When I thought there was higher pressure under the wing that pushed the plane up, I was happy. When I started thinking, instead, about little vacuum vortices above the wings pulling them up instead, I was suddenly much less comfortable with the whole proposition. Given the options and the limited effect on my daily life, I’m gotta go with Newton over Bernoulli on this one.
We know vacuums don’t “pull” things. Instead it’s air pressure elsewhere that isn’t balanced by the vacuum that moves things in the direction of the vacuum.
Trial and error until we got an equation that pretty much tells us exactly what will happen for given variables.
Physics simulations where a computer helps just try out different propeller designs to see how well it works has been helping introduce all kinds of super exotic designs in the last few years cause yeah as someone who did physics; “it’s all just agreed upon expected outcome from trying it.”
Speak for yourself. I’m a student pilot and most of my instructors (who are either retired airline pilots or are trying to build up flight hours to qualify for an airline job) don’t understand the science behind it. To be fair, understanding the science doesn’t really help you fly a plane…
It is both, but the pressure one contributes more to lift. You can see this when a wing stalls, the airflow separates from the upper surface and the pressure difference is gone. The angle of a stalled wing still means air is directed downwards, but the overall lift is much smaller.
Hardly! People board airplanes every single day and we still don’t fundamentally understand the mechanisms of how lift works.
When I thought there was higher pressure under the wing that pushed the plane up, I was happy. When I started thinking, instead, about little vacuum vortices above the wings pulling them up instead, I was suddenly much less comfortable with the whole proposition. Given the options and the limited effect on my daily life, I’m gotta go with Newton over Bernoulli on this one.
We know vacuums don’t “pull” things. Instead it’s air pressure elsewhere that isn’t balanced by the vacuum that moves things in the direction of the vacuum.
¿Porque no los dos?
Wait how do we not know how lift works?
I think it’s more so that we know HOW it works but we don’t know WHY it works
I don’t get it, how can you know how it works but not how? Or is it some philosophical why are the laws the way they are?
Trial and error until we got an equation that pretty much tells us exactly what will happen for given variables.
Physics simulations where a computer helps just try out different propeller designs to see how well it works has been helping introduce all kinds of super exotic designs in the last few years cause yeah as someone who did physics; “it’s all just agreed upon expected outcome from trying it.”
We know Jack shit.
It’s like the question “did we invent or discover math”?
Speak for yourself. I’m a student pilot and most of my instructors (who are either retired airline pilots or are trying to build up flight hours to qualify for an airline job) don’t understand the science behind it. To be fair, understanding the science doesn’t really help you fly a plane…
How do we not know how gravity works??
It’s elusive, man. Lack of symmetry really fucks with our shit, yo.
We don’t? I thought we kind of did
We do. Perfectly.
What’s trickey is modelling and simulating it cheaply.
Yeah, that is what I thought
That guy probably thinks that all the trees moving makes it windy.
No we don’t.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/#:~:text=On a strictly mathematical level,Both are incomplete explanations.
No we don’t.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/#:~:text=On a strictly mathematical level,Both are incomplete explanations.
Lift works the same way a tennis racket does.
We know exactly why and how.
No we do not.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/#:~:text=On a strictly mathematical level,Both are incomplete explanations.
I heard that it was just the angle of the wings redirecting the air downwards as reaction mass, like how a rocket engine shoots air downwards.
It is both, but the pressure one contributes more to lift. You can see this when a wing stalls, the airflow separates from the upper surface and the pressure difference is gone. The angle of a stalled wing still means air is directed downwards, but the overall lift is much smaller.
At least that is what I’ve been told anyways