Take the 2-minute tour ×
Aviation Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for aircraft pilots, mechanics, and enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

When I was learning for my license, one of the first diagrams I remember was about the wing profile. The air going around the wing and on the upper side it has to travel a longer way, thus generating lower pressure and bang, plane is flying. Same explanation already back at school.

See my other question: if the theory was right, why can planes fly inverted?

So here's the follow up: why is this wrong theory so popular and still part of books?

Wouldn't it make sense to teach students how a wing really works? I mean just look at any RC plane meeting - you'll be amazed what weird designs are capable of flying if there's enough engine power.

share|improve this question
    
Because it's simple enough for a fifth grade to understand. :-) Oh, and I usually say that if you have enough power that you can make a plate fly. Also, when considering the explanation, think about aerobatic airplanes with symmetrical airfoils. They shouldn't be able to fly either! –  Lnafziger Jan 19 at 14:22
4  
But it's also simple to say that storks deliver babies. That doesn't mean it's correct. –  Krumelur Jan 19 at 14:24
2  
I never said that it was! :) (and yet there are still people who believe in storks too....). In all seriousness, the "real" reason that wings produce lift is a terribly complicated subject with a lot of different factors, and the average pilot simply doesn't need to understand it. On the other hand, when someone asks a pilot what makes an airplane fly, it sounds better than "magic" or "I don't know, it just works". –  Lnafziger Jan 19 at 14:30
    
@Lnafziger If I sit in a piece of plywood and Oracover, 10000ft high, "magic" is what describes it best. :-) –  Krumelur Jan 19 at 15:19
1  
This answer (not the accepted one by the way) shows some of what you would have to do to give a "real" explanation of lift: physics.stackexchange.com/a/77735. NASA also has a webpage about the different explanations and what is wrong with them: grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/lift1.html. Wikipedia also covers it nicely: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_lift –  Lnafziger Jan 19 at 17:56

2 Answers 2

up vote 17 down vote accepted

Long story short is that both Newton's third law and the Bernoulli's effect are two different ways of explaining the same phenomena. Accurate equations have been written to explain both. Newton's third law, the air being forced down and forcing the airplane up, is actually the effect of lift though not the cause. The cause of lift is the change in pressure.

The falsehood that is taught is usually that the two little air particles actually meet up at the same point downstream at the trailing edge of the wing at the same time. This is completely false. In fact, if you were to actually track two air particles, one over the top, and one across the bottom, the one going over the top of the wing will probably arrive much sooner than the one on the bottom! [Even though the distance IS longer] It picks up that much speed. Also they don't actually really meetup again afterwards at all.

The real pivotal relation (which I learned in my Advanced Aerodynamics class at ERAU using John. D. Anderson's book Intro to Flight) is the Kutta-Joukowsky theorem. Taking the time to explain this to a Private Pilot student would probably be a waste of your time and theirs but I will sum it up here anyway to be fair to the question. I will assume incompressible flow because after about Mach .3< it starts to get more complicated.

The Kutta-Joukowsky theorem takes the integral of velocity times the cosine of the incremental angle of the distance along the closed curve. This is a quantity called circulation. The lift equation is then formed as lift equals density (altitude basically) times velocity times circulation. So if you really want get in-depth here is an article from MIT that explains potential flow theory.

What you will find is that the cause of lift is indeed directly related to Bernoulli's principle in that the change in pressure is what creates the lift. However it has nothing to do with particles meeting up at the trailing edge because they never really do meet up. This doesn't discount Newton's third law either: lift can be explained that way but it is the effect of lift, not the actual cause. And yes, like you mentioned, even a flat-plate for example can create lift when angled right in a wind tunnel.

share|improve this answer
    
Would it be reasonable to refer to flat plate lift as direct lift and that produced by wing differential pressure (Bernoulli) as induced lift? Also, thanks for the two references. –  Terry Jan 19 at 18:30
1  
The curved wing and a flat plate both create lift in the same manner. It's actually drag that is reduced more by the curved wing. Although to be fair keeping the boundary layer attached longer allows for more lift. The shape of the wing is more for keeping the airflow attached longer. Generally you want more INVISCID flow but it is actually the viscous boundary layer that keeps that inviscid flow attached. So the shape of the wing becomes a balance of creating the smallest boundary layer that can still hold the flow without getting airflow separation (stall). –  p1l0t Jan 19 at 18:43
    
I should add that much depends on the aircraft and it's mission (aerobatics, training, fighter, airliner, crop duster, etc..) –  p1l0t Jan 19 at 18:45
2  
The lift produced by a wing is exactly equal to the mass of the air deflected downward by the wing times acceleration imparted to the air as the wing moves forward. Newton's second law is why wings produce lift. Bernoulli's equation is derived from F=MA. –  Jim In Texas Jan 21 at 6:02
1  
@sdenham: You need fluid dynamics to explain that the wing deflects the air downwards in the first place. –  Jan Hudec Jul 17 at 4:52

Wouldn't it make sense to teach students how a wing really works?

No, not really.

Ask any (good) CFI and they'll tell you that there are certain topics that a student really needs to understand properly. Examples:

  • What's a stabilized approach and how do you fly one? (A disappointing number of students tell me it means holding the same airspeed all the way down)
  • Why do we clear the prop area? (You'd think this would be too simple to screw up, but there's been more students than I've got fingers on my throttle hand who haven't yelled "clear!" until they're already cranking the engine.)

And so on.

How a wing really works is not one of these topics - the consequences of misunderstanding a stabilized approach are that you screw it up and your landings are terrible (or even dangerous). The consequences of misunderstanding prop safety are that someone loses a hand or dies. The consequences of misunderstanding how a wing generates lift are...well...the wing keeps flying anyway.

Now, if the student is an aerospace engineer, they'll need to know the real story, but for a pilot, they can continue in their ignorance for their entire career and never be negatively affected (unless they meet an aerospace engineer in a bar and get into a fight).

To extend the point, I myself tell students that to properly understand GPS, you need to get into the theory of relativity, but for a functional but incorrect understanding, you can think of it as "DME-in-space". It's very wrong on several levels, but it's enough to satisfy the needs of that category of student - same as the wing pressure-differential explanation.

share|improve this answer
4  
I agree with this answer, but it would be nice if there were an "easy" description of how a wing generates lift that wasn't so obviously wrong, and couldn't even possibly explain several common scenarios. I mean what else have they been lying to us about all of this time??? :) –  Lnafziger Jan 19 at 17:28
1  
@Lnafziger - Well, for one, the real reason for TBO time is to swap out the hamster on the wheel in there. –  Steve V. Jan 19 at 17:33
    
Haha, that must be one strong mutant hamster! –  Lnafziger Jan 19 at 17:35
1  
I also agree with this answer, but I did take a shot at explaining lift that wasn't so obviously wrong in my own answer with some links for further reading. Still, gave him the vote up though. As far as students they need to know that they can pull up for more lift until the critical angle and no more. See what I did there. –  p1l0t Jan 19 at 18:29
1  
Upvoted both of you. –  Greg Krsak Jan 19 at 20:24

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.