Gain experience in but never master. Probably the most honest statement I have heard in years!❤
@rtbrtb_dutchy4183
25 күн бұрын
Thank you. I was initially taught “wrong”, but figured this out pretty early in my career, when I was still a CFI and I adjusted how I trained students.
@livestock9722
26 күн бұрын
I don't fly for money, but I navigate markets for money and your statement hits the nail on the head - one of those things you gain experience in, but never master. Complacency kills. I appreciate your no guff style.
@alk672
25 күн бұрын
In the "air travels farther over the top" explanation I never understood why the air from the top must necessarily meet the air from the bottom. Years later, I was relieved to see that they don't actually meet.
@mach1shobhan
25 күн бұрын
so what actually does create lift? it is the downward deflection of air by angle of attack?
@alk672
25 күн бұрын
@@mach1shobhan didn’t you see the video? It’s magic.
@mach1shobhan
25 күн бұрын
@@alk672 i did but everything went over my head 🤡
@shaun1293
24 күн бұрын
@@mach1shobhanbasically the top of the wing is shaped so air follows the surface and is forced downwards.
@mach1shobhan
23 күн бұрын
@@shaun1293 i understood this but what im tryna clarify is does the downward deflection of air cause the air to accelerate and create a low pressure region above the wing? or like the shape of the wing makes the air accelerate
@chrisberlin1552
25 күн бұрын
Im a private pilot flying enough to stay current since 1987, and i was certainly refreshed viewing this. Yes sir i loathe wake turbulence…it got me flying a 172 into PBI about 15 years ago landing behind a heavy and though a mild example ive always remembered it. Excellent work thanks.
@ak983625
26 күн бұрын
I’m an graduate professional engineer. Before university, I was confused by all kinds of bs explanations. A second year mechanical engineering professor put an end to all the crazy theories. It all comes down to the change of momentum of the oncoming air. Force is mass times the change in velocity, per unit of time. Force is normally the weight of the aircraft. The wing angle of attack forces a downward change in velocity of the static air mass. Going faster ? More airmass is encountered per second, therefore less change in velocity required. Maybe lowered angle of attack. Why can’t they tell this in grade 10 ?
@米空軍パイロット
25 күн бұрын
Correct. Wings are not an attempt to make one flow faster than the other. They are a ramp that pushes the air down. The curvature is just what you get when you take a streamlined teardrop and bend it to create this ramp.
@DaveP-uv1ml
25 күн бұрын
It’s not an easy subject for everyone’s mind to grasp it may be for you but the old way of explaining it just seems more logical even though it’s incorrect. Reportedly Albert Einstein got this one wrong too.
@米空軍パイロット
25 күн бұрын
@@DaveP-uv1ml What's ironic is the "old way" that was never accepted in real aeronautical engineers is still more unintuitive than the simple explanation: the surface just pushes the air down. And of course it's unintuitive than the real explanation. Because newtonian physics is naturally intuitive for most animals.
@Sonnell
25 күн бұрын
@@DaveP-uv1ml For some reason I always found the "old way" to be confusing, and the actual description a lot simpler and easier to understand :)
@markos.5539
25 күн бұрын
How does this explain supercritical airfoils? I'm curious
@scottmoseley5122
26 күн бұрын
Welp that one went over my head.. but I appreciate that the vid was done exceeding well. And it wont be too much of a drag to rewatch it in order to lift my level of understanding.
@lornes7526
25 күн бұрын
Don't overthink it and go looking for some hidden variables, because there is none. Listen to it word for word and keep it simple. It'll make more sense that way .
@utah20gflyer76
16 күн бұрын
Simply put a wing creates lift by forcing air down which pushes the airplane up.
@dougsundseth6904
25 күн бұрын
Good stuff, except weight _is_ a force. Specifically it's the mass of the object times the local acceleration. (F=Ma). For level flight in calm air, it's the mass of the object times local gravitational acceleration (F=Mg).
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
@@dougsundseth6904 yeah I was abstracting there a bit. What I meant was it’s not an aerodynamic force.
@charleswood3705
26 күн бұрын
A rotating helicopter rotor is made up of very long thin wings, and they create downwash. The same as a wing creates a down wash.
@Mark-mm2px
25 күн бұрын
Same as the propellor on an aircraft, just two wings spinning really fast.
@KyleTGomez
25 күн бұрын
I'm just a night time grocery stocker and have no aviation experience and probably never will. I really enjoy your videos and I seem to learn something new everytime I watch one. Keep Up The Good Work and Thank You. 🙂
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
Awesome! Thank you!
@Kevv554
25 күн бұрын
Thanks again Stan! I'm not a math guy, but I understand what you're describing. Best explanation I've ever seen!
@umi3017
25 күн бұрын
Newton's 3rd law is absolutely correct, but it's more like the "consequence". Yes the wing ultimately deflects the air down, but no it doesn't works like "bounce balls against a wall at an angle" kinda of depiction, you didn't say that, but if you explain to others, it's likely they will depict it that way in their head. Equal time on the other hand is totally wrong as the air doesn't need to and does not in fact meet at the TE at the same time at all. Another common misunderstanding: "the upper wing squeeze the air so it moves faster". Actually, for any constancy flow of incompressible fluid, squeeze of a stream tube and acceleration is same thing, you don't have to use hard boundary to squeeze the stream tube like in a venturi tube, the upper wing accelerate the air, "As a consequence" the stream tube get thinner. "" for this 2 things are the same thing in different perspective, not really one is consequence of another really. so this I would still qualify as "correct but not explain anything" like the "Newton's 3rd law" one. Why the upper wing accelerate the air? The best explanation I could get a grasp on is kutta-joukowski theorem and the circulation is much elegant explanation for the wingtip vortex, it also unifies Magnus effect. But you can still ask deeper, then that's not something my brain could easily process. BTW the picture at 7:00 still not correct, there is actually an upwash before LE, almost symmetrical to the downwash behind TE, and they both contribute to lift.
@jims3276
26 күн бұрын
Thanks again for teaching me something.
@AmericanPiddler
22 күн бұрын
Mark my words I will be here when this channel hits 100K and I was here before 1K
@mohammedalhadher1414
26 күн бұрын
Very informative and engaging. Keep the videos coming
@aeomaster32
21 күн бұрын
Back in the sixties I was ridiculed for bringing Newton into what keeps an airplane up, so thank you for an excellent program. It seems that the real problem for most who question Newton is not so much the downwash, but how the wing produces it. The air deflected downwards by the lower surface is easy to grasp intuitively, but the way the air is "pulled" down on top is harder to visualize. I explain it as the air on top surface "thinning out" to cover a longer distance / volume, which reduces static pressure there. This causes the higher surrounding static atmospheric pressure above the wing to flow downwards contributing to downwash.
@timsun6810
25 күн бұрын
always love a great technical overview
@gerardmoran9560
25 күн бұрын
Great video! Wake turbulence is a serious threat. On the NATs (North Atlantic oceanic tracks) we now have a thing called SLOP- Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure. If an airplane is 15-22 miles ahead of you and 1,000' above you, you're in danger of a wake encounter. Analyze the winds, and if needed, offset your track 1-2 miles from the centerline to stay clear. Most FIRs the world over now permit it. Happy landings!
@424mins6
22 күн бұрын
As a student pilot your videos need to be more main streamed. You're a excellent teacher and I continue to recommend your videos to my fellow peers in hopes i don't see another crash because of unfortunate negligence. i would love to see a video on some form of preflight or aircraft Maintenace let alone the imposable 180. My father is a 747 captain and the level of thorough explanation is the same. If you ever get the chance i would like to hear you options on 141 vs part 61 flight schools
@flyingformoney777
21 күн бұрын
I did both. It depends on your objectives. If you want to do 121 flying get in a program that credits you to something lower than 1,500 hours to get hired. Otherwise the 141 is a little more structured and to be efficient you can’t really change 141 outfits partway through (that’s how I wound up finishing 61-it was quicker). Blue skies!
@jacksonmulville2200
25 күн бұрын
This was a good video. I felt like the transition from discussing inverted flight to the CL604 incident was a bit rough but overall this was a solid presentation. Thanks!
@TheFloozi
25 күн бұрын
Weight is a force Mass is the measurement But I think in pilot ground school books they use the word weight to mean mass
@ak983625
25 күн бұрын
For brevity I omitted the obvious fact that an increase in speed, besides encountering more air mass, also proportional increases the invoked acceleration and downward speed of the air mass, yet another reason to decrease angle of attack. Frictional air drag increases with the square of velocity, typically requiring more power. Wings are cambered primarily for streamlining.
@realvanman1
25 күн бұрын
Having followed a few of these discussions over the years, I remember coming to the same conclusion that wings accelerate air downward. They MUST accelerate air downwards. Just like propellers accelerate air rearwards to create a force forwards (you can even feel it standing behind the plane! It IS real!) or helicopters accelerate air downwards to create a force upwards (you can feel that too!!). What is a mystery is that this remains a mystery to the community at large. Your explanation was far and away the best. It was perfect. Subscription earned. This video should be in every ground school and indeed in every high school physics class. They still have physics in high school, don't they??
@allancopland1768
25 күн бұрын
A great video. It's easy enough to get a flat slab winged aircraft to fly. AOA, enough thrust and some tail feathers. Aeromodellers do this a lot with foamboard. Granted the drag is terrible but they will fly. Bernoulli... maybe not so much.
@PetesGuide
12 күн бұрын
A tip about the thumbnail on this video: when looking at the list of videos on your channel, on a small iPhone screen, the thumbnail reads, “It’s Science Not 10:04”. I can’t read the last word in the lower-right corner because the length of the video covers it up. A few other videos of yours have the same problem. I believe KZitem has specs for the keep out areas in thumbnails. If not, I’m sure someone has made decent ones. Hope this helps!
@FlywithMagnar
25 күн бұрын
Great explanation! Subscribed.
@JasonLastName
22 күн бұрын
Man your video made me realize I had some pretty good professors and instructors. Great video, and channel as always. Oh definitely more nitty gritty🤓 controversial aviation physics stuffs😅.
@xyzaero
13 күн бұрын
Finally someone who speaks the truth
@Gusto0172
25 күн бұрын
As always, a superbly crafted video with great explanation. I recall my early days when I flew control line model aircraft (the ones that fly around you on a long pair of cables. Some of the models I flew had solid balsa wings, no camber/airfoil shape. Flight was created purely by the angle of attack of the wing, same as when you put your hand out the window of a moving car & feel it lifting. Crude, but effective, providing you have the thrust. Obviously does not have the efficiency of a cambered wing.
@rotor-head
10 күн бұрын
You should make a video explaining Navier-Stokes, Cutta-Jaworski, and Euler's Equation.
@JCtheMusicMan_
24 күн бұрын
I always understood the forces of air directed downwards by flying my out the window of a moving car! I’m guessing the confusion was introduced by Bernoulli’s principle in trying to explain why a wing flies. At least the aircraft still flies even if the pilot is confused about all of the forces 😅😁
@braincraven
25 күн бұрын
You think lift is hard to explain, try explaining glider aerodynamics. If you ever see a winch launch for a glider, that wing is WAY beyond the critical angle of attack. Then there is gliders climbing in thermals. Great video!
@Haniel93
25 күн бұрын
Not that hard to explain. AoA is the angle between the airflow and the airfoil. Don't confuse AoA with pitch angle (angle between horizontal plane and airfoil). As the movement of the glider is very steep, the AoA is much less than it looks from the outside. If the glider pitches up 50° and its path is 40°, the AoA is only 10°, well below. In thermals the air just moves upwards and takes anything flying in it with it. Just like the wind horizontally, only vertically.
@kianjt
14 күн бұрын
I looked at this in my thesis, the starting vortex explanation is significantly more accurate as it takes into account the wing geometry and perfectly accounts for inverted flight. Newton’s third law is undoubtedly at play here too but the angle at which air is deflected downwards from the wing is only a few degrees, and if it’s only a few degrees, the wing must deflect magnitudes more air to sustain opposite lift, as only a small portion of the air’s vector is in the vertical axis. Think of it this way, if the air was deflected perfectly 90 degrees down, you could get away with deflecting air mass close to that of the airplane. At 45 degrees, you need to deflect double, and so on. It cannot just be Newton’s third law. Also weight absolutely is a force.
@flyingformoney777
14 күн бұрын
Newton’s Third Law must be fully satisfied to produce any force. The acceleration rate that the wing produces on the air is a factor too. Weight is acceleration times mass. So the vector of the air mass pointing down can be low if the acceleration rate is high. And yes, gravity is a force but (in context) I was discussing aerodynamic forces. Gravity is not an aerodynamic force.
@ColderHeavens
25 күн бұрын
Growing up learning about physics, Bernoulli's principle got all the credit for lift. It never made sense to me- Newton's Third Law should get more credit.
@flymachine
25 күн бұрын
Delta wings still employ an airfoil shape including drooped leading edges - even the thinnest, sharpest wings employ an airfoil shape that is seldom purely symmetrical, what you’re saying is that lift is primarily created behind the trailing edge? Then how do we account for the centre of lift centre of pressure over the upper surface? What about reflexed trailing edges on flying wings? Is a flying wing both pushing down at the trailing edge (creating increased AoA) and up at the leading edge? Is lift a function of force pushing against a surface or a management of flow creating pressure differential - it’s not making sense to me. I design aircraft parts and performance remotely piloted aircraft and am finalising my own design two seat touring aircraft and the understanding I have of lift is more to do with Bernoulli than Newton and still my machines and parts fly, if we are able to so precisely hone the designs based on our current understanding does it really matter if there’s a different understanding? Another area of aerodynamics that seems to follow Bernoulli’s law is flow control and laminar flow - considered in the design of not just lifting and control surfaces but ducts, inlets, junctions etc. What of the effect on lift that upper surface devices like VG’s produce?
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
@@flymachine When making lift, a wing redirects the air from a higher point (leading edge) to a lower point (trailing edge). Generally this is done by a combination of wing shape and angle of attack. Pressure plays an important role in aerodynamics. But the lift itself is always limited by how much air is being redirected downwards.
@Raging.Geekazoid
23 күн бұрын
Nice video, Stan, but there are a couple rough spots. 0:55 The downwash should be angled downward, not horizontal. Like the diagram at 6:55. 1:40 The "something else" is the thing that applied the force. 1:45 Other way 'round: The wing must exert a downward force on the air, and by Newton's third law, the air will exert an equal and opposite (i.e. upward) force on the wing. 1:55 Not quite. See "Calculating the lift" at the end of this post for deets. 2:00 I don't see how this section helps explain lift. 2:50 The net vector sum, not the average. 4:10 Not quite. See "Calculating the lift" below. 4:30 When the plane is cruising upside-down, the low pressure is on the flat side of the wing. Still the upper surface, just like when cruising upright. (7:25: _"You don't even need a curved upper surface to produce lift."_ ) 4:40 The AoA should be the other way (and not so extreme). Same as with the upright wing, but with opposite curvature (and not as efficient). 6:35 Weight IS a force. It's the gravitational force exerted on the plane by Earth (W = m*g). 6:40 No need for tinfoil hats here. Air is a gas, not a force. The wings push air downward, Newton's third law says the air reacts by pushing upward on the wings, and THAT force counterbalances the plane's weight. Earth pulling the plane down, air pushing it up. *Calculating the lift:* * The general form of Newton's second law is the one that applies to lift. This states that force is equal to how fast momentum is changing (F = dp/dt). (Momentum is called "p" so people won't confuse it with mass. 🙂) * Momentum is the product of mass times velocity (p = m*v), and the speed of the downwash is basically a constant when the plane is cruising. * So the lift force is equal to (dm/dt)*v, where dm/dt is the rate at which air mass is passing around the wing and being accelerated downward. * More precisely, v represents the (downward) change in the vertical (i.e. transverse) component of the air's velocity, i.e. the downward speed of the downwash relative to the wings. * And finally, drag is defined in terms of the slowdown in the horizontal (i.e. parallel) component of the air's velocity. 🙂
@flyingformoney777
23 күн бұрын
Thanks for the detailed note. I thought about including the second law stuff, but people have enough trouble with the third law so I was abstracting a bit to keep it simpler. Cheers.
@daveroberts9804
25 күн бұрын
The thing with lift is it isn’t only one thing.
@EnergeticWaves
26 күн бұрын
when I was a kid I figured that the air condenses as you push on it and in the process creates a surface to ride on.
@scarab944
26 күн бұрын
Great explanation, thanks! Also, the Chuck Yeager comment made me laugh, but I get your point.
@mattanders7617
25 күн бұрын
Another great video
@flyingformoney777
24 күн бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@utah20gflyer76
16 күн бұрын
I always thought chuck yeager needed to be taken down a few notches 😅, but more seriously…nice video, I’ve been saying this for years. Wings create lift by forcing air down.
@flyingformoney777
14 күн бұрын
Thanks 👍
@Haniel93
25 күн бұрын
I disagree a little with the part starting at 6:20. This is about flight mechanics and the forces acting ON the aircraft. If these forces equal out, its a steady state flight according to the 2nd axiom. This is not related to the 3rd axiom about the counterforces. Every force of these 4 forces acting ON the airplane has an equivalent counterforce that the airplane opposes to its environment, which is not included in the picture, as it has no effect ON the (own) airplane. For lift it is the force pushing air down as mentioned. The weight was also mentioned in the beginning of the video. The airplanes pulls the earth. Thats the 3rd axiom counterforce to weight. Lift is only a force needed to achieve steady flight. Counterforce to drag is the Air pushed forward in front of the plane and the counterforce to thrust is the force on the air, propwash/jetwash. So, the picture in 6:20 is by no means wrong. It is just not about aerodynamicforces and movements in the air, its about flight mechanics.
@flyingformoney777
24 күн бұрын
Sure. It’s a lie in the sense that it leaves stuff out. Aerodynamics are important. I was using a little hyperbole to make that point.
@darrylday30
25 күн бұрын
Fantastic!
@jasonchipkin
23 күн бұрын
The air traffic controller requirement below a heavy or super is only 1,000msl regardless of aircraft type below. Maybe that should be reconsidered.
@iowafarmboy
26 күн бұрын
Thank you for this! This really helped make it make much more sense!!
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@tomdchi12
25 күн бұрын
It easy to descend into pointless hair splitting discussing this subject, but pilots need to understand it to fly the plane not to design planes or write a fluid dynamics PhD dissertation, so this was great. Force equals mass times acceleration, so to counteract the weight of the plane (to maintain un accelerated flight from the frame of reference of the plane) there needs to be enough air mass accelerated down times the degree it is sped up in that direction to equal the force of the mass of the plane pulled by gravity. (Note that I avoided taking a stance on “gravitational acceleration” as my impression is that this is a different “controversy” of oversimplification in explaining things.)
@Preciouspink
25 күн бұрын
What is the best body position for a falling human being, in an attempt to survive ejection from an airplane without a parachute and survive?
@utah20gflyer76
16 күн бұрын
You want to land absolutely flat on your back to spread the impact over the largest surface area possible.
@pavelavietor1
25 күн бұрын
thank you for educating us . saludos
@georgewchilds
25 күн бұрын
Ultimately, velocity is the critical factor. A square rock remains in the air as long as its speed remains high enough. Similarly, skimming stones along the surface of water is the best analogy for generating lift. Air is like water. But it can be compressed to to push back against the stone. A stone at the right angle of attack will continue to lift off the water’s surface until it loses enough speed. The stone plummets to the surface beneath the water, just like an airplane that stalls in the air and spins to the ground. Propellers don’t generate thrust unless they’re moving very fast around the air. The engineers make the speed efficient, but it’s the speed that counts most.
@eddiehimself
24 күн бұрын
You can just put your hand out of a car window, tilt it up slightly, and feel it lifting your arm up lol. There is absolutely nothing special going on with an asymmetric aerofoil that suddenly means it can magically produce lift. We should start by teaching kids in pilot school (or physics in general) how lift is generated from a completely symmetrical NACA aerofoil by just tilting it upwards, before getting onto the benefits of asymmetric aerofoils and why we use them in aircraft wings. That way we can put the magic vacuum cleaner lifting wings up by low air pressure myth to bed lol.
@rotor-head
10 күн бұрын
So when a airplane climbs at a steady rate, is it because the climb power and attitude create a vertical thrust component, or does the wing create more downward force, or both? I would guess the wing trailing edge flow has a steeper angle but less volume since the climb speed is lower than the cruise speed. ???
@flyingformoney777
10 күн бұрын
Both. Thrust per pound of weight is strongly correlated to climb rate, so thrust is a larger factor but an increase in wing angle of attack causes a climb as well.
@rotor-head
10 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 thank you!
@FaultyMuse
23 күн бұрын
6:37 very interesting video. One small nitpick though: in every physics textbook ive ever read weight is defined as the force exerted by gravity on an object. So yes, weight is most definitely a force. Doesn't change the broader point you're trying to make though.
@flyingformoney777
22 күн бұрын
I was abstracting. It’s not an aerodynamic force. But you are correct, it is a mechanical force 👍
@FaultyMuse
22 күн бұрын
@flyingformoney777 Ah sure that makes sense! Thanks for clarifying
@DaveP-uv1ml
25 күн бұрын
A lot of people are misinformed about this. I don’t think that anyone was intentionally trying to lie to you. If someone tells you something that’s incorrect it doesn’t mean that they are lying. It’s only lying if they do that intentionally and know what they’re saying isn’t true.
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
@@DaveP-uv1ml just a touch of hyperbole.
@EnergeticWaves
26 күн бұрын
your back!
@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy
25 күн бұрын
I teach science to kids and I cringe when the textbooks parrot out the old equal transit misunderstanding. Heck, I was shocked and disappointed to see Neil de Grasse Tyson do it on TV. If this worked, a helicopter could hover with no downdraft. If this worked it would be an anti gravity device. The weight of a flying plane sits on the ground below and behind it due to the overpressure it creates.
@GeorgeOu
25 күн бұрын
There's no one perfect theory that fully describes everything that's happening because the physics is extremely complicated. However, there are two commonly accepted simplified theories that scientists and engineers battle over but neither one is wrong. Pressure Theory: There is no equal transit. Wind tunnel tests with smoke trails and slow motion video will show the smoke up top transiting faster than the smoke on the bottom, and that means the pressure above is even lower than equal-transit theory. Low pressure above and high pressure below the wing results in a lifting force on the wing sufficient for flight. Newtonian Theory: The wing redirects air downwards (on net) and Newton's equal-opposite reaction pushes the wings upward sufficient for flight. Both theories are correct and each can independently describe sufficient lifting force to hold up the airplane. The theories are describing two sides of the same coin. There are even more theories that can describe the lift but none of these theories debunk each other.
@mach1shobhan
25 күн бұрын
so can someone explain why the air over the top of the wing accelerates? creating a low pressure. as it is proven the air from the bottom and top surfaces dont neccessarily have to meet at the trailing edge
@umi3017
25 күн бұрын
kutta-joukowski theorem it the best one to get a grap, just google it.
@gunterchain
25 күн бұрын
The acceleration can be thought of as a consequence of the lowered pressure due to redirection of flow. Any time a fluid changes direction, there will be a low pressure on the "inside" of the turn, which causes the acceleration of incoming air as it attempts to fill the relatively low pressure. This is not a perfect explanation, as neither the low pressure or acceleration are a result of the other, but merely different elements of the same phenomenon, but that is a general idea.
@k.chriscaldwell4141
24 күн бұрын
With respect, but wrong. So wrong. Here is THE explanation of airfoil/wing generated lift. As an airfoil/wing moves through the air a perfect vacuum forms on its top-back surface. This vacuum diverts and accelerates the air above it downward along the wing’s sloped backside. This diverted air creates a low pressure area above the wing that pulls, “scoops,” more air downward. All of the scooped up and accelerated air is then blasted down the wing’s trailing edge. The opposite and equal action to the acceleration of the air down the wing's trailing edge is lift. There are videos of jumbos landing where this process can be observed in the condensation formed in the low pressure area above and to the rear of a plane's wings. Lift by an airfoil/wing is NEWTONIAN, not Bernoullian. However, the low pressure formed as described does permit the use of mathematical approximations with Bernoulli formulas when designing airfoils/wings. More interesting is that as lift generated on an airfoil/wing is Newtonian, It can be deduced that most of the energy that sustains an airplane in flight is extracted from GRAVITY. Which provides wing and rotor equipped aircraft unpowered glide ratios or auto-rotation. Then there are autogyros that use an unpowered airfoil shaped rotor as a wing. Airfoils on aircraft are essentially gravitational energy harvesting devices.
@Iseevideo101
25 күн бұрын
Thank you for confirming my opinions.
@pierrele
25 күн бұрын
I understand lift as a depression on the top side. Air is deflected upward, creating a bubble of low pressure (cavitation) that acts like a suction cup on the wing ⬆. Maybe i was wrong the whole time. Or i am?
@dlavarco
26 күн бұрын
Go figure. I always thought it was Bernoulli's principle.
@rustydomino694
25 күн бұрын
Are you saying the lower pressure above the wing does not contribute to the total lifting force as the bottom is higher pressure resulting in a pushing upward force? Or are u saying that the low pressure on top keeps the air "attached" to the wing, aka the air moves down towards the wing and back which adds to the total mass accelerated downward?
@flyingformoney777
24 күн бұрын
Two sides of the same coin. Pressure differential causes lift, but air has to be displaced downwards for it to do so.
@rustydomino694
23 күн бұрын
@flyingformoney777 Still a bit confusing for me, the air that is being pulled down to fill the void the wing left is moving down yes but how does that interact with the wing itself? I thought the only forces that can interact with the wing are caused by the pressure differential and direct deflection downwards of air from the lower surface. Struggling to understand how the air that fills the void the wing leaves directly interacts with the wing other than just lowering the pressure of the air above it. I know you are not a scientist but just curious if you could give me some further insight
@flyingformoney777
23 күн бұрын
@@rustydomino694 don’t worry, scientists get in a pretzel over this too (so would I if I thought too hard about it!) Up to the stalling angle of attack, the air flowing over the top of the wing follows the contour of the wing. This upper air is accelerated and directed down (the trailing edge is lower than the highest point on the wing). The result is a change in momentum. Air is essentially accelerated downwards by the wing, and this creates the opposite reaction of accelerating the wing up (balancing the acceleration of gravity when in level flight). The pressure differential is what causes this. Either way you look at it, there is a differential between the forces on top of the wing and on the bottom.
@Raging.Geekazoid
22 күн бұрын
@@rustydomino694 From a strictly Newtonian point of view, the pressure on the bottom surface of the wing is what supports it. The importance of the upper surface isn't in providing a force, it's in reducing it. Downward pressure would normally be on the upper surface when the plane is stationary and would counteract the upward pressure on the lower surface. When the plane is moving, the air's inertia and upward momentum pull it away from the curved upper surface, resulting in lower pressure there.
@rustydomino694
22 күн бұрын
@@Raging.Geekazoid I understand that, I was trying to intuitively understand how the acceleration downward of air above the wing contributes to total lift, even though the airfoil doesn't necessarily "touch" the upper air that is being accelerated. However, the airfoil is still affecting that mass of air above the wing. Just hard to understand intuitively because the wing isn't actually touching it. And yes I know the pressure difference is what causes the downward acceleration of the air. kzitem.info/news/bejne/mXmwy4Wro5Ojg44 I was at oshkosh '24 and this may be the best explanation to intuitively explain lift and how the air above the wing contributes to total lift since the air is interacting with it.
@Quasarnova1
19 күн бұрын
There are a few misconceptions here. First, at 4:28, the air flowing over the "bottom" of the wing while inverted (the flat-ish surface that is now facing up) would indeed have lower pressure than the "top" of the wing. Both pressure and momentum displacement are equally valid ways of looking at lift, they both result in the exact same force keeping the plane up, because at the end of the day, they are the same thing, that's how physics works. At 6:30, as others have said, weight is a force. It not being an aerodynamic force doesn't matter, because thrust isn't an aerodynamic force either. You have 2 aerodynamic forces (lift and drag) and 2 non-aerodynamic forces (thrust and weight). While lift (and also drag) are simplified into single forces, nothing about the 4 forces of flight explanation is actually wrong. At 9:30, angle of attack is not tied to either the top or bottom of the wing, but it is a necessary part of looking at lift. There may be wings that can produce lift at 0 AoA, but they will still produce more lift at a higher AoA and less at a lower AoA. In fact, almost all wings, even flat plates, have a nearly identical coefficient of lift vs AoA slope of ~0.1/degree. The coefficient of lift is much more complicated and would require going through tons of aerodynamics, but just know that it relies on AoA, and without it your lift equation goes nowhere. I've also repeated heard that people are told the incorrect "air must reach the trailing edge at the same time explanation", but I've never heard that explanation myself other than when people are saying it's wrong. So I'm curious, for those of you that were told this, where did you hear it? Was it in school, and if so, what state/country?
@flyingformoney777
19 күн бұрын
Sooo…thrust is not an aerodynamic force? It is exactly the same as a wing in that air is accelerated in one direction (towards the back of the airplane) producing a forward counterforce. Aerodynamics are important in designing both props and fan blades.
@Quasarnova1
18 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 Thrust can be created by aerodynamic forces, but thrust itself isn't one. Imagine if you had a rocket powered plane instead, the forces of flight still work the same way, despite the rocket thrust not being an aerodynamic force.
@flyingformoney777
18 күн бұрын
Rockets propel themselves by spitting mass out the tail. Still third law stuff. Jets and props borrow the mass they spit out from the surrounding air. Gravity is a totally different force. That said, I have no quarrel with the fact that in level flight gravity is countered by lift. In a 90-degree bank, you can still have a ton of lift. The counter force is deflected air, not gravity.
@Quasarnova1
18 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 Rocket propulsion still isn't an aerodynamic force, and it doesn't matter if it's spitting out mass or not. If you had a plane propelled by electromagnetism (let's say it was made of steel and flying inside of a coil gun) it would still work the same way. I'm not sure I understand you're saying in your second point, and I don't want to argue with an incorrect assumption. Are you saying that the forces are different in a 90 degree bank compared to level flight, that gravity (weight) isn't a force in one or both cases, or something else?
@flyingformoney777
18 күн бұрын
I’m saying that gravity is a constant. An aircraft can operate in any orientation, and thrust, drag, lift, and displaced (accelerated) air are the effects an aircraft produces. Gravity doesn’t matter aerodynamically. And airplanes produce thrust aerodynamically. I wasn’t talking about rockets or electromagnetism. I understand your point there, but you can’t change the terms and then critique me over it (and in the case of rockets, you are dealing with the same fluid dynamics that govern air).
@EnergeticWaves
26 күн бұрын
f=ma or f=mg if force is > mass * gravity lift happens. is that your point?
@DMofTheWorld
15 күн бұрын
There is no way of knowing if you or anyone else is right on the matter at this time. Air is a fluid, fluid dynamics is not a solved problem, in fact it’s the last great unsolved problem of classical mechanics plus chaos theory. So, you may be right, but technically there’s no way of knowing mathematically just yet. Anyone can argue their favorite theories, but I would remind you that wings and airplanes were designed and put into service by empirical brute force, not theory alone.
@flyingformoney777
14 күн бұрын
There’s really no question about satisfying Newton’s Third Law. The precise mechanism that does it is much more variable and complex.
@daffidavit
25 күн бұрын
Would a wing be able to fly, turn, climb, and descend if it were in an atmosphere that was equidistant between two earths of the exact same size?
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
Yep, but lift would have to be zero.
@daffidavit
25 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 As long as there is sufficient momentum, wouldn't there be lift?
@Raging.Geekazoid
22 күн бұрын
@@daffidavit Flying without gravity would be easier, not harder. You wouldn't even need curved wings. Zero gravity, zero angle of attack, zero lift. No problem. 🙂
@daffidavit
22 күн бұрын
@@Raging.Geekazoid But what would a wing do in the above hypothosis?
@Raging.Geekazoid
22 күн бұрын
@@daffidavit When you're going straight, nothing. It would just slow the plane down. When you want to turn, the wing would provide the centripetal force to fly along a curved path. And the wingtips provide places for ailerons to rotate the plane so you can turn in any direction.
@bdy576
26 күн бұрын
Truth! 👍
@blski
25 күн бұрын
wtf why am i just hearing about this?
@MarceloTrindade1
25 күн бұрын
Sorry, but no! Try to hold a sheet of paper horizontally (by one of its borders), hanging close your lower lip and blow tangentially over it. The paper won't throw the wind down; instead, the sheet will go up.
@Dark.Manu.Official
25 күн бұрын
That's right but try that same experiment doing this: Put your hand in front of you, more or less at your chest height, with the palm pointed to the ceeling. keep your head still and blow air, you will feel just a little air movement on the palm. Now take a sheet of paper and try it again, while the sheet is "flying" the air felt on the hand is more. I am not an expert but this is my home made explanation 😂
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
A sheet of paper is very light. It definitely interacts with the air (decelerating an upward draft is the same as accelerating air downwards). Without sensitive equipment and extremely precise testing conditions, I doubt you could get a reliable result from blowing a piece of paper.
@Dark.Manu.Official
25 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 facts
@MarceloTrindade1
25 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 I'm afraid you didn't understand the experience I mentioned. I didn't say to blow under the paper, but over it. Yes the paper is light but the air blow is weaker than the relative air speed on a real wing. In all wind tunnels there are static ports over and under the wing that attest the differential pressure. Airplanes fly upside down only in a greater angle of atack, with the airflow being split in a different point in front of the leading edge and inducing extra drag.
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
@@MarceloTrindade1 pressure is a part of the equation. I wasn’t claiming otherwise. But air has to be deflected to produce lift.
@Q1776Q
25 күн бұрын
Actually air does not travel over and under the wing ... the wing travels through the air...the air is NOT moving..as EVERY diagram always incorrectly shows.
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
It actually doesn’t really matter. The opposite is true in a wind tunnel. The physics are the same.
@Q1776Q
25 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 yes you are correct... but every explanation shows air flowing past a wing.... I guess it would be too difficult to depict the wing moving in a picture or diagram
@gunterchain
25 күн бұрын
@@Q1776QIt doesn't matter in the slightest. Air moving past a stationary wing and a wing moving through stationary air are the exact same thing.
@ericbamberg8524
24 күн бұрын
Anyone who wants a good explanation of how wings generate lift should watch this old lecture by David F Anderson given to physicists and engineers at Fermilab kzitem.info/news/bejne/z4epz6Skr6Finmk. The sound quality is bad, but it's intelligible.
@fderty4
19 күн бұрын
Do you even lift ? 😏
@margarita8442
26 күн бұрын
think Bernoulli's principle is relavent here-- not newtons
@flyingformoney777
25 күн бұрын
Both are relevant
@米空軍パイロット
25 күн бұрын
Bernoulli's is miunderstood because people see it purely as a cause and effect relation. It's more of an energy conversion between kinetic and potential energy, with pressure being potential. One does not cause the other. What does cause the conversion is the shape of the wing.
@xehpuk
25 күн бұрын
@@米空軍パイロット Well said. And the math behind it is not even complicated.
@murphinator5586
26 күн бұрын
It's a bit of Bernoulli's principle and Newton's 3rd law. For Bernoulli's principle, I imagine a garden hose and then putting my thumb slightly in the way. What happens? The velocity of the fluid increases and the harder I press the hose, the more the fluid increases (to a point). The normal wing shape does this by "pushing" the upper airflow (forcing it to speed up) but not the bottom airflow. This increase in velocity decreases the pressure of the fluid (air) and causes a pressure imbalance above and below the wing, helping pull the wing up. This velocity increase also helps throw more air downward and backward. The reason some airplanes can still create lift while flying upside down is that they have a special wing design that relies much much greater on Newton's 3rd law of slamming air in a specific direction (similar to a boat rudder having the same curvature on each face). Take a Cessna 172 flying upside down, It would need to go breakneck speeds to have the speed required to rely solely on forcing air down, and Bernoulli's principle would be working opposite to pull the plane down making it need a much greater negative AOA. Higher cambers (how curved the wing is) would decrease performance at higher speeds so more performance-type aircraft have limited camber, until landing where they can increase it (using flaps) for more air thrown downwards, and decreasing pressure above the wing at lower speeds.
@米空軍パイロット
25 күн бұрын
No. The lower airflow is squeezed. The upper airflow is pulled. That is why the lower airflow is at higher pressure. Your garden hose is not a good analogy for your attempted point. The flow velocity is increasing out the hose because you increased the upstream pressure by constricting flow area. "Squeezing" is not what increases the flow velocity. What's causing this is the upper surface at high angles of attack creating a low pressure void that the air rushes in to fill. This is easier to understand if you imagine the upper surface as the aft surface, creating a wake while the air tries to curve around the leading edge. This is why at higher angles of attack, you get more induced drag. Because that low pressure on the top of the wing has a partial rearward vector, and that rearward angle increases with angle of attack. Again, the upper surface is also the aft surface.
@rtbrtb_dutchy4183
25 күн бұрын
@@米空軍パイロットa better example for the garden hose is to take an A4/letter size paper, hold the narrow part at each corner with your fingers and blow over the top of the paper, not below the paper. The low pressure above the paper will make the paper go up.
@米空軍パイロット
25 күн бұрын
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Yes. That is mucb better. That is an example of how the air wants to curve around the paper, and so it in turn pulls the paper upwards.
@murphinator5586
25 күн бұрын
@@米空軍パイロット you’re right. “Squeezed” was the wrong word. It’s just hard to put the diagram into words. The way the garden hose theory works is describing why the velocity increases. The air going over gets pushed into the air higher than it which creates a need for higher velocity. It’s like going from a 5 inch pipe to a 3 inch pipe, the velocity changes because more fluid is going through a smaller gap at the same rate. Thus lowering pressure. Essentially, it is reducing flow area
@米空軍パイロット
25 күн бұрын
@@murphinator5586 Yep. And it's a simple relation on the mass flow equation. Mass Flow = Velocity x Area
@allancopland1768
25 күн бұрын
To lighten thingds up a little, even a lawnmower can fly. kzitem.info/news/bejne/zISNzKWMkHVjfn4
@wayneeligur7586
26 күн бұрын
Could you detail why science is 'wrong' about lift, and actually you hint at much more that is going on in this video. Lift and Bernouli's Principle was never resolved I, read. A Video where (using an accelerometer app. During a flight) showed a constant acceleration to Flght Level.
@murphinator5586
26 күн бұрын
Airplanes climb at a specific airspeed that provides the best climb rate. The airplane will vary its climb rate to maintain this airspeed so since we didn't change airspeed, the acceleration will read constant.
@wayneeligur7586
25 күн бұрын
@@murphinator5586 I'll link the you tube video that shows a rather steady speed increase; yet it may take some search effort on my part to get it back; it was some time ago.
@wayneeligur7586
25 күн бұрын
@@murphinator5586 Takeoff from Kiev, Ukraine. Altitude and Speed Recording. Airbus A320 kzitem.info/news/bejne/0aN-2KJjhHyHjYI
@wayneeligur7586
25 күн бұрын
kzitem.info/news/bejne/0aN-2KJjhHyHjYI
@米空軍パイロット
25 күн бұрын
If by "constant acceleration", you 2 mean "constantly zero acceleration", then you'd both be correct. Words matter. Please use them properly.
@wayneeligur7586
26 күн бұрын
Those 'regional' planes attract icing, by design. I don't think turboprops are useful presently in commercial planes. Jets are better. AQP should be mandatory training at this level worldwide. Pilot exhaustion, and psychological overload are contributing factors in the many crashes that I've watched, and there are way too many crashes in aviation. Wings are the weak link in aviation.
@markor2476
24 күн бұрын
Oh boy what a video. Like listening to a flat earther almost. Now of course I could point out the multitude of incorrect statements but like arguing with a flat earther that would be pointless. So I’ll leave you with a question: What causes the air to flow up in front of the leading edge and how is that balanced?
@flyingformoney777
24 күн бұрын
lol flat earther? I literally showed NASA pages supporting Newtons law with lift. If you take a close look at a wing it is curved up AND down at the front. It tapers down at the trailing edge redirecting air downwards.
@markor2476
24 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 You misunderstood my question. The question is what causes the air to flow up IN FRONT of the leading edge of the wing. Ever seen one of those wind tunnel videos? The air flows up before the wing. How do you explain that and what is the balancing reaction?
@flyingformoney777
24 күн бұрын
@@markor2476 The air that flows up follows the curve of the wing and descends at the trailing edge. There is net downward flow. Listen to NASA: www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/newtons-third-law-action-reaction/#:~:text=Considering%20the%20generation%20of%20lift,pushed%20upward%20by%20the%20air.
@markor2476
24 күн бұрын
@@flyingformoney777 Again, the question is: What causes the air to move up in front of the wing, before meeting the upwards curve of the wing. I can’t ask my question any clearer. In front! Before the leading edge! What moves the air up?
@flyingformoney777
24 күн бұрын
@@markor2476 I’m not sure what your anxiety is about. I’m also not entirely sure what resource you’re referring to. To the degree that air moves up, it would be because of the wing. But it moves back down with a net downward flow that satisfies Newton’s Third Law.
@BlackCoffee-m5c
25 күн бұрын
you sound vaccinated and like a guy who wants everyone to be at Ref at the final approach fix
Пікірлер: 204