Who is the self confident yahoo that analyzed and voiced this video? Clearly does not have an understanding of aerodynamics and flow properties. I'd state all the errors in OP's deductions, but there are plenty of comments correctly correcting him already.
The airflow over the top of the wing is indeed faster creating low pressure over the top of the wing and the slower airflow on the underside creates a higher pressure pushing the wing upwards speed = lift . George.
The wing in your video appears to be close to stalling, at this angle the air beneath the wing is being compressed by the wing and therefore slowed down, resulting effect is to push up on the underside of the wing. If you level out the wing to an angle more akin to flying flat and level you would see that the air moving over the top of the wing is traveling further than the air underneath as it needs to rise and fall over the same distance. faster moving air = less pressure = lift
There is nothing new in this video and its explained nicely at NASA's site.(equal transit time theory) Please explain why at all the speed of the airflow increases over an aerofoil.What makes the aerofoil speed up when it passes over the aerofoil.
@Iglglggl, wings cause the pressure under the wing to increase relative to the air above the wing. This video illustrates Bernoulli's principle, which shows how a wings shape does lower the air pressure above the wing. But this isn't the main reason wings generate lift. Really it is the higher pressure of the under the wing that is the main factor.
@ubellubo This isn't necessarily true - the size of the contributions of the upper and lower surfaces is different for each wing, angle of attack and flight regime. To pick one extreme example, a supercritical wing (an aerofoil designed to fly just below the speed of sound) actually has a lower pressure on the bottom surface than in the free stream, but the pressure on the upper surface is even lower still, generating the lift force.
As long as you keep a positive angle of attack to the airflow, enough to create the airflow distortion and thus the speed difference and concequently the pressure differential you should be able to fly just fine. But it just wouldn't be so efficient for an assymetric airfoil, so perhaps you would need more power, or airspeed to keep the plane flying...
I was never taught that the air sped up because it had a longer distance to travel. I was always taught that the lower pressure was caused by the mass flow and the creation of a venturi, essentially, on top of the wing. the increase in kinetic energy leads to a decrease in static pressure as explained by the bernoulli principle. in addition to pressure difference, air is deflected by the wing, also creating an upward force on the airfoil
I'm sorry but an air tunnel demonstration cannot serve as a replacement to how a wing truly operates in the real world. A wing and the surrounding air will not react the same if keep the wing still and essentially throw air at it.
@krispykreme82603 ... yes, yes it will. It will react *exactly* the same. There are differences, such as the 'smoothness' of the flow and the effect the walls will have on the air, but these are generally small and accounted for.
I've always thought the original idea made no sense. Another test that could have been shown in this video is Ground Effects, which would further prove this theory correct.
Because those wings, typically found on aerobatic aircraft, are completely symmetrical. The upper outline is the same as the lower outline. This type of wing profile still creates lift, it just is less efficient than a non symmetrical wing profile like the one shown here. Thus when the pilot flies upside down the wings react exactly the same as if he were flying right side up.
Therefore the lift effect is amplified? The time that the air reaches the end on the top of the wing is shorter. Hence the speed is faster than originally thought. Therefore pressure is even lower and the lift higher? Is this a correct assumption?
Hmmm, let's see. The airflow above the wing is faster than the airflow below the wing. Yet dear professor says that this does not generate lift because the air above wing gets to the back -before- the air below the wing. If I run to the toilet faster than the professor, will I not be having a leak before him? If I got there at the same time, would I have run faster? What does this prove anyway?
This video is biased. The airfoil used is symmetrical therefor Bernoulli principle does not apply. Also the air is flowing slower on the bottom because the airfoil is angled down. It should be level.
"This common explanation is actually wrong." Well? Don't leave us hangin', Babs; finish what you started. Here I'll help you begin: "The correct explanation is..."
Does the air above the wing slow down/speed up/stay the same as it travels over the wing?
Does the air below the wing slow down/speed up/stay the same as it travels beneath the wing?
Why do each of the above occur?
Is it this difference which creates higher pressure below and lower pressure above which in turn causes lift?
"This common explanation is actually wrong." Well? Don't leave us hangin', Babs; finish what you started. Here I'll help you begin: "The correct explanation is..."
So lift is not caused by the airflow having to move faster over the top, it's caused by airflow moving much faster over the top. I think post production forgot to include the explanation on how lift is actually caused.
Professor Holger Babinsky only demonstrates that the conventional explanation about what causes a wing to provide lift, is not correct. In this video, he does not attempt to provide an explanation about why a wing provides lift: right-way-up, upside-down or sideways.
It might give little more for watcher, if you would mention that the closer the lines are, the more force is exerted towards the wing. Thus, more force is exerted from down to up as air is denser below the wing and this creates the lift.
I have always been annoyed by the conventional explanation. What's even more annoying is the idea that the wing is "sucked" upwards by the low pressure. The shape of the wing is also irrelevant for basic flight, a plank will work with enough air pressure. This smoke test appears to illustrate how the energy from the lower airflow is reduced and therefore absorbed by the wing.
Yes a plane flying upside down is the perfect demonstration as are wings with symmetric profile, as to why Bernoulli is NOT responsible for flight. In reality lift is generated by causing a deflection in the air stream, just bending it downwards. This is achieved because of the Coandă effect which shows us that a fluid flow will adhere to a surface even when that surface curves away from the direction of fluid flow, Also Brute force deflection of airflow (called angle of attack) works too.
the curvature of the wing causes the change in air pressure because **it pulls some of the air upwards, which reduces pressure, and forces the rest beneath it, creating higher pressure**.
Ok....so what is the point exactly? I have never heard that lift is caused by air having a longer distance to travel over the top of the wing. I have only heard that lift is caused by air moving faster over the top of the wing, which the video proved. So I am confused to what this is really about.
@lglglggl it doesn't matter for an airplane to fly upside down or normally, as long as the angle of attack remains positive. When the angle of attack is negative, you'll have a spoiler, like the one used in F1 to keep the cars on the ground..
@lglglggl Because while the shape of a wing is important, more lift is produced by the wing forcing air downward than by the pressure difference caused by the shape of the wing. At a high enough speed and with the right angle of attack, a sheet of plywood would produce sufficient lift, albeit with much less efficiency.
@lglglggl Well...because air moves faster over the top of the wing, causing lift. The video proved that. When the plane is upside down...the bottom is now the top. But the video states that the common misconception is that lift is cause by air having to travel a greater distance over the top of the wing. Anyone who knows just the simple bit about aerodynamics is that lift is caused by air moving faster, which the video proves. Odd video really.
@lglglggl If you look closely the airfoil in the video is symmetrical, or nearly symmetrical. What's to say that the airplane that it's attached to isn't already upside down?
While the shape of the airfoil contributes to lift, another (often larger) contributor is the angle of attack (in the video the airfoil has an AOA, about 15-25 degrees). Airplanes flying inverted have at least some downward pressure on the elevator to create a negative angle of attack, creating negative lift.
@lglglggl If you notice the video, the cross-section of the airfoil shown is fully symmetrical (it's not more curved on the top). Flipping it over and pointing it upward slightly (as aerobatic planes do when they fly interved) would generate the same lift.
@lglglggl The same process of angle of attack and pressure gradients. The aerofoil shown is very close to symmetrical; it doesn't really matter which way round it is. Even if it isn't, an upside down cambered aerofoil (at a high enough angle of attack) will still cause a favourable pressure difference between the top and bottom surface.
@lglglggl If you notice the video, the cross-section of the airfoil shown is fully symmetrical (it's not more curved on the top). Flipping it over and pointing it upward slightly (as aerobatic planes do when they fly inverted) would generate the same lift.
@lglglggl Those are aerobatic maneuvers, and usually involve the aircraft having substantial initial velocity, absent which they would stall during the maneuver. The main thing is having sufficient velocity to operate the control surfaces - you haven't seen them flying upside down for a very long time, have you?
@lglglggl the long answer, get a book on aerodynamics and read it.
or the very dumbed down answer... err... some aerofoils are symmetric, and others are asymmetric. passenger aircraft have asymmetric aerofoils, they dont fly well upside down, if they can at all. fighter/acrobatic aircraft have symmetric (or close to) aerofoils; the wing is the same shape top and bottom. the angle of attack is what produces the lift
@lglglggl the long answer, get a book on aerodynamics and read it.
or the very dumbed down answer... err... some aerofoils are symmetric, and others are asymmetric. passenger aircraft have asymmetric aerofoils, they dont fly well upside down, if they can at all. fighter/acrobatic aircraft have symmetric (or close to) aerofoils; the wing is the same shape top and bottom. the angle of attack is what produces the lift
@lglglggl angle of attack... foil shape of a wing just makes flight more efficient. Flying upside down powers the angled wing through the air with a resultant up force. Kind of like sticking your angled hand out the car window at speed makes it lift from the wind pressure.
By using the dynamic surfaces of the wing (Ailerons), you can create 'lift' in either direction as you alter the effective profile of the wing. What the Prof (IMHO) is actually saying above is that the wing lifts by slowing down the air underneath it rather than accelerating the air above. This creates a higher pressure zone underneath, driving the wing upwards.
@lglglggl It has to do with their angle of attack; by pointing their nose towards the sky the wing is tilted. They are not flying with the Bernoulli force as describe in the video; only the angle of attack force with sheer motor power keeping them in the sky. A good example is putting your hand outside a moving car's window and tilting your fingers up.
@lglglggl Same reason a bumble bee can fly. Shear power. Look at the video again. It seems to me another factor is the attitude of the wing. Most text books I remember from high school science show a perfectly horizontal wing. This one is tilted to attack the wind with the force hitting the underneath. That alone will create lift if the air is pushing on the bottom.
@lglglggl It's the exact same thing, only now the top side of the wing is now the bottom. If you were to perform this same smoke tunnel test with the wing upside down, it would look identical to the video above.
The wing works the same way upside down when the angle of attack is increased to a certain point, but cambered airfoils aren't as good at creating lift upside down because the laminar flow separates at a higher airspeed and a lower angle of attack in this configuration. This is why many aerobatic aircraft use a more symetrical airfoil because while it creates a lower coefficient of lift, it stalls at a higher AOA and it acts uniformly regardless of which side is up.
@lglglggl The ailerons / aerolons, at the end of this airflow, like miniature appended wings, are tilted to affect the overall shape of the wing to countermand the downforce shown in this video. In other words, just look at a diagram or video of air passing over a aileron.
So lift is actually push? That's to say, it's the backed up air flow under the wing creates the upward force called lift. How about if the angle of attack is decreased and the flow is more laminar? I guess the effect is just less pronounced, but still exists.
This experiment is flawed because it is done inside a chamber. The chamber is split into two halves by the wing. The top half has more space and this causes the air to travel faster.
This a great video, but you say nothing as to how lift IS created. You simply debunk the common myth that it is related to the speed of the flow over the top of the wing. It is really air pressure difference that causes the lift, but I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't been lead to this video via the Gizmodo link that includes the explanation.
Who is the self confident yahoo that analyzed and voiced this video? Clearly does not have an understanding of aerodynamics and flow properties. I'd state all the errors in OP's deductions, but there are plenty of comments correctly correcting him already.
haic83 4 days ago
Lift comes from 2 things:
1. angle of attack
2. shape of wing
In this video, the angle of attack is so extreme that most of the lift comes from there.
If they used a 0 degree angle of attack, then the shape of wing and what they're visualizing would actually make sense.
shurcooL 2 weeks ago
The airflow over the top of the wing is indeed faster creating low pressure over the top of the wing and the slower airflow on the underside creates a higher pressure pushing the wing upwards speed = lift . George.
gsd6760 3 weeks ago
The wing in your video appears to be close to stalling, at this angle the air beneath the wing is being compressed by the wing and therefore slowed down, resulting effect is to push up on the underside of the wing. If you level out the wing to an angle more akin to flying flat and level you would see that the air moving over the top of the wing is traveling further than the air underneath as it needs to rise and fall over the same distance. faster moving air = less pressure = lift
bmcpheat 3 weeks ago
Thanks for debunking that myth, but why not take an extra 20 seconds to explain how it actually works?
ZrednaZ 3 weeks ago
As a student in Aerospace Engineering, is you for serious?
AllHailZeppelin 3 weeks ago
There is nothing new in this video and its explained nicely at NASA's site.(equal transit time theory) Please explain why at all the speed of the airflow increases over an aerofoil.What makes the aerofoil speed up when it passes over the aerofoil.
surindertiwari 3 weeks ago
@surindertiwari You'd have to attend a few of the second year thermofluid lectures to understand that.
ayzhao 3 weeks ago
All right, that was the wrong explanation, we all understood it's wrong.
What about the right one?
JLCProductions 3 weeks ago 8
@Iglglggl, wings cause the pressure under the wing to increase relative to the air above the wing. This video illustrates Bernoulli's principle, which shows how a wings shape does lower the air pressure above the wing. But this isn't the main reason wings generate lift. Really it is the higher pressure of the under the wing that is the main factor.
ubellubo 4 weeks ago
@ubellubo This isn't necessarily true - the size of the contributions of the upper and lower surfaces is different for each wing, angle of attack and flight regime. To pick one extreme example, a supercritical wing (an aerofoil designed to fly just below the speed of sound) actually has a lower pressure on the bottom surface than in the free stream, but the pressure on the upper surface is even lower still, generating the lift force.
toddscdavidson 3 weeks ago
So, what's the problem here ?
JRprodz 4 weeks ago
Do the same thing with the smoke at a flat level angle of attack.
coolruehle 4 weeks ago
As long as you keep a positive angle of attack to the airflow, enough to create the airflow distortion and thus the speed difference and concequently the pressure differential you should be able to fly just fine. But it just wouldn't be so efficient for an assymetric airfoil, so perhaps you would need more power, or airspeed to keep the plane flying...
Tigerkos 4 weeks ago
I was never taught that the air sped up because it had a longer distance to travel. I was always taught that the lower pressure was caused by the mass flow and the creation of a venturi, essentially, on top of the wing. the increase in kinetic energy leads to a decrease in static pressure as explained by the bernoulli principle. in addition to pressure difference, air is deflected by the wing, also creating an upward force on the airfoil
komodomoe 4 weeks ago
I'm sorry but an air tunnel demonstration cannot serve as a replacement to how a wing truly operates in the real world. A wing and the surrounding air will not react the same if keep the wing still and essentially throw air at it.
krispykreme82603 4 weeks ago
@krispykreme82603 ... yes, yes it will. It will react *exactly* the same. There are differences, such as the 'smoothness' of the flow and the effect the walls will have on the air, but these are generally small and accounted for.
toddscdavidson 3 weeks ago
@krispykreme82603 it does and it can. barring 2-d to 3-d effects which would have no impact on this result.
BananaPeal0 3 weeks ago
I've always thought the original idea made no sense. Another test that could have been shown in this video is Ground Effects, which would further prove this theory correct.
Tuddley3 4 weeks ago
Because those wings, typically found on aerobatic aircraft, are completely symmetrical. The upper outline is the same as the lower outline. This type of wing profile still creates lift, it just is less efficient than a non symmetrical wing profile like the one shown here. Thus when the pilot flies upside down the wings react exactly the same as if he were flying right side up.
dan25man 4 weeks ago
Nice way to deflect the wing in an upwards attitude to manipulate the airflow.
mgardiner2725 4 weeks ago
Therefore the lift effect is amplified? The time that the air reaches the end on the top of the wing is shorter. Hence the speed is faster than originally thought. Therefore pressure is even lower and the lift higher? Is this a correct assumption?
vkgiotis 1 month ago
Hmmm, let's see. The airflow above the wing is faster than the airflow below the wing. Yet dear professor says that this does not generate lift because the air above wing gets to the back -before- the air below the wing. If I run to the toilet faster than the professor, will I not be having a leak before him? If I got there at the same time, would I have run faster? What does this prove anyway?
speedintraffic 1 month ago
Awesome vid! Can you post a vid using a flat plate and also a sail profile with same angle of attack as the wing in this vid pls.
loccomoffo1000 1 month ago
This video is biased. The airfoil used is symmetrical therefor Bernoulli principle does not apply. Also the air is flowing slower on the bottom because the airfoil is angled down. It should be level.
Jdspitz2 1 month ago
Any reason for the high AoA?
Buggerhey 1 month ago
"This common explanation is actually wrong." Well? Don't leave us hangin', Babs; finish what you started. Here I'll help you begin: "The correct explanation is..."
Does the air above the wing slow down/speed up/stay the same as it travels over the wing?
Does the air below the wing slow down/speed up/stay the same as it travels beneath the wing?
Why do each of the above occur?
Is it this difference which creates higher pressure below and lower pressure above which in turn causes lift?
barkeepted1 1 month ago
"This common explanation is actually wrong." Well? Don't leave us hangin', Babs; finish what you started. Here I'll help you begin: "The correct explanation is..."
barkeepted1 1 month ago
It's all about angle of attack.
bobvicki 1 month ago
So lift is not caused by the airflow having to move faster over the top, it's caused by airflow moving much faster over the top. I think post production forgot to include the explanation on how lift is actually caused.
craigcottam 1 month ago
This video disproves the misconception, but why doesn't it bother giving a alternate theory?
i124ql8r 1 month ago
Excellent visualisation, will there be a follow up to explain how lift is generated?
forst163 1 month ago
Professor Holger Babinsky only demonstrates that the conventional explanation about what causes a wing to provide lift, is not correct. In this video, he does not attempt to provide an explanation about why a wing provides lift: right-way-up, upside-down or sideways.
charlessmyth 1 month ago
you state that the air above the wing speeds up, is it not the air below slowing down?
NIINPO 1 month ago
It might give little more for watcher, if you would mention that the closer the lines are, the more force is exerted towards the wing. Thus, more force is exerted from down to up as air is denser below the wing and this creates the lift.
jarivasell 1 month ago
I have always been annoyed by the conventional explanation. What's even more annoying is the idea that the wing is "sucked" upwards by the low pressure. The shape of the wing is also irrelevant for basic flight, a plank will work with enough air pressure. This smoke test appears to illustrate how the energy from the lower airflow is reduced and therefore absorbed by the wing.
Yawningdogy 1 month ago
Yes a plane flying upside down is the perfect demonstration as are wings with symmetric profile, as to why Bernoulli is NOT responsible for flight. In reality lift is generated by causing a deflection in the air stream, just bending it downwards. This is achieved because of the Coandă effect which shows us that a fluid flow will adhere to a surface even when that surface curves away from the direction of fluid flow, Also Brute force deflection of airflow (called angle of attack) works too.
Parax77 1 month ago
the curvature of the wing causes the change in air pressure because **it pulls some of the air upwards, which reduces pressure, and forces the rest beneath it, creating higher pressure**.
can u explain how it pulls the air upward???
i await your response...
hodev93 1 month ago
ool
santran 1 month ago
Ok....so what is the point exactly? I have never heard that lift is caused by air having a longer distance to travel over the top of the wing. I have only heard that lift is caused by air moving faster over the top of the wing, which the video proved. So I am confused to what this is really about.
Odinsjoke 1 month ago
IgIgIggl, It's called elevator authority.
makgav 1 month ago
V. Interesting!
martinfreye 1 month ago
Now explain why an airplane can fly upside-down.
lglglggl 1 month ago 49
@lglglggl it doesn't matter for an airplane to fly upside down or normally, as long as the angle of attack remains positive. When the angle of attack is negative, you'll have a spoiler, like the one used in F1 to keep the cars on the ground..
prophecus 1 month ago
@lglglggl Symetric airfoil
xGeneralFoxx 1 month ago
@lglglggl Because while the shape of a wing is important, more lift is produced by the wing forcing air downward than by the pressure difference caused by the shape of the wing. At a high enough speed and with the right angle of attack, a sheet of plywood would produce sufficient lift, albeit with much less efficiency.
jlthiess 1 month ago
@lglglggl Well...because air moves faster over the top of the wing, causing lift. The video proved that. When the plane is upside down...the bottom is now the top. But the video states that the common misconception is that lift is cause by air having to travel a greater distance over the top of the wing. Anyone who knows just the simple bit about aerodynamics is that lift is caused by air moving faster, which the video proves. Odd video really.
Odinsjoke 1 month ago
@lglglggl
Because of negative angle of attack. the lift generated is negative, and when the aircraft is upside down, the negative lift cancels out the weight
shailysaxena1 1 month ago
@lglglggl If you look closely the airfoil in the video is symmetrical, or nearly symmetrical. What's to say that the airplane that it's attached to isn't already upside down?
While the shape of the airfoil contributes to lift, another (often larger) contributor is the angle of attack (in the video the airfoil has an AOA, about 15-25 degrees). Airplanes flying inverted have at least some downward pressure on the elevator to create a negative angle of attack, creating negative lift.
Wojcigitty 1 month ago
@lglglggl If you notice the video, the cross-section of the airfoil shown is fully symmetrical (it's not more curved on the top). Flipping it over and pointing it upward slightly (as aerobatic planes do when they fly interved) would generate the same lift.
Qanael 1 month ago
@lglglggl The same process of angle of attack and pressure gradients. The aerofoil shown is very close to symmetrical; it doesn't really matter which way round it is. Even if it isn't, an upside down cambered aerofoil (at a high enough angle of attack) will still cause a favourable pressure difference between the top and bottom surface.
raspberrypirate 1 month ago
@lglglggl If you notice the video, the cross-section of the airfoil shown is fully symmetrical (it's not more curved on the top). Flipping it over and pointing it upward slightly (as aerobatic planes do when they fly inverted) would generate the same lift.
Qanael 1 month ago
@lglglggl Angle of attack!
craigcottam 1 month ago
@lglglggl Those are aerobatic maneuvers, and usually involve the aircraft having substantial initial velocity, absent which they would stall during the maneuver. The main thing is having sufficient velocity to operate the control surfaces - you haven't seen them flying upside down for a very long time, have you?
mvdk2 1 month ago
@lglglggl The same way nosing down forces the plane down. Turn it upside down and nosing down is nosing up. Angle of attack.
ItsAReefer 1 month ago
@lglglggl it's really falling very slowly, not 'flying' when upside down ?
MJTnetau 1 month ago
@lglglggl
Good question!
lindsaynz1 1 month ago
@lglglggl God made it like that.
iwanttoseethegoryshi 1 month ago
@lglglggl the long answer, get a book on aerodynamics and read it.
or the very dumbed down answer... err... some aerofoils are symmetric, and others are asymmetric. passenger aircraft have asymmetric aerofoils, they dont fly well upside down, if they can at all. fighter/acrobatic aircraft have symmetric (or close to) aerofoils; the wing is the same shape top and bottom. the angle of attack is what produces the lift
danieljbaird 1 month ago
@lglglggl the long answer, get a book on aerodynamics and read it.
or the very dumbed down answer... err... some aerofoils are symmetric, and others are asymmetric. passenger aircraft have asymmetric aerofoils, they dont fly well upside down, if they can at all. fighter/acrobatic aircraft have symmetric (or close to) aerofoils; the wing is the same shape top and bottom. the angle of attack is what produces the lift
danieljbaird 1 month ago
but thats over simplifying. the prof would do a much better (and less condescending) job of explaining
danieljbaird 1 month ago
@lglglggl
Angle of attack is the explanation.
bobvicki 1 month ago
@lglglggl angle of attack... foil shape of a wing just makes flight more efficient. Flying upside down powers the angled wing through the air with a resultant up force. Kind of like sticking your angled hand out the car window at speed makes it lift from the wind pressure.
loccomoffo1000 1 month ago
@lglglggl Asymmetrical airfoil. Bam
slambot5 1 month ago
@lglglggl It doesn't matter which way up the fuselage is! It's relative to the wing's AoA.
This model demonstrates a simple symmetrical wing... What do you think it would look like upside-down? What requires explaining?
NeoNaithA 1 month ago
By using the dynamic surfaces of the wing (Ailerons), you can create 'lift' in either direction as you alter the effective profile of the wing. What the Prof (IMHO) is actually saying above is that the wing lifts by slowing down the air underneath it rather than accelerating the air above. This creates a higher pressure zone underneath, driving the wing upwards.
1973Bonkers 1 month ago
@lglglggl It has to do with their angle of attack; by pointing their nose towards the sky the wing is tilted. They are not flying with the Bernoulli force as describe in the video; only the angle of attack force with sheer motor power keeping them in the sky. A good example is putting your hand outside a moving car's window and tilting your fingers up.
dbin78 1 month ago
@lglglggl
It can because when flying upside down one flies at such angle of attack that the lift is still produced.
tomekz28 1 month ago
@lglglggl aerobatic aircraft use symmetrical airfoils.
DakkieZA 1 month ago
@lglglggl Same reason a bumble bee can fly. Shear power. Look at the video again. It seems to me another factor is the attitude of the wing. Most text books I remember from high school science show a perfectly horizontal wing. This one is tilted to attack the wind with the force hitting the underneath. That alone will create lift if the air is pushing on the bottom.
Seeker64 4 weeks ago
@lglglggl It's the exact same thing, only now the top side of the wing is now the bottom. If you were to perform this same smoke tunnel test with the wing upside down, it would look identical to the video above.
Tuddley3 4 weeks ago
@lglglggl angle of attack, thrust and wing shape.
griffia 4 weeks ago
@lglglggl
The wing works the same way upside down when the angle of attack is increased to a certain point, but cambered airfoils aren't as good at creating lift upside down because the laminar flow separates at a higher airspeed and a lower angle of attack in this configuration. This is why many aerobatic aircraft use a more symetrical airfoil because while it creates a lower coefficient of lift, it stalls at a higher AOA and it acts uniformly regardless of which side is up.
komodomoe 4 weeks ago
@lglglggl The ailerons / aerolons, at the end of this airflow, like miniature appended wings, are tilted to affect the overall shape of the wing to countermand the downforce shown in this video. In other words, just look at a diagram or video of air passing over a aileron.
TableWolfMusic 3 weeks ago
@lglglggl because the shape of the wing doesnt change when you flip it upside down. It still generates lift.
burninrock24 1 week ago
However if it did take the same amount of time wouldnt you be able to remove the vast majority of the turbulent flow come at the end of the wing?
Gunrangler 1 month ago
So lift is actually push? That's to say, it's the backed up air flow under the wing creates the upward force called lift. How about if the angle of attack is decreased and the flow is more laminar? I guess the effect is just less pronounced, but still exists.
ibullpitt 1 month ago
This experiment is flawed because it is done inside a chamber. The chamber is split into two halves by the wing. The top half has more space and this causes the air to travel faster.
nutCaseBUTTERFLY 1 month ago
What do you use to get the smoke to do that? I want one.
torqued666 1 month ago
I've been wondering about this. So then, why DO wings lift??
lutz18692 1 month ago
This a great video, but you say nothing as to how lift IS created. You simply debunk the common myth that it is related to the speed of the flow over the top of the wing. It is really air pressure difference that causes the lift, but I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't been lead to this video via the Gizmodo link that includes the explanation.
scorwitz 1 month ago