols, et plus encore!