Do you really understand Wing lift?

ok...here you go. Navier-Stokes will not make you a better pilot....trust me on that.

not even working thru a tread-mill exercise....does it.

A good cockpit monkey reads and does the checklist....o_O

2630552_orig.jpg
I think that's 100% true and something I battle with as a practical challenge all the time in airman certification. Take a private pilot, especially one that is on an accelerated training track. Three months ago -- some times less -- this pilot had never flown an airplane. Now they're being asked to discuss, among other things, basic aerodynamics.

From the perspective of administering a practical test, the depth and breadth of the discussion on this message board would never occur during oral questioning. I find it challenging enough just to dig into a subject like induced drag and draw some reasonable but still very basic correlations (slow flight / region of reversed command, ground effect, soft field takeoff, etc.) and still have enough time left for the many other AOOs and associated Tasks. But a true understanding of how lift is actually generated is very helpful to a pilot not just in a cerebral way, but in application of skills to flying the aircraft.

Take a commercial pilot applicant. There it is in I.F., "Performance and Limitations," knowledge element CA.I.F.K3, "Aerodynamics." What is a reasonable depth now? In terms of pilot certificates and ratings, this ramps up to its highest level for the addition of a multi-engine rating to a commercial pilot certificate. That's due in part to the fact that the only tasks discussed during the ground portion of the practical test are I.E. and I.F. Aerodynamics are justifiably hit a lot harder for the multiengine rating as a thorough understanding of these concepts is absolutely necessary to operate a multiengine airplane safely. So this is a chance for me to sit down with an applicant and really dig into the aerodynamics. I have found generally good results here because by this point, the applicant has usually already completed three other practical tests at minimum. But at this level of certification if I ask an applicant about how an airfoil develops lift, and the answer includes a jumbled statement like "it takes the air longer to travel over the curved top part of the wing," I don't have high confidence that there's a sufficient level of knowledge there. We'll dig and probe and see what we come up with after that point, but's a a bad way to start because right away they're not recognizing how the wing is actually developing lift.



This discussion and others like it, when not acerbic (and this one doesn't seem to be so) are done outside the bounds of the training regimen and should be pursued by all pilots. I expect you'd agree, since you're here and participating. It's not a profession which is tolerant of punching a time clock or walking out of the airplane at the end of the day and closing off the mind to all matters aviation. There must be a constant interest in expanding knowledge and that happens all the time... which is why the successful professional pilots often have, at their core, a true passion and interest in aviation which goes beyond a nice paycheck.
 
Last edited:
All I know, is that when I stick my hand out the car window, if I raise the thumb side of my hand it goes up, and if I lower it it goes down. If I were a CFI that is how I would explain it. If I were a fluid mechanics professor that is how I would explain it. Maybe it's because that is how my fluid mechanics professor explained it.
 
All I know, is that when I stick my hand out the car window, if I raise the thumb side of my hand it goes up, and if I lower it it goes down. If I were a CFI that is how I would explain it. If I were a fluid mechanics professor that is how I would explain it. Maybe it's because that is how my fluid mechanics professor explained it.
Exactly. That's the problem with obsessing over camber and going on and on about Bernoulli when teaching aerodynamics to student pilots. It's irrelevant to student pilots: camber is just an engineering optimisation for non-aerobatic wings, not a basic principle of flight, so students barely need to know about it. Like your hand out the window, a non-cambered barn door is perfectly capable of developing lift.

If I were a ground-school teacher, I'd drop dead scientists like Bernoulli and Newton from the curriculum completely, and focus on practical aerodynamic stuff they need to know to fly better, like angle of attack, the effect of weight on stall and approach speed, yaw-roll coupling, CG and pitch stability, pitch-yaw coupling (aka why you're making the turbulence worse), wing washout (aka why the ailerons usually still work when you're almost stalled), etc.
 
And mass falls outta the sky, like apples, because of gravity, no matter how hard you blow on them to keep them airborne.

Newton's three laws of motion may be stated as follows:
  1. Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
  2. Force equals mass times acceleration [
    img2633.png
    ].
  3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Show me which of those involves only gravity.
 
And yet Newton works even in weightless space. Newton works with mass, not gravity.
Newton was all about gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Gravity is a force. Force = mass x acceleration.

"Weightless space" doesn't really exist, but when we talk about weightlessness, we mean that in some relative environment like a space capsule, everything has little mass (compared to things like earth), and therefore within that environment we don't have a sense of gravity.
 
Newton's three laws of motion may be stated as follows:
  1. Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
  2. Force equals mass times acceleration [
    img2633.png
    ].
  3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Show me which of those involves only gravity.
So, Newton's apple falls to the ground, hits the Earth, and at a radial point, opposite to the strike site, an apple on the ground leaps skyward.... Though not enough to reach the tree from which it fell.

You take this all so seriously... 'tis not the knowledge that keeps you airborne.

If the weather's cooperative near you, go fly! With the window open, or the canopy open...

ENJOY FLYING!
 
The stuff in front is the spring scale which was not in front when measuring. Maybe the board needs to be extended but I sort of doubt it since I am not looking for 1% accuracy which those nosebooms are probably looking for. When I repostioned the venturi with a long parallelogram mounting things did not change even though it was then below the board. Also a venturi on the side of a fuselage is going to have lots and lots of stuff in front.
The big nose of a truck at relatively low speeds is not the same the side of an airplane.

As for the physics, like this whole thread, everyone wants to understand these things in simple terms (aka not a college degree), but they are not that simple. To do the math on the venturi, you need to draw a control volume (a tube esentially so you only have to worry about the ends). Then calculate the mass flux (mass x velocity) coming into and out of the volume. The mass will be the same, but there is a change in velocity. You also need to calculate pressure and area at each end. That takes care of the forces from the airflow. Now you need to figure out the parasitic drag (what you are thinking should be relative to the square of velocity).

There probably are some reference tables out there where someone has figured all of that out for these venturi's.

PS for the rest of this threads discussion: Navier-Stokes . . . go!
 
Whereas it might be fun and impressive to know all these formulas and theories on how lift is created, how much of this is actually necessary to safely and efficiently piloting an aircraft? As CFIs (and subsequently DPEs), which knowledge is most important to pass on to a Private Pilot applicant? Knowing all of the theories and formulas behind lift or having a firm grasp on AoA, the situations that can cause them to exceed critical AoA, how to prevent exceeding critical AoA, and what to do when they do exceed critical AoA?

o_O
 
None. Obviously.
If you had to have even a hint of a clue, 90% of the current pilots/ instructors would be skrewt.

But, that's no excuse for telling fairy tales.

Exactly. So where to draw the line with new pilots? Tow the FAA line and pass it off to mostly magic so they can pass their exams? Delve deeper into the physics to the point their eyes glaze over? In my opinion (for whatever that is worth), until the FAA changes at its core the entire school of thought with regard to lift, we do the applicant a disservice to try to teach them more about lift than what is necessary to pass the exams. By sticking to the basics and continuing to emphasize proper management of AoA, we will go a lot further in making safe and efficient pilots. For those applicants more inclined to diving deeper into the physics, we should at least be able to provide them with references necessary to satisfy their curiosity, but to make it part of an active curriculum is just a waste of time.
 
Tow the FAA line and pass it off to mostly magic so they can pass their exams? Delve deeper into the physics to the point their eyes glaze over?
Well, problem 1. If the FAA insists that students learn lies, then an instructor has to tell them lies. But, giving an explanation that is based on the actual, real life, laws of physics just isn't that complicated. Probably less complicated than the web of nonsense that is put out there now...

18 minutes of pure unadulterated crap (I couldn't watch it all, just had to skip through to make sure that, at no point, did this guy actually say anything correct)
 
(Re: Aeronca Sedan 15 AC on floats) I always said it was more noise under the wing than on top.....o_O
 
I absolutely love the video you shared. I actually watched it last summer and although the math is simplified it's probably still a bit too complex for most pilots to be willing to watch and attempt to understand in its entirety. But that's okay, because understanding the math is not critical here. In a perfect world, the professor would make a 3 minute summary of just the concepts involved.
Thank you for the suggestion.
But, remember, be careful what you wish for. :)
 
Thank you for the suggestion.
But, remember, be careful what you wish for. :)

I did not realize we were in the presence of the professor himself! Good stuff, and thank you for making the videos. I first saw your "Cage Match" video about six months ago.

There are some really good takeaways. If you boiled it down to a three minute discussion it would be quite valuable in my opinion, so thanks for considering it. And while understanding the math "proves" your points, it's not necessary for the purpose of explaining what's actually happening for the purpose of applying the knowledge to actual flying.
 
And Yet Snoopy and his non cambered dog House Fly .
got to be Thrust involved. ;)
 
18 minutes of pure unadulterated crap (I couldn't watch it all, just had to skip through to make sure that, at no point, did this guy actually say anything correct)
I counted two correct statements.
1) The ping-pong balls were indeed deflected downward.
2) Bernoulli was a swiss mathematician.

And it's hard to tell on this screen, but he may have gotten the marker colors correct.
 
I counted two correct statements.
1) The ping-pong balls were indeed deflected downward.
2) Bernoulli was a swiss mathematician.

And it's hard to tell on this screen, but he may have gotten the marker colors correct.
I’ll argue with number one. He drew the deflection of the ping pong balls as straight down and the resulting counter force as straight up which is incorrect.
 
Capt. Thorpe, don't be so harsh. The FAA is not telling lies. Incorrect info is only a lie if you KNOW it is incorrect and claim it to be true.

A lot of misinformation in government publications is there simply because of bureaucratic inertia. It takes too many people too long to make corrections, so they don't get done and the misinformation persists and gets forwarded endlessly. Here in Canada, in our aviation regulations, we have references to other regulations that don't exist anymore and haven't for a long time. And there it sits, while the bureaucrats issue quarterly updates that are often little more than typographical corrections.

Besides, we know the government would never lie to us, right?
 
I think I understand the theory of “space-time” better than I do “lift”.
 
For the life of me I'll never understand why people want to make this harder than it is. If you flew a kite when you were a kid, you understand lift. If you stuck your hand out the car window and "flew" your hand up and down you understand lift.
 
For the life of me I'll never understand why people want to make this harder than it is. If you flew a kite when you were a kid, you understand lift. If you stuck your hand out the car window and "flew" your hand up and down you understand lift.

Yes, and if we hit the brakes in the car it slows down. Twisting the wheel turns it. But if we want to be able to drive safely on ice, we need to know somewhat more than that or we'll soon enough kill ourselves. We already have a large percentage of the pilot population that doesn't even have a working understanding of angle of attack and how airspeed and load factor figure into it. They think that as long as they're flying above the published stall speed they're fine, and so they yank and bank at low altitude and an accelerated stall kills them.

Flying your hand out the car window does not make that clear at all, yet that experience is about the sum total of knowledge about lift for far too many.
 
Yes, and if we hit the brakes in the car it slows down. Twisting the wheel turns it. But if we want to be able to drive safely on ice, we need to know somewhat more than that or we'll soon enough kill ourselves. We already have a large percentage of the pilot population that doesn't even have a working understanding of angle of attack and how airspeed and load factor figure into it. They think that as long as they're flying above the published stall speed they're fine, and so they yank and bank at low altitude and an accelerated stall kills them.

Flying your hand out the car window does not make that clear at all, yet that experience is about the sum total of knowledge about lift for far too many.
That's true, but I'd argue that having to listen to a ground school instructor going on about Bernoulli and wing camber doesn't get student pilots any closer to flying safely.
 
That's true, but I'd argue that having to listen to a ground school instructor going on about Bernoulli and wing camber doesn't get student pilots any closer to flying safely.
ya but....drawing flat plates and explaining that theory is even less exciting. :D
 
So, somebody help me out here. We're referencing a blackboard (or white board) in only two dimensions. Two incredibly skinny molecules of air are peacefully minding their own business, edge to edge, when WHAM!, a big ol' airfoil slices right between them and disappears as fast as it suddenly arrived. Now, nature abhors a vacuum, so if the upper molecule went up, back and down faster than the lower one, as everybody seems to agree, then the lower molecule must get a new next door neighbor from somewhere. I'm thinking that "somewhere" is from a supply of molecules above rushing in to fill the void. Isn't that Bernoulli's principle at work as the airfoil rises into the same void from below?

On second thought, don't help me out. I haven't read all the posts and somebody probably already explained why it isn't, supposedly. A picture might be worth a thousand words:
 
On second thought, don't help me out. I haven't read all the posts and somebody probably already explained why it isn't, supposedly. A picture might be worth a thousand words:
That has nothing to do with Bernoulli's equation - the demonstration violates all of the assumptions that make the equation valid - and next to nothing to do with how lift is generated.
 
That has nothing to do with Bernoulli's equation - the demonstration violates all of the assumptions that make the equation valid - and next to nothing to do with how lift is generated.
I see an airstream rushing by a hard surface, lowering the static pressure (as per Bernoulli) compared to the air pressure above the surface, thus "lifting" it downward toward the source. Why shouldn't I believe my lyin' eyes? :dunno:
 
I see an airstream rushing by a hard surface, lowering the static pressure (as per Bernoulli) compared to the air pressure above the surface, thus "lifting" it downward toward the source. Why shouldn't I believe my lyin' eyes? :dunno:
Bernoulli's equation is all about conservation of energy along a streamline in an ideal fluid (no viscosity, constant density). It says nothing about the pressures on opposite sides of an object from two totally unrelated airflow sources (the vacuum cleaner and ambient air).

Pressure + 1/2*Density*Velocity^2 = constant (total pressure) along a streamline

What you are seeing is a demonstration that air does, in fact, have some viscosity and a jet of air will tend to entrain any ambient air in the vicinity and thus, a jet of air will tend to flow along a surface. This is one of the "things" that contribute to lift - the airflow over an airfoil tends to "stick" to both surfaces. So, the demonstration is only next to nothing and not absolutely nothing to do with how lift is generated. But, it has absolutely nothing to do with conservation of energy along a streamline - Bernoulli's principal.
 
So, the demonstration is only next to nothing and not absolutely nothing to do with how lift is generated. But, it has absolutely nothing to do with conservation of energy along a streamline - Bernoulli's principal.
Oh. Btw, it's "Bernoulli's principle". I did better in spelling than physics.
 
This is what pilots need to know about angle of attack, and as a bonus, it's actually both correct and useful:

http://www.av8n.com/how/htm/aoa.html

Now, granted, it's a bit of heavy reading. Langweische presented a much-simplified and more-accessible version of the same info in Stick and Rudder, and most of what he wrote still stands up more than 75 years later.
 
When I was a kid, I stuck my hand out of the car window. As my hand rushed through the air, my hand got pushed upward.

I'm good with that part. If I start to design airplanes, I'll go further.
 
Back
Top