Editing 803: Airfoil

In the first panel a cross sectional drawing of a plane wing with the air moving around the wing showing a common teaching that an {{w|airfoil}} works because the air on top of the wing must travel faster to "keep up" with the air flowing across the bottom of the wing. The theory goes that, because the air on top of the wing is traveling faster, it must, as a result of {{w|Bernoulli's Principle}}, create an area of lower pressure above the wing; this causes {{w|lift (force)|lift}} (that is, the wing rises) because the higher pressure below the wing (symbolized by thick "up" arrow) pushes it up more than the low pressure above the wing. This is what the teacher [[Miss Lenhart]] is teaching as is revealed in the next panel.

As it turns out, this is, to put it mildly, a vast oversimplification of how lift is truly created. Because then a student asks a particularly insightful question: Why, if the theory is true, can planes fly upside down? (If the simple airfoil theory is all that permits planes to stay up in the air, then flying upside down should reverse the pressures — pushing the plane down and causing it to crash.) Miss Lenhart thinks about it and clearly has no answer.

The final set of panels posit three potential responses from Miss Lenhart, upon realizing her theory has been disproved:

In the '''right''' one, Miss Lenhart realizes that perhaps the model she's been using to explain how an airfoil works is wrong (or, at a minimum, too simple). She is curious about it and suggests that this is an area for further exploration, and encourages additional study — in effect, rewarding the student for their insight. It seems that Miss Lenhart has taken the right course as it is shown later in [[843: Misconceptions]] that she wished her students to generally avoid any {{w|List of common misconceptions|common misconceptions}}. The title text also mentions that this is a common misconception and it is (currently) the first mentioned on {{w|List_of_common_misconceptions#Physics|list of common physics misconceptions}} on Wikipedia.

 

 

 

The strip is correct in noting that lift is a far more complicated process than the simple theory posited by Miss Lenhart. While the role of Bernoulli's Principle (that is, the difference in pressures) cannot be entirely discounted, the theory here is vastly too simple. As an initial matter, as suggested by the title text, there is no reason that the air on top of the wing should be compelled to "keep up" with the air on the bottom of the wing. Indeed, as demonstrated by the illustration below, in the time that the air below the wing travels across, the air on top of the wing has not only traveled the length of the entire top of the wing (a distance that may be farther than the distance under the wing, due to its shape), but often additional distance.

Lift may be more usefully described as resulting from the deflection of air, although this explanation still does not explain how symmetrical wings will work (at least, absent effects caused by a change in the "angle of attack") nor how a plane may fly upside down. The Wikipedia article on {{w|lift (force)|lift}} provides a more detailed explanation. It in fact gives an explanation as to these two issues. It explains that with zero angle of attack, a symmetrical wing will not generate lift (though it is possible that other factors may generate other slight upward force, such as updrafts, the shape of the plane, and the angle of the engine relative to the wings). It also explains that an asymmetrical (or "cambered") wing may adjust angle of attack to compensate and still generate lift.

Finally, to answer the question in the second panel in a general sense: most planes ''can't'' fly upside down for an extended period of time. While many aerobatic aircraft can sustain inverted flight with negative g forces, some others can achieve an inverted attitude only momentarily, and are experiencing positive g forces. Usually the reason for this is not the wings, which function perfectly fine upside down (albeit sometimes at lower efficiency), but the engines, which may not get fuel or oil under such conditions. It has to also be noted that if angle of attack were ignored, movable control surfaces would be useless. Almost any airplane can do a {{w|barrel roll}} or {{w|Aileron roll}}, given sufficient altitude (a {{w|Boeing 707#Model 367-80 origins|Boeing 707}} prototype [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk once did this], and so did the Concorde in a demonstration).

:Miss Lenhart: So, kids, the air above the wing travels a longer distance, so it has to go faster to keep up. Faster air exerts less pressure, so the wing is lifted upward.

:Student (off-panel): But then why can planes fly upside down?

:[Miss Lenhart is pondering the question. Beat panel. Three long and curved arrows point out from the right frame of this panel, leading to each of the next three panels which are arranged vertically above each other, making the comic much deeper in this column than in the first two.]

:[In the top panel Miss Lenhart turns away from the students taking a hand to her chin. Overlaid on the top of the panel there is a small frame with a caption:]

:Right:

:Miss Lenhart: Wow, good question! Maybe this picture is simplified—or wrong! We should learn more.

:Miss Lenhart: It's... complicated.

:Miss Lenhart: And we need to move on.

:Miss Lenhart: Santa Claus is your parents.