How do wings generate lift?

>>8786036
They don't, the earth is flat, jews did 9/11.

>>8786043
No but for real tho, how do wings generate lift?

>>8786071
They dont. The earth is flat, and jews did 9/11.
Cant you read?

>>8786036
They don't like that. You need an angle of attack to push air down.

>>8786036
Speed and wing ailerons generates lift. Pressure difference.

>>8786036
air is forced into the wing generating lift.

The super simplified, non-troll version

It's based on Bernouli's principle.
P1 + 1/2*density*Velocity1^2 = P2 + 1/2*density*Velocity2^2

Air on the top half of the wing is moving faster than air over the bottom, creating lower pressure on the top of the wing vs the bottom half of the wing. This pressure differentiation causes an upward lifting force (lift).

>>8786036
That wing you have drawn would not, in fact, create lift

The easiest way to see this is to note that the top and bottom are symmetrical indicating there's no reason why that wing should lift upwards instead of downwards.

The reason wings lift is because the curved shape causes the air on the top to move faster than the air on the bottom. As the air on the bottom moves faster and is thinner, the thicker and slower air on the bottom pushes upwards. This same principle tells you why ping pong balls curve in the air, or why if you spin a baseketball and drop it off a bridge it'll go in a certain direction: the spinning ball will slow down air opposing the direction of rotation and speed up the air going with the direction of rotation leading to a difference in air pressure.

>>8786243
this is some bullshit, because planes can fly upside down.

read this if you want to understand
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/Flightrevisited.pdf

>>8786247
I suspected I might of made this mistake after I typed that response since the direction of the wing could in fact make the air go in a nonsymmetrical way

>>8786247
You can either look at it as air pressure or as diverting air downards. They'll give the same result

>>8786240
This is bullshit pseudoscience that elementary school teachers learn to memorize for when their students ask this.
Once the air hits the stagnation point on the airfoil it splits into two different streamlines that DO NOT have the same energy and thus cannot be equated.

A real answer is circulation and deflection. That is, for one air circulates around the airfoil to cause the necessary pressure gradient and also the wing will have an angle of attack (meaning it's pointed slightly upward, about 1-15 degrees) and this deflects air downward, pushing the wing upward.

>>8786247
That's a really nice document, thanks for posting.

>>8786266
>That is, for one air circulates around the airfoil to cause the necessary pressure gradient

Do you know what Bernoulli's principle is?

>>8786266
Why would the different streamlines not have the same energy? That's very interesting

>>8786247
Airplanes are able to fly because of the angle of attack on the wings.
>>8786243 is correct to a large extent. What he's describing is the magnus effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect
>>8786255
>might of
You don't belong on this board.

>>8786266
Regarding my question with the streamlines: I guess at the point of contact they would have the same energy because up isn't different from downwards at that point, but due to outside air pressure and force from the wing the bottom air and top air would have different velocities i.e. energy. But that doesn't seem like it explains anything profound to me.

>>8786275
Yes. Do you know what a streamline is? Bernoulli's principle only applies to states along a single streamline.

>>8786276
Once the streamline separates the two new streamlines are subject to different phenomena that can alter their energies (pressure, elevation, geometry of the airfoil.) These phenomena won't necessarily affect the streamlines similarly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coand%C4%83_effect

>>8786036
Something something turbulence something negative pressure something Reynolds something

It's dark fluids magic.

>>8786036
moving up and down really quickly

>>8786036
Momentum principles. Pushing/deflecting airmass one way will produce a reaction force the other way. The rest (Bernoulli, pressure distribution etc.) are just details.

magnets

>>8786036

it seems obvious to me that they just collide with the air in a way that forces the air under the wing

>>8786036
because of Kutta-Joukowski

>>8786247
Thanks for the pdf, finally cleared up this question.

>>8786920
That article manages to go full retard in the introduction already

>>8786036
Heavier than air flight is fake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCK4lJLQHU

This video explains everything. EVERYTHING.

The Bernoulli argument crumbles once you consider it for 5 seconds.

>>8786240
This is clearly wrong because stunt planes and military jets can fly inverted.

They push air downwards, generating lift

File: coa_vs_aoa.gif (5KB, 346x265px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 346x265px

>>8786266
It isn't bullshit, in stable flight, the air always goes faster over the upper part of the wing (relative to the ground). You can use Bernouli's principle to explain the lift.

>the wing will have an angle of attack (meaning it's pointed slightly upward, about 1-15 degrees)
Wrong, this only applies for symmetrical airfoils. The angle of attack (=angle between moving air and chord line) doesn't need to be positive. Most wings generate lift at negative angles of attack.

>>8786036
I STILL DON'T FUCKING GET IT
>WHY
DOES MOVING AIR HAVE LOWER PRESSURE REEEEE
Why was I born a brainlet.

>>8786043
only one of these statements are true

>>8788114
Not the guy you're replying to, but stunt planes have a more symmetrical wing profile, and rely on angle of attack to generate when upside down - that is, the nose is tilted upwards relative to the direction of movement.

Of course, if you tilt up too far, you get flow separation on the trailing edge of the airfoil, which leads to your stall condition.

>>8789386
Yeah I thought both the angle of attack and the shape created lift. The shape is not necessary but it's useful, like having the edges of the wing pointing upward.

>>8789376
conservation of energy senpai, or in this case the Bernoulli principle

>>8789395
The math makes sense, but I don't get why particles moving over a flat surface will generate less pressure than if they were still.

>>8788285
There is a drop in pressure on a cambered airfoil however it is not enough to provide all of the lift that is required for flight. For a small aircraft such as a Cessna 172 to fly just using just the Bernouli principle it would need to be moving at around 400 knots (~200 m/s). The wings fall off once you reach 200 knots.

>>8789376
Think of it this way:
>You have a big-ass water tank with a spigot at the bottom
>At the top edge of the tank there's also a spillway and chute to prevent the tank from being overfilled
>Water inside the tank has almost zero kinetic energy and movement, but high gravitational energy at the top of the tank and high pressure energy at the bottom
>As water flows over the spillway and down the chute, it trades gravitational energy for kinetic energy
>As water flows through the spigot, it trades pressure energy for kinetic energy
That's basically Bernoulli in a nutshell. Hopefully simple and intuitive enough for even brainlets to understand.

>>8789417
this. one of the first things taught about airfoils is that the pressure gradient due to bernouli principle is not enough to generate the lift needed for flight.

File: 1490733363713.jpg (55KB, 1600x854px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1600x854px

>>8789413
>a flat surface
It's when they move over a curved surface. The way i see it that the upper part forms a converging stream tube hence the flow accelerates and the pressure goes down, see pic.
This explains pretty much almost every pressure- and velocity distribution over any airfoil.

>>8789419
that's interesting. I never thought of pressure as potential energy. Very insightful anon

>>8789431
Well in this case sure, but I was told if you blow air on top of a flat surface, it will be pulled upward, as long as the air under isn't going as fast. Sounds like bullshit.

>>8789447
That is in fact exactly what happens.

Go put a (clear) drinking straw in some water and blow over the top and watch the level rise in the straw.

>>8789451
Ok but I was talking about >>8789431
>it's when they move over a curve surface
But then you're saying it's also true over flat surfaces.
You might not be the same guy but my comment is applicable regardless.