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.
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:
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.
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.
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
After answering this question on History.SE, I started to wonder if it would be possible to find out even more detail about the plane now that its serial number is known. I have no idea what kind of flight records the US Army Air Corps kept, however. I know most flight logs today are kept by pilot, but I imagine there would be some way to trace what pilots flew a particular plane. I have no idea if this is possible for USAAC trainer planes in the 1930s. Could I get access to these records? If so, how would I go about it? I'm mostly interested in seeing if I can find out more information
I thought the shape of the wing gave an airplane upward lift. How can it fly if it's upside down?
Is it possible to rent a float plane with a private pilot's license? Flying floats is one of the main attractions for me to learn to fly. However, after some searching on the internet I can only find wheeled aircraft that are available for rent in my area. Am I missing something? Are there flying clubs or partnerships that have float planes available? I would love to fly floats but owning a seaplane is not in the cards for me at this point in my life.
These are calculations which I use to know when to descend and the Rate: Multiply the ALT of feet to lose by 3 and $Groundspeed\div2\times10$ will give you your required rate of descent for a 3° glide slope. For example: FL350 to FL100 => 25,000 ft down $25\times3=75$, so start at 75 nm GS = 320 kts => $320\div2\times10=1,600$ => -1,600 fpm is your desired rate of descent. How do I calculate without using tangents for degrees, other than 3: 2,5; 4; 5 ...? In my last question I got it wrong, even though through math the answer was correct.
Why has someone not designed a landing wheel with a fin or fins on it so that the air will start the wheels turning before the wheels touch the ground? Wouldn't that preserve the tires longer from wear? Or would it make the control of the aircraft more dangerous in some circumstances, such as rain or snow, to have the wheels already turning when landing? If so, perhaps the fins could be manually or computer controlled for various weather conditions.
Chemtrail conspiracy theorists believe that there are certain additives being put into jet fuel to spew out [nano-]particles that rain down on us, for means that are being kept secret. The hypothesized reasons behind 'chemtrailing' range anywhere from weather modification, population reduction, and sunlight blocking to reduce the earths temperature hence combatting global warming. Some popular... spores Yellow fungal mycotoxins Ethylene dibromide Polymer fibers My question is, wouldn't these additives, chemicals, etc, cause adverse reactions inside the jet engines, if the turbine
information available. For example, from the ping circles separated by one hour, we can get plausible directions the plane may have taken. Why isn't anyone pursuing this line of analysis... if the plane most likely went along the S or the N arc we see in reports. Unfortunately, only the last ping (at 8:11AM) is available publicly. Here is the basic idea on extracting the information: A Malaysian military satellite gave the last geographic fix of ML370 at 2:15AM. A circle can be drawn with this point as the center and distance traveled at maximum speed as diameter, confining the plane's
in the water, the radar could pick it up. They [flight recorders] typically have a radio beacon and so for example our P3 [radar] - if they are flying within a certain range of that - will pick up that radio beacon. We have not yet picked up anything, but that's typically what those black boxes contain." I was under the (potentially incorrect) impression that flight recorders, by nature...? If so, why? I know that flight recorders are equipped with underwater locator beacons. Are they also equipped with radio beacons (either an active transmitter or a some passive device like a corner
Can someone explain why the aircraft would fly in an arc using the satellite as a reference point? Have I missed something?