Can someone explain to me how planes fly upside down?

It's what happens when you press the anti gravity button in the cock pit.

>>35129407

They take off, and then roll to one side until they're upside down

It only works for a limited time though, and there's a long cooldown period.

>>35129407
Inertia

>>35129407
The wing shape creates lift.

The horizontal stabilizers and trim tabs direct that lift up or down, and can impart enough force to keep the bird flying even when it's upside down.

>>35129445
A wing making lift upside down is pushing the plane into the ground.

How does it stay in the air?

>>35129407
Ailerons.
They change the shape of the wing.

>>35129451
Angling.

If you increase the angle of attack a shape that didn't create lift before now will, with enough deflection - it will just create much higher drag

>>35129451
>what are magnets?

>>35129451
By altering its angle of attack to counteract the lesser lift

>>35129463
Ailerons deferentially modulate lift between the wings for roll control. Not for inverted flying.

>>35129476
>increase angle of attack
but if you do that on in inverted plane aren't you pointing it more towards the ground?

File: 20170910_191415.jpg (73KB, 644x398px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 644x398px

>>35129407

>>35129476
>>35129487

So every time you fly upside down you also have to alter the the shape of the wing?

>>35129476
but it doesnt stop creating lift from before. so it's still pushing the plane down?

Holy fucking shit you're all so goddamn retarded.

Asking any aerofoil/lift question on the internet is a surefire way to spot the high school dropouts.

>>35129505
Every time a plane lands it alters the shape of the wing by extending its flaps. It creates more lift for lower speeds. Larger planes also extend the front of the wing as well. Check it out the next time you fly, get a window seat by the wing.

>>35129407
Lift can only be created in one direction so no matter whether the plane is upside down or right side up its still producing lift in the downard direction.

There is no such thing as upward lift. That's called gravity.

>>35129523
so planes extend flaps upwards so they can fly upside down?

planes have moving parts

The engine creates lift, upside down or not they are still pointed the same direction so the plane can fly either way.

>>35129534
>upward lift. That's called gravity.
Retard

>drag is the rearward force
>gravity is the downward force
>thrust is the forward force
>lift is the upward force

>>35129558
I mean lift in the upward vector driving downward retard. As on an inverted plane.

Which is called gravity

l2read

>>35129550
What moving part on a plane makes it fly upside down?

>>35129523
Are you saying there are flaps that extend toward the top of the plane so it can fly upside down?

http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/how-things-work-flying-upside-down-27746739/

You're all faggots.

>>35129572
It's still upward. Lift is always upward.

L2lift

>>35129599
how does a wing that makes lift upward when a plane is flying normally make lift upwards still while the plane is upside down?

>>35129599
>Lift is always upward.
Which direction is the wing producing lift if the plane is climbing vertically?

LETS TURN AND BURN MAV

>>35129613
The exact same way a wing creates lift when the plane is flying rightside up

>Protip: wings don't control pitch

>>35129502
Angle of attack relative to the horizon, not the aircraft normal orientation

>>35129617
Theoretically directly above the center of lift

>>35129635
But wings are designed to push air downward.

If they're pushing air downard while the plane flys normal they are pushing air up when the plane flys upside down

>>35129644
That doesnt make any sense.
Which direction from the aircraft?

>>35129645
>But wings are designed to push air downward.
Thats not how lift works

>>35129645
Read the goddamn link. It explains the types of engine used as well as the way they design wings.
http://www.airspacemag.com/flight-today/how-things-work-flying-upside-down-27746739/

>>35129654
If wings dont push air downwards. Then how does plane fly?

>>35129578
The flaps

>>35129578
the pilot

>>35129653
You don't understand. Educate yourself.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/

>>35129516
>>35129521

I'm pretty sure it's ironic shitposting, mostly.

Well first you have to realize that gravity is a Jewish myth. The rest is easy.

>>35129710
underrated

>>35129451
Reading comprehension isn't one of your strengths, so how do you expect to understand flight physics?

>A wing making lift upside down is pushing the plane into the ground.


Horizontal stabilizers are designed to exert more force on the pitch of the bird than the wing alone within certain speed ranges, otherwise, you couldn't have controlled flight.

Literally everyone in this thread so far is a complete fucking moron.

>>35129669
Flaps extend up and down on airplanes?

>>35129689
You're still not making sense. You cited center of lift, which is the point where lift is applied on the aircraft. You haven't indicated in which direction that lift is being applied in a vertically climbing aircraft.

>>35129735
Including you, cuck

>>35129731
But horizontal stabilizers don't provide enough lift to support the plane and in general provide a negative lift effect relative to the main wing for nose up stability. Horizontal stabilizers are for pitch control and pitch stability. Nothing about them explains the lift generated by the main wing while the plane is upside down.

>>35129751
I tried explaining to you in as simple layman's terms as possible, read through the portion of the handbook most relevant to this topic.

>>35129667
there are many considerations but essentially pressure differences

Pressure want to equalize, high pressure wants to travel to a low pressure

The crest of a wing makes a low pressure area over the back of the wing.
It does this as the air is accelerated as it climbs over the surface, higher speed air is lower pressure

The Underwing pressure is then trying to flow into the low pressure area

This causes the wing to be sucked upwards into the low pressure.
This is why lift and drag are closely linked.

If a wing stalls that faster airflow has seperated from the top surface of the wing, when that happens you have lost the focused low pressure that accelerated airflow made

So now to describe the wing making lift while inverted

Now if you increase the angle of a wing so the "underside" of the wing is now taking a faster airflow while the plane is inverted you now have a wing that is still creating lift but is just inefficient and creating large amounts of drag

>>35129451
>How does it stay in the air?

by pushing forward on the stick

>>35129667
>how does plane fly?

air resistance nigga

>>35129407

Planes don't move through the environment, they move the environment around the plane through magic, you giant faggot.

>>35129774
So in which direction is lift produced on a plane climbing vertically? Towards the vector at the top of the plane?
The vector toward the bottom?
Downward toward the rear of the plane?

I suspect you are evading the question and trying to deflect because you simply dont know the answer.

According to you lift is "always in the downward" vector so are are claiming that the lift generated in a vertically climbing plane is toward the ground and accelerating the plane upward?

>>35129783
>air resistance make planes fly

literally wat

>>35129760
Go back to trolling /b/, faggot.

>>35129838
You made a stupid implication about horizontal stabilizers showing you simply don'yt know how they work

Now you're mad.

Go read a book.

>>35129812
>According to you lift is "always in the downward" vector
Nope, never said that. Read the handbook

The same principles of upward flight apply to inverted flight.

>>35129654
That's exactly how it works. Newton's third law.
It's also why we're able to correlate lift with downwash and circulation in simple models.

>>35129776
Pressure differences are a result of flow deflection. You make the air do stuff around your wing, and by doing so you change it's static pressure.

>>35129776
>Now if you increase the angle of a wing so the "underside" of the wing is now taking a faster airflow while the plane is inverted you now have a wing that is still creating lift but is just inefficient and creating large amounts of drag

Not necessarily, the kind of planes that fly upside down tend to have symmetric or close to symmetric aerofoils (F-18 for example), so flying upside down doesn't actually make the wing less efficient.

>>35129407
>planes
>fly
How do you know planes can fly if you never piloted one yourself? Stop falling for their lies.

Wing changes its angle of incidence and the engines reverse direction, which is why you only commonly see planes with small engines going upside down.

>>35129407
when they roll over they pitch down(up relative to the ground) and it offsets the loss in lift from upside down control surfaces by more wing directly interacting with the air. The faster and more stable the plane is the easier it is and less pitch needed.

>>35129943
>simple models.
Simple models better known as "lies to children"
Lift is a collection of numerous equal and oposing reactions - not a single one.

Riddle me this, If it is a result of airflow deflection that causes the pressure differential how is the low pressure under the wing where the air would be compressed, increasing pressure under the wing

Why is stalling of a wing caused by separation of airflow from the top of the wing

>>35129864
>doesnt understand lift
>when he gets called out on it all he can do is defer to pilots handbook because he doesnt udnerstand it himself

If you didn't know the answer to the question. Why post in the first place?

File: 20170312_114348.jpg (46KB, 537x955px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 537x955px

>>35129948
But I have anon.

>>35129698
>I'm pretty sure it's ironic shitposting, mostly.

always this

>>35129407
negative angle of attack

>>35130075
>negative angle of attack
>pointing plane towards ground
>plane crashes

>>35130087
Negative angle of attack is the right term.
Negative Angle of attack is the pitch for the pilot that generates negative G

>>35130120
>negative g
>negative gravity
>anti gravity
>space magic

We Star Wars nao.

>>35130142
You are a moron

>>35130161
>believes in space magic
>calls other people morons

File: MQQ60.gif (18KB, 479x332px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 479x332px

This thread is full of stupid.

>>35129407
The same way a plane flies down while facing upright, dipshit.

>>35130025
>Why is stalling of a wing caused by separation of airflow from the top of the wing.

When the wing stalls as a result of high angle of attack, the airflow separates from the upper surface of the wing, this results in turbulent, but relatively stagnant air in the shadow of the wing, and because slow moving air has a high pressure relative to fast moving air (Bernoulli's principle), as well as the sudden nature of the flow separation, this results in a sudden drop in lift.

Now it's important to note that the wing still produces lift in a stall, it's just suddenly less, because the lift post wing stall is only provided by planing.

>>35130217
>g, and because slow moving air has a high pressure relative to fast moving air (Bernoulli's principle), as well as the sudden nature of the flow separation, this results in a sudden drop in lift.
>and because slow moving air has a high pressure relative to fast moving air
Exactly like I explained here then
>>35129776
>The crest of a wing makes a low pressure area over the back of the wing.
>It does this as the air is accelerated as it climbs over the surface, higher speed air is lower pressure

>>35130214
>implying gravity works upside down when the plane flies upside down.

>>35130260
Except that's wrong.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong3.html

>>35130268
stay stupi

>>35129541
>>35129591
No that's not what he's saying.
The plane in the OP picture can fly upside down because even though it's wing is asymmetrical and it's oriented upside down, it can still fly because the wing's angle of attack (angle of the chord line(line from front to back of wing) into the relative wind) is great enough that there's enough wing area to produce upward lift.

>>35130075
>>35129640
>>35129595
>>35129476
>>35129487

Except that's wrong
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong2.html

>>35130316
That's wrong.
See:
>>35130327

>>35130087
Angel of attack is measured relatively to plane. So if plane is inverted applying negative angle of attack points plane from ground up to air.

>>35130373
No, angle of attack is measured relative to the direction of flow.

>>35129451
Thrust. Wot didn't you cunts do physics in school?
Enough of it and you can do anything in the air.

>>35130286
>>35130327
So basically nobody in this thread even knows how a wing works.

Jesus Christ /k/. You are a disappointment.

>>35130405
>thurst perpendicular to the force of gravity
>somehow counteracting the force of gravity

You're not even failing basic physics. You've failed basic logic and reasoning.

>>35130327
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqBmdZ-BNig

>>35130383
Direction of the flow has no "up or down". Direction is one dimensional vector.

>>35130417
Fuck off retard.
Thrust + lift allows for any type of flight.
Is this that fucking hard for you too understand.
I don't need to explain the wings because every fucking man and his dog should know.

File: images.png (21KB, 442x332px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 442x332px

>>35130417
Here you dumb cunt

File: IMG_0377.jpg (49KB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 320x180px

>>35129504
You deserve a internet for that anon.

I am convinced that this is a bait tread, but just in case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rVXMyo8iwI
Skip to 2:36.

>>35130333
Excuse me? Where did I bring anything related to this skipping stone theory up? The wing generates lift because there's more surface area on the top of the wing, so the air has more distance to cover, causing it to move faster and creates a layer of low pressure which "sucks" the plane upward

>>35130042
Fake; propellers don't look like that

>>35129451
This more or less. You're not only dealing with aerodynamic lift from the wing shape, you're also dealing with dynamic pressure beneath the wing. Airplanes can fly upside down for the same reason paper airplanes can fly at all despite usually having flat airfoils: it's physically hard to push them vertically through the air due to surface area, just like a parachute. Compare this to something like a flettner rotor, operating under the Magnus effect. Here, lift is substantially more important than dynamic pressure, and you won't see the same inverted flight results

>>35130025
The air being compressed (as all the pressure gradients, including the adverse pressure gradient leading to a stall) are all a result of flow deflection.

>>35130407
No you're just dumb to understand what people are saying.

>>35131139
too dumb*

File: e90104378c095deea955916dcd3bd43b.jpg (60KB, 950x355px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 950x355px

>>35130470
>>35130487
Thrust does not provide lift retard. Thrust enabled forward movement through a fluid which is required for lift.

Thrust is not required for lift, that's why gliders fucking work you retarded mongoloid.

They even work upside down.

You're a faggot that doesn't know shit.

Tell me again how thrust is required for flight so I can laugh at you more.

>>35130808
>the air has more distance to cover, causing it to move faster
Except this is wrong

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html

>>35131139
>calls other people dumb
>doesn't understand how lift works.

>>35131581
Except symmetrical wings produce no lift at zero angle of attack because they're the same distance on top and bottom and thus have no pressure differential, only if they're canted to have an angle of attack that allows them to produce enough lift for flight.

>>35131768
You don't understand how an aerofoil works.

>>35131572
Look again you fucking reject piece of cat shit.

>>35131779
Am i being baited? Symmetrical wings physically cannot produce lift at a zero angle of attack which is why planes with symmetrical wings have them affixed to the fuselage at 2-3 degree angle, which changes the stagnation point of the relative wind to lower on the wing surface, which allows for a pressure differential between the top and bottom. You're the one who doesn't know how an airfoil works.

>>35131828
The fact that a symmetrical wing produces no lift at 0 AoA does not validate the rest of your bullshit theory that is flat out wrong.

Learn how an aerofoil works retard.

>>35131827
Please explain how thrust produces lift.

Please explain how that glider is able to produce lift while inverted without any thrust.

You're a fucking idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about.

>>35131572
>>35131846
Op asked how the fuck does it stay in the air.
Unlike you dumb fucking whore, thrust is what keeps it up.
With out it, the plane would fall to the fucking ground like a glider. Forward push allows for the wings to grab the air, which makes lift.
It can go both ways, down or up.
I have no idea what the fuck you're on about.
But shut the fuck up and Kill yourself, you useless human being.

>>35131846
Explain how I'm wrong? Lift is literally generated by a lower pressure being on top of the wing relative to the bottom. You can crack open any aerodynamics or aviation textbook and it'll tell you the same thing.

>>35131868
OP asked how planes fly upside down.
Obviously indicating he is curuious about the differences lift between a normal and inferted aifoil.
The thrust variable does not change whether inverted or not and this is irrelevant to the discussion.

You are claiming thrust is how planes fly inverted
You are a fucking moron.

>>35131884
Meant for
>>35131838

>>35131884
>>35131884
Wrong again bucko

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong3.html

>>35131868
>thrust is what keeps it up
>a fucking glider was posted flying upside down
>gliders dont have any fucking thrust

Are you really this stupid?

>>35131884
The point is that you've literally got an elementary schooler understanding of how wings work. Airfoils generate lift by accelerating the air over the upper side of the wing, but it has nothing to do with equal transit times or mass flow rates or any of the other bullshit you're implying.

Airfoils generating lift can be modeled as a vortex turning clockwise (assuming the flow is coming from the left). The air over the top of the wing will accelerate, but, following the vortex theory, the upper surface air reaches the trailing edge before the lower surface. Equal transit time is bullshit - if it was real, wings would require something like 50% thickness airfoils.

>t. aerospace engineer

>>35131976
I've conceded , but you don't have to be patronizing and I apologize for getting heated. I'm a pilot, and all the formal education I've received clearly has been somewhat wrong which is fairly irritating. Thank you for your links.

File: Cylinder_Seal_Achaemenid_modern_impression_05-1-676x450.jpg (113KB, 676x450px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 676x450px

>>35129482
Fun fact: Magnetic field is carried by photons and something called virtual photons which pop in and out of existence in a balanced matter to cause the force. Kind of like gravity with the higgs boson.


The Sumerians knew this pic related.

File: 1495932672391.png (928KB, 1301x976px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 1301x976px

>>35131892
>>35131910
Why is there so many fucking retards today.

>>35132084
>which pop in and out of existence
retard level of quantum physics understanding detected.

Things don't "pops into and out of existence". At a subatomic level things exist in a probability field.
Meaning out of a certain number of observations within that field there is X probability of observing a proton or electron at any given point in space or time within that probability field.

That doesn't mean they exist then don't exist. It means you don't understand that in quantum mechanics a "particle" is not what you think a "particle" is.

>>35132103
>claims thrust makes things fly
>things posted flying upside down without thrust
>gets butthurt and starts name calling because his point was destroyed.

>>35132103
>not understanding left

File: hex_airframe.jpg (41KB, 564x413px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 564x413px

>>35132148
>Things don't "pops into and out of existence". At a subatomic level things exist in a probability field.
I know this but typed "popped in and out of existence" because I dont know how to accurately describe virtual photons and i knew someone would pop into existence and correct me but you failed to explain how virtual photons actually work!!!

>>35132172
>failed to explain how virtual photons actually work!!!
Quantum Magic.

File: Fletcher-Reede.jpg (25KB, 580x390px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 580x390px

OMG, my sides reading this thread. I love threads like these. OP is fucking comedic genius.

File: smile.gif (1KB, 16x16px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 16x16px

>>35132018
I need a professional to operate my joystick.

File: ahh.jpg (32KB, 300x170px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x170px

>>35132186
Yes thats what i thought. It sucks cause all the youtube patreon physicists dont explain this better than ICP. I think its something that might actually require reading...

>>35130423
So the air on the bottom pushes the wing up and the air on top pulls the wing up because it's trying to stick to the wing while also being pulled on by the air above it?

File: arghhhhhhhhhh.jpg (388KB, 1419x1624px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1419x1624px

>>35132157
>durr durr look at me I'm trolling
>>35132158
>lift
Changes in air pressures which is caused by air hitting the wings, which is drag, caused by thrust moving the plane forward to high speeds.

All these forces compliment each other.
End of story.
As to what op said, same thing upside down.

>>35132266
>air hitting the wings
>Newtonian
Bernoulli would like to have word with you..

File: 1487665632222.png (200KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 498x498px

>>35132272
>got schooled
Eat shit cunt.

>>35132266
>destroying your argument
>trolling

>Changes in air pressures which is caused by air hitting the wings, which is drag, caused by thrust moving the plane
>thrust moving the plane
Gliders don't have thrust.

Checkmate.

All you retards need to read this book.
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80T-80.pdf

>>35132272
You're more viscous than molasses in winter, NASA shut that spaghetti man down in the website linked in this thread. Best as I can figure lower air pressure on the top of the wing is incidental to what's happening. And on that note.

>>35132255
Some one pls respond

>>35132272
NASA would like a word with you.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong1.html
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong3.html

File: 1488002307573.jpg (67KB, 540x534px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x534px

>>35132299
>retard thinks we're still talking about gilders.
I like you.

>>35129451
>I Don't know what ailerons are
The post

Roll plane upside down
push stick forward
you have now created a situation in which the dimensions of a planes wing have changed in such a way that air is moving faster above the wings top side surface and slowing the air going over the wings underside surface to now create lift while flying upside down.

>>35132347
>make a claim that planes fly because of thrust
>there are planes without thrust that still fly
>argument destroyed.

File: mVNJN.jpg (39KB, 438x184px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 438x184px

>>35132329
yeah but pressure still has something to do with it. Same reason a suction cup sticks to the wall. They don't work in vaccums.

>>35132353
>ailerons
>anything other than roll control surfaces

You have no idea what youre talking about.

>>35132362
Glide. Not fly.
There is a difference anon.
Please go back to school.

>>35132373
Glide
>make an unpowered flight, either in a glider or in an aircraft with engine failure.
>unpowered flight
>flight

Flight
>the action or process of flying through the air.
>Process of flying through the air
>flying through the air
>flying

>>35132373
>>35132395

Flying
>moving or able to move through the air with wings.

>>35129665
Ok but how do they get the air to work the same way when it's upside down? Does the wing turn the air right side up with the flaps?

Wow. This troll thread really has some legs.

>>35132364
this

it's due to the earth being flat and the magnets keeping the fake sky up

>>35132364
>>35132455
Wings displace air mass downward at an equivalent magnitude to the weight of the aircraft they are supporting in order to maintain level flight due to the flow characteristics over the airfoil shape.

The whole "wings get sucked into low pressure area above the wing" meme is nonsense and NASA links disproving it have been posted several times in this thread.

>>35132368
>Ailerons
>have they increased the distance air has to travel over or under a surface?
>Yes!
Then shut the fuck up.

File: 1024px-Digital_Pressure_Sensor.jpg (58KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1024x768px

>>35132520
So NASA can't be wrong? I bet you think we unironically landed on the moon dont you?

And just because lift is caused in part by deflecting air downwards doesnt mean that it cant also be affected by air pressure. Do you not think that objects are pushed by gas pressure? Do you not think that if you had a pobe and measured air pressure on top of a wing in flight and below it there would be a pressure differential?

File: e771d67c4783a16f43c950aeb3118e88.jpg (18KB, 447x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 447x300px

>>35132598
>So NASA can't be wrong?
About aerospace principals compared to the knowledge of some high school dropout autist on the internet?

Absolutely not.

>>35129407
Photo and videos you see of planes flying upside down is taken in the southern hemisphere.

File: [email protected] (20KB, 800x136px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 800x136px

>>35132618
>implying you know my background..
>implying the all mighty NASA is infallible

Look, I dont have a wind tunnel in my garage but its common fucking sense. There is a pressure differential and around wings moving through air. That will cause a force to be exerted. Like the illustration I linked, it's not sucking but rather pushing of the high pressure gas molecules. Why can't wings work like a suction cup? You are entirely trusting someone else on this subject without remaining skeptical.

Wanna see some disingenuous political bullshit being spouted by NASA?

>https://climate.nasa.gov/

You realize they tried to pawn off that mars rock as proof of life on mars? "Micro fossils" was criticized by many scientists.

NASA has published bullshit on many occasions and even doctored photographs from space missions and claimed they were legit.

I know you said you trust them on the topic of aerospace but I think you are not remaining open and skeptical enough. I realize they don't have a particular motivation to lie here but I think that it's easy for scientists to find evidence of one phenomena and then completely discredit all other factors. Im not saying I think that NASA's theory is entirely incorrect but rather they may be ignoring additional effects by the pressure differential. Where is the experiments to prove this?

>>35132732
>believes moon landing conspiracy theories
>"HOW CAN YOU KNOW IF YOU DONT DO THE EXPERIMENT YOURSELF, DONT BELIEVE OTHER PEOPLE SHEEP!!!"
>more conspiracy theories

Confirmed for autistic high school dropout.

File: nasa_bs.jpg (20KB, 300x205px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x205px

>>35132618
>https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/wrong3.html

>The part of the theory about Bernoulli's equation and a difference in pressure existing across the airfoil is correct. In fact, this theory is very appealing because there are parts of the theory that are correct. In our discussions on pressure-area integration to determine the force on a body immersed in a fluid, we mentioned that if we knew the velocity, we could obtain the pressure and determine the force. The problem with the "Venturi" theory is that it attempts to provide us with the velocity based on an incorrect assumption (the constriction of the flow produces the velocity field). We can calculate a velocity based on this assumption, and use Bernoulli's equation to compute the pressure, and perform the pressure-area calculation and the answer we get does not agree with the lift that we measure for a given airfoil.

>In fact, this theory is very appealing because there are parts of the theory that are correct.

So they even admit it. Pressure does play a role, just not as much as the direction of the airflow.

>>35132763
Pressure differentials exist any time there is air flow over a body.

You cannot say "THERE'S PRESSURE DIFFERENTIALS! THUS I'm RIGHT"

Pressure differentials are a given in any flow body simulation. That in no way validates the idea that pressure differentials "suck" a wing into the low pressure area above it.

>>35132760
>>35132760
>i must serve my masters
>liberals are all my supreme leader
>yes the exhaust from my car caused hurricane irma
>i am a horrible cis white male
>i must flagellate my back in order to pay for the sins of my ancestors
>muh 97%
>i love all the laws that my leaders set for me
>guns are ebil and cause men to commit murders
Have you ever considered thinking for yourself or...?

>>35132777
>going full /pol/tard in a discussion of science

Really showing your lack of education here

>>35132598
>I bet you think we unironically landed on the moon dont you?

Its not like the Soviet Union monitored the whole operation, or that there are ranging mirrors on the moon, or that there are hundreds of pounds of moon rocks that have been used in tests all around the world (that would've been shown to be fakes after comparison to Soviet collected moon rocks).

>>35132773
They dont suck anything? Rather the high pressure gas molecules try to get to the low pressure area so push on anything inbetween. And because a pressure differential exists there must be some force on the wing because of it, however minute. But we don't even know how minute that is. All we know is that directional flow causes MOST lift and practical sense will demonstrate this considering paper planes work. Still doesnt mean the fast moving air has no effect and the higher pressure air isnt a factor. It might even have a significant enough effect to be a factor in wing design and if people research this more it might provide insight in how to research better wings. Or it might be inconsequential but without seeing experiments how could we pretend to know? We do know however it is a factor.

>>35132777
>resorting to this level of retardation after getting called out for being wrong
Jesus Christ.

>>35132795
>ITT: /pol/ theorizes about science it doesn't understand while simultaneously claiming science is the product of a leftist jew feminist communist conspiracy.


You literally cannot make this shit up.

File: Aldrinhorizon.gif (60KB, 297x219px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 297x219px

>>35132784
HAHA climate activist spotted. Why don't you just turn in your guns if you have guns at all? It will serve your masters, *cough* i mean the better good.

>>35132790
I was being sarcastic but NASA did falsify some of the photos and try to pass them off as genuine because they had such limited amounts of film and the environment was bad for photography. I think they went to the moon though but I also think NASA, like any public sector institution, passes off bullshit and has incompetent employees that leach off the success of competent ones.

> t. guy who spent a year working in a public sector institution

>>35132520
>Wings displace air mass downward at an equivalent magnitude to the weight of the aircraft they are supporting in order to maintain level flight due to the flow characteristics over the airfoil shape.
THANK YOU

>>35132598
>And just because lift is caused in part by deflecting air downwards doesnt mean that it cant also be affected by air pressure.
It's not caused "in part", aerodynamic lift is 100% caused by deflecting air downwards. The pressure differential is a consequence ( a characteristic of the flow modified by the wing).

In fine, spread that different pressure over the pressure side/suction side surface of the wing, and you get a force: Lift

File: giphy (1).gif (829KB, 500x359px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 500x359px

I love showing up to these threads as an aero eng

>>35132818
>say /pol/tard is wrong on a simple aerodynamic principal
>he gets so butthurt you're suddenly a feminisnt leftist climate change activist anti-gun zionist communist globalist XYZ

/pol/tards truly are worthless meme-spouting scum.

>>35132843
And I love starting them.

File: warm_MWP1.jpg (51KB, 800x414px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x414px

>>35132798
>>35132805
Holy shit mother fucker. Fucking goddamnit I dont have time for this fucking shit. Do you understand how your fucking bias might blind you from the truth. If you blindly trust an institution without skeptical they CAN and WILL deceive you.

With regards to climate change: there are clear financial and political motivations on both sides and many climate scientits are afraid to voice skepticism for fear of losing their job or being ostracized. Do you see how that could produce bad science and jeopardize the search for the truth? I'm not saying humans dont have any effect on the climate just that scientists wouldnt know if there was another factor because theyre so goddamn biased or fearful of losing their jobs.

Furthermore. How the hell would slowing down the economy help coastal residents relocate when the sea levels inevitably rise? Scientists even admit they have no idea how well the efforts control carbon emissions will even work, and what the temperature would be if humans did not emit carbon.

Bill Nye getting BTFO on Tucker Carlson illustrating the logical fallacy of climate activists and the general ambiguity of climate science and the political use of climate politics to gain power over the population:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN5L2q6hfWo

Climate Change is less a science and more of a religion. Look at your guy's reaction. Al Gore is the high priest and you must pay your extravagances with carbon tax which most of the oil refiners are exempt from anyway. Oh and you fucking exhale carbon dioxide.

Also please consider buying some dick pills or water filters from infowars to help fight globalists:
https://www.infowars.com/donate/

>>35129407
Shit thread you shood die

>>35132871
Neither of them said anything about climate change though...

>>35132763
>>35132773
>>35132795
>>35132805
We all no your the same nigger postin Give it up and stop same fagging

>>35132871
>literally no one said anything about the conspiracy bullshit this retard is spouting off about
>he still feels the urge to spout off about a bunch of /pol/ tier bullshit

lmao
No one cares about your homoerotic conspiracy theories. Go back to your containment board.

>>35132826
>It's not caused "in part", aerodynamic lift is 100% caused by deflecting air downwards. The pressure differential is a consequence ( a characteristic of the flow modified by the wing).
>In fine, spread that different pressure over the pressure side/suction side surface of the wing, and you get a force: Lift
Well that's one way to look at it..

>>35132871
>/pol/ take discussion on aerodynamics and turns it into climate change conspiracy talk out of no where

wew.

>>35132871
/pol/ truly is the cancer of 4chan

>>35129407
The same way they fly rightside up. Lift.

>>35132878
>>35132881
>>35132876
>>35132861
>>35132805
Being this triggered by anyone questioning the mainstream narrative status quo or authoritarianism in general. On a gun board nonetheless.

>>35132871
literally what the fuyck are you talking about?

>>35132891
>hue hue hue they should be thrown in the oven but we're so much better than the nazis hue hue hue

>>35132897
No one said anything about climate change except for you you delusional fuck

Take you psychosis somewhere else.

>>35132871
Holy shit this is some Alex Jones tier crazy.

Literally no one was talking about climate change.

>>35132905
No, just you.
You should be thrown in an oven for being this mentally deficient.

>>35132913
>>35132907
>>35132784
>>going full /pol/tard in a discussion of science

This person sperged out when I criticized him for believing NASA blindly:
>>35132760
>believes moon landing conspiracy theories
>"HOW CAN YOU KNOW IF YOU DONT DO THE EXPERIMENT YOURSELF, DONT BELIEVE OTHER PEOPLE SHEEP!!!"
>more conspiracy theories

Im soooo sorry for taking up your precious board space but I think its pretty ironic as soon as anyone brings up a "dissenting" opinion you sperg the fuck out together in an effort to reassure yourselves youre on the winning team and your bowing down to authoritarianism is righteous.

>>35132945
There's only one person here sperging out. Hope you are getting paid well for these posts, you're putting in a lot of effort

I love how this thread went from someone asking people to explain how planes fly to him to people denying the way planes fly because it was on the nasa website.

I hope this website never changes.

>>35132978
>>35132979
Holy fucking shit I criticized your religious like trust in a government institution and provide their shilling of climate change as proof their capable of bullshit.

I might be wrong about the venturi effect but it's pretty alarming how anything other than mainstream opinions are like holy water to you guys. Maybe consider reddit?

>>35129407
Aerodynamics.

Alright. I'm back. Let's talk more shit about lift and thrust!

Jesus, is this /pol/ idiot still sperging out about climate change conspiracy theories out of nowhere?

File: 1475453596128~01.jpg (39KB, 338x476px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 338x476px

>>35133432
All you have to do is thrust and lift

>>35129407
Pressurized hydraulic system

>>35132992
Are you the /pol/tard who got kicked from /tg/ for going off about how designer babies or genetic modification will never be a thing because (((((the jews)))))

>>35129407
Maverick wanted to flip some guy the bird, while flipping his bird. Thus, he became Top Gun.

>>35129407
Thrust. The answer is always more thrust.