explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:803: Airfoil

2022-09-30T03:09:55Z

AerospaceDoctor: Replying to a comment.

This has been dubbed "the equal transit-time fallacy." [[User:Wbeaty|((((((_(_(__(___billb(a)amasci.com___)__)_)_))))))]] ([[User talk:Wbeaty|talk]]) 07:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
:For more information have a look at my paper here-https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00690 [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 03:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Since gases are unique in the way they convert pressure change to heat or cold, none of the above can be true. The schema shows more columns of air under the wing than pass above. How come?
We know that an actual wing pulls air down from the layers above rather than bludgeon the air in front of it.

What happens is that vortices are engendered. Wing design is all about getting them past the control sections (the major problem to aircraft design in the 1940's.)

[[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a convention in fluid dynamics that the flow always comes from the left. Nobody working in this field would ever draw a picture with the flow coming from the right side. So this is a hint by its own that the image may be wrong.

Regarding the last comment: The image is from wikipedia. The original comment tells us that the wing influences the flow even at a great distance. The flow at the top is still a lot faster than below the wing.

[[Special:Contributions/108.162.231.68|108.162.231.68]] 21:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

My high school math teacher said there were three ways for a teacher to say "I don't know" -- "I don't know", "It's beyond the scope of the course", and "You wouldn't understand it if I told you." So, whenever we asked a question like the one in the comic, he'd say "It's beyond the scope of the course, and you wouldn't understand it if I told you anyway! Dumb kids!" We loved that guy. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.181|172.68.189.181]] 17:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This airfoil problem is a 2D problem and the classical Bernoulli's equation is a 1D equation. If you use velocity vector(speed and direction) instead speed the equation works.

Talk:2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T02:59:59Z

AerospaceDoctor: responded to comment

Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.57|162.158.146.57]] 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:For more information have a look at my paper here-https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.00690 [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text [[User:InfoManiac|InfoManiac]] ([[User talk:InfoManiac|talk]]) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.160|172.68.51.160]] 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
:I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.26|172.70.86.26]] 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.237|172.70.38.237]] 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.20|172.69.68.20]] 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone help fix my reference. It said citation needed, so I went to the first great source, which is Prandtl. However, even though I followed the wikipedia way for making a reference, it has not produced a helpful link at the bottom. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T02:54:46Z

AerospaceDoctor: /* Explanation */ Added a link to second reason

{{comic
| number = 2678
| date = September 28, 2022
| title = Wing Lift
| image = wing_lift_2x.png
| imagesize = 679x358px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Once the air from the top passes below the plane of the wing and catches sight of the spooky skulls, it panics, which is the cause of turbulent vortices.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPOOKED OUT BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Wings can produce {{w|Lift (force)|lift}}.<ref name="Prandtl & Tietjens (1952)">{{cite book |last1=Prandtl |first1=L |last2=Tietjens |first2=O K G |author-link1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl |date=1952 |title=Fundamentals of Hydro- and Aeromechanics |publisher= Dover |isbn=9780486603742}}</ref>

Randall previously dealt with explanations of wing lift in [[803: Airfoil]].

There are three erroneous reasons why airplane wings produce lift:
* {{w|Bernoulli's principle}} (which is the most frequently cited)
* The airplane wing is angled up at the front so that air hits the bottom and is pushed downwards (The ski effect or {{w|Newton's sine-square law of air resistance}}).
* {{w|Coandă effect}} (The top is curved, so air going over the wing must curve downwards in order to avoid creating a vacuum above the back of the wing, and by Newton's third law, this results in an upwards force on the wing.)
The comic references all three of these reasons. Airflow splitting references Bernoulli's principle, while the air at the bottom being scared and fleeing downwards is similar to the actual effect, which is caused by air hitting the angled bottom of the wing. The air going over the top curving down references the Coandă effect, claiming that this effect is instead caused by the top-flow of air itself noticing the bottom side of the wing going down to investigate why the bottom-flow had fled. The mention of Newton's third law is indeed correct, even if the movement of the air is for the wrong reasons. In the title text, it additionally suggests that the top-flow henceforth glimpses the printed skulls, causing it to also chaotically flee, generating a wing's classic turbulant wake.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[Caption at the top of the panel:] How a wing produces lift

[A diagram of the cross-section of a plane wing. It is large and rounded on the left end and flat on the bottom while the top curves down to meet it at a sharp point. There are many small arrows indicating the flow of wind, as well as captions.]

[The arrows come from the left of the panel, point towards the wing, and then half begin to go over and half begin to go under. A caption in the middle of this flow reads:] Airflow splits around the top and bottom of the wing

[A circle underneath the diagram is connected to an arrow which points to the underside of the wing. A repeating pattern of small black (simplified) skulls fills the circle and arrow. The caption to the right of this is:] Spooky skulls microprinted on the bottom of the wing frighten the air, which flees away downward

[The arrows begin to curve downwards after this caption, and are joined by the top arrows which have also begun to curve downward. In these arrows is a caption:] Top air goes to see what's wrong

[Both streams of arrows have joined and are pointing to the bottom right of the panel. In front of them is a caption:] By Newton's third law, downward deflection of air pushes wing upward

{{comic discussion}}

[[category:Engineering]]
[[category:Physics]]
[[category:Aviation]]

Talk:2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T02:47:04Z

AerospaceDoctor: Asking for help with reference.

Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.57|162.158.146.57]] 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text [[User:InfoManiac|InfoManiac]] ([[User talk:InfoManiac|talk]]) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.160|172.68.51.160]] 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
:I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.26|172.70.86.26]] 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.237|172.70.38.237]] 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.20|172.69.68.20]] 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone help fix my reference. It said citation needed, so I went to the first great source, which is Prandtl. However, even though I followed the wikipedia way for making a reference, it has not produced a helpful link at the bottom. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 02:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T02:45:30Z

AerospaceDoctor: Undo revision 295681 by AerospaceDoctor (talk) Wrong by line.

Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.57|162.158.146.57]] 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text [[User:InfoManiac|InfoManiac]] ([[User talk:InfoManiac|talk]]) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.160|172.68.51.160]] 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply.

Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
:I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.26|172.70.86.26]] 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.237|172.70.38.237]] 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.20|172.69.68.20]] 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T02:40:42Z

AerospaceDoctor:

Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.57|162.158.146.57]] 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text [[User:InfoManiac|InfoManiac]] ([[User talk:InfoManiac|talk]]) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.160|172.68.51.160]] 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply. [[User:AerospaceDoctor|AerospaceDoctor]] ([[User talk:AerospaceDoctor|talk]]) 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
:I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. [[Special:Contributions/AerospaceDoctor|172.70.86.26]] 02:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.237|172.70.38.237]] 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.20|172.69.68.20]] 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T02:36:34Z

AerospaceDoctor: /* Explanation */ These are erroneous explanation, they are not at all based in aerodynamic reality.

{{comic
| number = 2678
| date = September 28, 2022
| title = Wing Lift
| image = wing_lift_2x.png
| imagesize = 679x358px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Once the air from the top passes below the plane of the wing and catches sight of the spooky skulls, it panics, which is the cause of turbulent vortices.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SPOOKED OUT BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

Wings can produce {{w|Lift (force)|lift}}.<ref name="Prandtl & Tietjens (1952)">{{cite book |last1=Prandtl |first1=L |last2=Tietjens |first2=O K G |author-link1=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Prandtl |date=1952 |title=Fundamentals of Hydro- and Aeromechanics |publisher= Dover |isbn=9780486603742}}</ref>

Randall previously dealt with explanations of wing lift in [[803: Airfoil]].

There are three erroneous reasons why airplane wings produce lift:
* {{w|Bernoulli's principle}} (which is the most frequently cited)
* The airplane wing is angled up at the front so that air hits the bottom and is pushed downwards.
* {{w|Coandă effect}} (The top is curved, so air going over the wing must curve downwards in order to avoid creating a vacuum above the back of the wing, and by Newton's third law, this results in an upwards force on the wing.)
The comic references all three of these reasons. Airflow splitting references Bernoulli's principle, while the air at the bottom being scared and fleeing downwards is similar to the actual effect, which is caused by air hitting the angled bottom of the wing. The air going over the top curving down references the Coandă effect, claiming that this effect is instead caused by the top-flow of air itself noticing the bottom side of the wing going down to investigate why the bottom-flow had fled. The mention of Newton's third law is indeed correct, even if the movement of the air is for the wrong reasons. In the title text, it additionally suggests that the top-flow henceforth glimpses the printed skulls, causing it to also chaotically flee, generating a wing's classic turbulant wake.

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}

[Caption at the top of the panel:] How a wing produces lift

[A diagram of the cross-section of a plane wing. It is large and rounded on the left end and flat on the bottom while the top curves down to meet it at a sharp point. There are many small arrows indicating the flow of wind, as well as captions.]

[The arrows come from the left of the panel, point towards the wing, and then half begin to go over and half begin to go under. A caption in the middle of this flow reads:] Airflow splits around the top and bottom of the wing

[A circle underneath the diagram is connected to an arrow which points to the underside of the wing. A repeating pattern of small black (simplified) skulls fills the circle and arrow. The caption to the right of this is:] Spooky skulls microprinted on the bottom of the wing frighten the air, which flees away downward

[The arrows begin to curve downwards after this caption, and are joined by the top arrows which have also begun to curve downward. In these arrows is a caption:] Top air goes to see what's wrong

[Both streams of arrows have joined and are pointing to the bottom right of the panel. In front of them is a caption:] By Newton's third law, downward deflection of air pushes wing upward

{{comic discussion}}

[[category:Engineering]]
[[category:Physics]]
[[category:Aviation]]

Talk:2678: Wing Lift

2022-09-30T02:34:49Z

AerospaceDoctor:

Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.146.57|162.158.146.57]] 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text [[User:InfoManiac|InfoManiac]] ([[User talk:InfoManiac|talk]]) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.160|172.68.51.160]] 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
: Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is [http://www.av8n.com/how/ See How It Flies]. [[User:B jonas|B jonas]] ([[User talk:B jonas|talk]]) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
:It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
::Lift is not complicate if you look at Prandtl’s original work, and Doug Mclean has done a good job editing the actual Wikipedia article. If you consider the entire atmosphere the asymmetric flow around an asymmetric body in a fluid results in an asymmetric pressure distribution, which is equal and opposite the pressure on the ground. That is, a wing produces a pressure difference that is transmitted in steady state to the earths surface which ultimately supports the aircraft as a reaction force. The asymmetry in the flow is the result of fluid mechanics and can be determined from Navier Stokes, which is Newtons laws of motion applied to a fluid, with viscosity. People get lost because they want to invoke momentum transfer, which is not needed in the global view. To see where the momentum transfer is occurring, you can only utilise think slices of the atmosphere as the control volume, hence the reason it is confusing. This is compounded by people seeing trailing vortices and stating that those must be the mechanism for the momentum transfer, and they are not. This was all established over 100 years ago. That Scientific American article is click bate, and I immediately asked the editor if I could write a response to it, and I got no reply.

Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
:I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.26|172.70.86.26]] 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.237|172.70.38.237]] 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.20|172.69.68.20]] 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
: If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.187|172.71.178.187]] 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)