Why does air travel faster over a wing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kidsmoker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Airplane Lift
AI Thread Summary
Air travels faster over a wing than underneath due to the wing's design, which creates a downward force on the air, resulting in an upward lift according to Newton's third law. The traditional explanation of equal transit time for air molecules is incorrect; instead, the air above the wing is displaced further back than the air below. This displacement is primarily due to the wing's forward speed and effective angle of attack, which deflects air downwards. The increase in kinetic energy of the air is balanced by a decrease in pressure energy, resembling a Bernoulli effect, though wings are not 100% efficient. Understanding these principles clarifies the mechanics of lift in aviation.
kidsmoker
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Hi,
I was just wondering why the air going over a wing travels faster than the air going underneath? My teacher once said "because it has farther to travel" and I just accepted that at the time, but thinking about it now i don't really see why two adjacent air molecules that part company at the front of the wing should neccessarily meet up again on the opposite side. Is there a better explanation?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well done for questioning it !
That model for how a wing works is wrong - but is believed by a large number of scientists and engineers who should know better.

This has a good explanation of a numberof the models: http://science.howstuffworks.com/airplane5.htm
 
Last edited:
If you're still in contact with your teacher, show him these pictures and ask how these pre-shuttle lifting bodies with flat tops and curved bottoms fly?

m2-f2 glider version:
m2-f2.jpg

m2-f3 rocket powered version (max speed mach 1.6):
m2-f3.jpg

Wings produce lift by applying a downwards force on the air, which responds with an equal and upwards force on the wing, following Netwons 3rd law of motion. The downwards force results in a downwards acceleration of air, and the air's reaction to this downwards acceleration is an upwards force on the wing.

You're correct in that equal transit time is wrong. With a conventional wing, the air above ends up displaced further behind the wing than the air below, but note that most of the acceleration and motion of the air is downwards (corresponding to lift), with only a small amount forwards (corresponding to drag).

How wings accelerate air downwards is a combination of foward speed and effective angle of attack (air is "deflected" downwards). The final result is a significant increase in kinetic energy of the air (1/2 m v2), which would normally require a lot of work done on the air, but most of this increase in kinetic energy is offset with a decrease in pressure energy, in a Bernoulli like transition. Wing's aren't 100% efficient, so there is some work done on the air and not all of the transition is Bernoulli like.
 
Cool thanks for those. I've read the explanation on howstuffworks and i understand it better now.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top