Aircraft Lift Explained: Bernoulli vs. Newton's Equations | Fly with Magnar

preview_player
Показать описание
"Aircraft Lift Explained: Bernoulli vs. Newton's Equations | Fly with Magnar"

Explore the physics behind lift generation in aircraft with this in-depth analysis of Bernoulli's principle and Newton's third law of motion. This video clarifies misconceptions and explains how airflow dynamics and pressure differentials contribute to lift on a wing.

Explore More Videos from Fly with Magnar:
1. ATR 42-600 cockpit view
2. What Skills Are Required to Become a Captain?
2. Flying David Gilmour's Yak-52
3. How can an airplane fly upside down?
4.Engine failure at V1 - Stop or go?
5. How Do Airplanes Fly?
6. Aircraft Lift Explained: Bernoulli vs. Newton's Equations
7. Flying David Gilmour's Yak-52
8. American Eagle 4184: The Crash That Changed Aviation Safety
9. De Havilland Canada's Dash 8 Quirks & Features

Tags:
Lift generation
Bernoulli's principle
Newton's third law
Aerodynamics explained
Aviation physics
Fly with Magnar
Aircraft dynamics
Wing lift
Fluid dynamics
Aviation education
Flight mechanics
Aircraft principles
Aviation science
Airflow dynamics
Pressure differentials

Hashtags:
#liftgeneration #bernoullisprinciple #newtonsthirdlaw #aviationphysics #flywithmagnar #aerodynamicsexplained #aviationeducation #flightmechanics #aircrafttechnology #winglift #fluidmechanics

Additional Information:
This video delves into the fundamental principles of lift in aviation, debunking common misconceptions and explaining the intricate balance between Bernoulli's principle and Newton's laws. It serves as an educational resource for anyone interested in understanding the science behind flight and aircraft dynamics.
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

This was a great video! I studied engineering in school, so I knew a lot of aerodynamics before I learned to fly. One of the really frustrating part of flight school was getting past the half-truths being taught about how wings work. Eventually I figured out that I just had to learn what they were teaching so I could parrot it back on the tests and pass the checkrides. It was doubly frustrating when I was prepping for my CFI and had to teach this garbage 🙂

I'm also a sailor. As you noted, sails are just airfoils. But more than that, the underwater fins on a sailboat (the keel and rudder) are also generating lift, except that it's hydrodynamic lift. And while sails are asymmetric airfoils, the keel and rudder are (almost always) symmetric. It gets interesting. One of the fun things is that if you take a sailboat that's standing still, like when you just released it from the mooring, you need to get both the sails and the keel flying. The sails will generally get attached flow before the keel does, and the boat will mostly be moving sideways. You need to turn the boat to reduce the keel's angle of attack until it un-stalls and then you can begin to sail normally.

roysmith
Автор

Early in my CFI career I had an aerospace engineer as a student. I stopped charging him for ground school when it came to aerodynamics 😅. Thank you, Sven. If you see this, you were my favorite student/instructor!

BuzzMoves
Автор

Lift is generated by the fact that the Navier Stokes equations are so ugly the earth pushes them away in disgust.

GeneralSeptem
Автор

Funny as I remember sticking things out of the car window as a kid, I built a rough model of a 707 out of cereal boxes and similar to the flat wing was only creating “lift” with aoa however when sticking a model airfoil out the window no pitch was consciously added but I could still feel the lift being generated from the proper airfoil shape. Interesting side note, I was kicked out of science class for debating the Bernoulli principle with my science teacher, even used similar wind tunnel footage to back up my argument.

carlosspiceyweineify
Автор

Flat wings can create lift if enough air is directed downward. If curved correctly the wings will do that more efficiently and with less drag.

my_dear_friend_
Автор

Great video. I use to build foam planes for air to air combat, and since the whole purpose was to crash them, I'd just use a flat wing design. In order to get any sort of lift, we'd use higher RPM motors, and big batteries. They flew like bricks!

StroalOutdoors
Автор

flat wings do fly..
bernoullis principle is applied wrongly in this case

johnnyllooddte
Автор

Thank you for this informative and straightforward video Captain! I'm a Ground Instructor at a school in the Philippines researching ways to better teach my PPL students. This video cleared my misconceptions regarding lift and now I get to teach my students accurate information about it 😁

jamesnagtalon
Автор

Interesting. The importance of the curvature of the upper surface explains at lot, particularly why many WW2 fighters had wheel-wells extending almost a third along the wing-span, yet still, manged to get off the ground quite happily. Always wondered about that.

MikeBracewell
Автор

To make it simple for all: Airfoils are designed to reduce DRAG. LIFT is created only by deflection of air or fluid (Angle of Attack). By reducing DRAG of a surface even at high angles of attack, you increase efficiency and you can delay airflow separation. But the Lift is never created by airflow shape. This is why airplanes can even fly upside down without being sucked to ground.

Ozbird-
Автор

Hmmmm... Should I believe over 100 years of airfoil science or just go by my uneducated intuition and the effects I feel when I stick my hand out of the car window? I think I'll go with the immensely huge body of scientific knowledge that is readily available at my fingertips for review.

rectorsquid
Автор

My father was an aeronautical engineer and he always said "If you put a big enough engine on it, you can fly a barn door . . . broadside." Early in his career he did some work on airfoils for NACA [yes, that's with a C], but most of his career was designing gas turbine engines, so he may have been a bit biased.

CarlSchwent
Автор

The reason wings were made thick in the beginning was to accommodate a hefty spruce spar. Modern materials require less so. If you inspect modern airfoils, you will see thinner wings for less drag and more efficiency. A F18 would never fly if it depended on the Brenoulli effect for lift and would never exceed anywhere near a Mach 1 speed. Lift is dependent wholly on angle of attack and thrust. More thrust lower surface area equals more

ibrown
Автор

On a real airplane, yes it will be able to fly, you said it yourself, like the model airplane, you just need to massively overpower the real engine.
Will it be able to fly in a great controllable manner, without turbulence, without risk of accident? Will it be efficient?
I believe these are different questions, right?

Pierobon
Автор

18:30 I'll add this to my mental list of examples how scaling (up or down something) can fail.

The deeper reason for many purely mechanical and mostly static examples is that some things scale linear, others squared (like tensile strength) and others again cubed (like weight caused by mass).

Therefore if you build an exakt replica of a bridge scaled down 1:10 and film it while putting more and more weight on it until it collapses you'll never get the same result like in reality. For the same reason you can't simply scale up a bridge by a factor of 2 and assume it now supports the double weight of traffic.

Now, you say very small, light model airplanes actually CAN fly with flat wings but your next sentence is a larger plane can't and to me it sounds like you state a principle: _"No matter how strong an engine you put at it, it simply CAN'T."_

No I wonder - like I explained for the bridge - what is the deeper reason for this. My intuition tells me it's another application of the squared scaling of forces (when some material we practically have available breaks or in case of a wing how big it's surface is which produces force) vs. the cubed scaling of its weight.

Is this right, or at least approximately right?

mittelwelle__khz
Автор

with enough horsepower, anything will fly.. ;) Aim your flat wing slightly downward.. put a lot of horsepower behind it.. and the plane will fly. planes fly by throwing more mass of air down than their weight. But yes, a flat wing is a terrible airfoil.

jonathanpullen
Автор

I think you are too dismissive of the flat plate wing and the model aeroplane with a flat wing.
If the model flies (and I have seen them do so) you cannot simply dismiss it and must explain how. Better to say that an aircraft with a flat wing and sufficient power to weight ratio will fly by reason of Newton's third law.
Of course a flat plate wing will stall at a shallower angle than that with a standard aerofoil but in discussing this, you consider a flat plate with a blunt leading edge. I would suggest that a rounded leading edge on a flat plate will delay the stall.
There is not likely to be practical use for a flat plate wing on full size aircraft (though flat plate tailplanes are common) but there's good reason to understand the science and ask how they fly.

nickbarsby
Автор

Do you think a paper plane can't fly? It would be capable of sustained flight with it's own means of propulsion and basic ailerons and rudder.

sjg
Автор

I've had a number of aeroplanes that fly perfectly with flat wings but they're all very light small models made from Depron or other foam sheeting. Their main advantages are simplicity, low cost and, of course, fun :)

A very interesting video that explains a lot. Certainly different aerofoils are suited to different applications - I like thick aerofoils in my models because low speed manoeuvrability is what I seek.

belperflyer
Автор

Fabulous video. This 20-minute video puts 3 years of undergraduate Aerodynamics studying Aeronautical Engineering to shame. I remember the headaches I had trying to understand this stuff and unlearn the misguided falsehoods that had previously been taught. I have to say though that I shuddered at the Navier Stokes Equations, still. LOL.
And when sticking flat plates out of car windows it's easy to confuse perceived lift for the drag you are actually inducing as you increase the angle of incidence. Thank you Magnar.

HammerFall