Where all my smart homies at!?? In a mass state of confusion at the moment! The argument between Newtons third law, (to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) and the Bernoulli equation (P+1/2pV2=constant) or more simply (increase in velocity of non compressible fluid or compressible gas = decrease in potential energy or pressure) has been an ongoing thing for decades. I see their points. Using the Bernoulli theory to describe air particles surrounding an airfoil, with its asymmetrical teardrop shape, the surface area of the top of the wing is greater than the underside, so in order for the airflow to meet up at the trailing edge, the air over the top needs to travel faster generating a lower pressure. The pressure on the underside has a higher pressure. This all makes sense for a wing in straight flight without putting into perspective, the angle of attack (angle of a wing in flight). Thats where Newtons third law comes in. If the angle of the wing is pitched upwards, the relative airflow deflects off the undersurface of the wing pushing the wing upwards. But by putting the 2 together into one theory is arguably correct. And this is apparent with the lift equation (L=(1/2)dv2sCL). V. Being the velocity of airflow. S. Being the surface area of the wing. CL. being the coefficient of lift. The coefficient being the angle of attack. It makes sense that both are right. Now to my confusion after reading a report from a university in London, and furthermore, an online lecture from NASA. To put it simply, if lift opposes weight, and the wing has a higher pressure on its underside, then if the aircraft is in inverted flight, then if those theories were correct, the higher pressure would be pushing towards the earth and not opposing gravity. This is really giving me a headache!

Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 09:45:38 +0000

## Trending Topics

## Recently Viewed Topics

© 2015