How do wings generate lift?

I suspected I might of made this mistake after I typed that response since the direction of the wing could in fact make the air go in a nonsymmetrical way

You can either look at it as air pressure or as diverting air downards. They'll give the same result

This is bullshit pseudoscience that elementary school teachers learn to memorize for when their students ask this.
Once the air hits the stagnation point on the airfoil it splits into two different streamlines that DO NOT have the same energy and thus cannot be equated.

A real answer is circulation and deflection. That is, for one air circulates around the airfoil to cause the necessary pressure gradient and also the wing will have an angle of attack (meaning it's pointed slightly upward, about 1-15 degrees) and this deflects air downward, pushing the wing upward.

That's a really nice document, thanks for posting.

>That is, for one air circulates around the airfoil to cause the necessary pressure gradient

Do you know what Bernoulli's principle is?

Why would the different streamlines not have the same energy? That's very interesting

Airplanes are able to fly because of the angle of attack on the wings.
is correct to a large extent. What he's describing is the magnus effect:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_effect
>might of
You don't belong on this board.

Regarding my question with the streamlines: I guess at the point of contact they would have the same energy because up isn't different from downwards at that point, but due to outside air pressure and force from the wing the bottom air and top air would have different velocities i.e. energy. But that doesn't seem like it explains anything profound to me.

Yes. Do you know what a streamline is? Bernoulli's principle only applies to states along a single streamline.

Once the streamline separates the two new streamlines are subject to different phenomena that can alter their energies (pressure, elevation, geometry of the airfoil.) These phenomena won't necessarily affect the streamlines similarly.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coandă_effect

Something something turbulence something negative pressure something Reynolds something

It's dark fluids magic.

moving up and down really quickly

Momentum principles. Pushing/deflecting airmass one way will produce a reaction force the other way. The rest (Bernoulli, pressure distribution etc.) are just details.

magnets

it seems obvious to me that they just collide with the air in a way that forces the air under the wing

because of Kutta-Joukowski

Thanks for the pdf, finally cleared up this question.

That article manages to go full retard in the introduction already

Heavier than air flight is fake

youtube.com/watch?v=QKCK4lJLQHU

This video explains everything. EVERYTHING.

The Bernoulli argument crumbles once you consider it for 5 seconds.

This is clearly wrong because stunt planes and military jets can fly inverted.

They push air downwards, generating lift

It isn't bullshit, in stable flight, the air always goes faster over the upper part of the wing (relative to the ground). You can use Bernouli's principle to explain the lift.

>the wing will have an angle of attack (meaning it's pointed slightly upward, about 1-15 degrees)
Wrong, this only applies for symmetrical airfoils. The angle of attack (=angle between moving air and chord line) doesn't need to be positive. Most wings generate lift at negative angles of attack.

I STILL DON'T FUCKING GET IT
>WHY
DOES MOVING AIR HAVE LOWER PRESSURE REEEEE
Why was I born a brainlet.

only one of these statements are true

Not the guy you're replying to, but stunt planes have a more symmetrical wing profile, and rely on angle of attack to generate when upside down - that is, the nose is tilted upwards relative to the direction of movement.

Of course, if you tilt up too far, you get flow separation on the trailing edge of the airfoil, which leads to your stall condition.

Yeah I thought both the angle of attack and the shape created lift. The shape is not necessary but it's useful, like having the edges of the wing pointing upward.

conservation of energy senpai, or in this case the Bernoulli principle

The math makes sense, but I don't get why particles moving over a flat surface will generate less pressure than if they were still.

There is a drop in pressure on a cambered airfoil however it is not enough to provide all of the lift that is required for flight. For a small aircraft such as a Cessna 172 to fly just using just the Bernouli principle it would need to be moving at around 400 knots (~200 m/s). The wings fall off once you reach 200 knots.

Think of it this way:
>You have a big-ass water tank with a spigot at the bottom
>At the top edge of the tank there's also a spillway and chute to prevent the tank from being overfilled
>Water inside the tank has almost zero kinetic energy and movement, but high gravitational energy at the top of the tank and high pressure energy at the bottom
>As water flows over the spillway and down the chute, it trades gravitational energy for kinetic energy
>As water flows through the spigot, it trades pressure energy for kinetic energy
That's basically Bernoulli in a nutshell. Hopefully simple and intuitive enough for even brainlets to understand.

this. one of the first things taught about airfoils is that the pressure gradient due to bernouli principle is not enough to generate the lift needed for flight.

>a flat surface
It's when they move over a curved surface. The way i see it that the upper part forms a converging stream tube hence the flow accelerates and the pressure goes down, see pic.
This explains pretty much almost every pressure- and velocity distribution over any airfoil.

that's interesting. I never thought of pressure as potential energy. Very insightful user

Well in this case sure, but I was told if you blow air on top of a flat surface, it will be pulled upward, as long as the air under isn't going as fast. Sounds like bullshit.

That is in fact exactly what happens.

Go put a (clear) drinking straw in some water and blow over the top and watch the level rise in the straw.

Ok but I was talking about >it's when they move over a curve surface
But then you're saying it's also true over flat surfaces.
You might not be the same guy but my comment is applicable regardless.