Explain this.
>>16547173Lift is a meme. It's all reaction force.
>>16547173Explain why maximum glide ratio drops with mach, without using math.
>>16547179That's not true either. Neither the simplistic descriptions of flight using Bernoulli's or Newton's laws are completely accurate. You need to use the full mathematical description of Navier–Stokes and solve using computer simulations. However there's no convenient "one line pop-sci" description for that.
>>16547194>just trust the simoolations broSure thing, fellow science enjoyer
>>16547198Since numerical simulations are 99% of what science involves these days your sarcasm is a sure sign of stupidity.
>>16547204Science? You must mean "soience"
>>16547194>However there's no convenient "one line pop-sci" description for that.>air gets pushed downwardswow that was hard
>>16547206Thanks for proving my point.
>>16547207For one it doesn't explain the lower pressure region above the wing.
>>16547211string theory
>>16547206>>16547204>t. poltard incelYou sound like a fucking loser and a scientifically illiterate moron who has no idea how central computer simulations are to modern science. I know you MAGA rednecks like to drive pickup trucks and other gas guzzlers. Do you not realize that those vehicles are designed using fucking computer simulations? When Ford needs to build their new pickup truck so low IQ Trumpers have a way to pick up their oxycontin pills or drive over to the next mobile home park, they use a computer to do it. That's a big part of how they analyze the air drag, the fuel economy, the crash safety, and many other features of you pickup truck. MAGA rednecks will seethe about computer simulations (just like they'll seethe about everything else in science), but what they don't understand is that everything from the noisy, gas guzzling pickup trucks they drive to the guns they shoot has been developed using computer simulations.
>>16547312>>>/pol/
This is another one of those threads where people who have never built and never flown an aircraft all claim to be experts in how aircraft work. Its easy to make grandiose claims like that when you're on an anonymous imageboard, isn't it?
>>16547173have you ever been to pool and seen how people swim? air becomes just as thick as water if you move fast enough. thats all there is to it.most modern rockets have next to no wings or fins and yet they manage to fly just fine. It even works backwards as in the less surface your plane/rocket has, the faster it can fly due to reduced friction.the only reason why planes have any wings at all these days is to allow them to fly slower with less fuel consumption.
>>16547173angle of attack
>>16547173they turned the camera upside down
>>16547312what is a woman
Semites run the world, even in down under
>>16547173What exactly is the problem here? A wing can still generate lift when it's inverted.
>>16548032I think the problem OP is talking about is not that it generates lift, but how. The usual explanation about lift, that a low pressure area is formed above the curved part of the wing because of differing wind speeds, fails. If that were the case the upside-down plane should experience a force pushing it downwards.
>>16547924your mom last night
>>16548046sure but its just the angle of attack. Planes that can fly upside down have very symmetrical wing profiles, you just tilt then up 1 or 2 degrees up against the incoming wind and they always generate lift
>>16547173They are flying down, down side up.>>16547179This is so not true. Don’t even get me started.
>>16547206>>16547198It produces accurate results and that's literally (literally) the only thing that matters.>nooo I wanted a pleasing elegant simple intuitive answertoo bad, retard
>>16547173two things: 1. airplane wings are quite symmetrical, enough that a change in the angle of flight can make an inverted wing produce upward draft.2. the fuselage is also producing lift. >>16548032you are retarded. the op thinks thinks an inverted wing would produce lift in the downward direction, like a formula 1 car, even though their wings are angled much more steeply.
nobody actually knows
They're so high up that they're about to leave earth's atmosphere and they're flying "upside down" to generate lift up back into earth and away from the void.
>>16549042LOL
>>16547173they actually are Australian planes. true fact
>>16548944>Airplane wings are quite symmetricalThis is very case specific and there are four major classes of airfoils: Symmetric, Semi-symmetric, Flat bottom and Cambered. You can see in this picture the airfoils are actually Semi-symmetric (as is also indicated by the slight down elevator deflection).>Fuselage is also producing liftWhile true, look closely at the fuselage shape again. The fuselage should actually be producing a downward force (though someone could correct me for being wrong, I am a student, after all).The secret is actually the horizontal stabilizer, which is also Semi-symmetric, but with a flatter top. I have never seen this before (and is probably why the Chinese/Pakistanis do not reveal the airfoil of this aircraft). This helps lift the tail of the aircraft. Yes, I know this should produce a nose down moment... I am not certain why there is not more down elevator deflection, unless the aircraft are at the top of a loop, in which case, there might not be any need for it, as the aircraft will have the tendency to nose down when inverted because of the design.Feel free to call me a retard or something, but I could not help but notice the airfoils here.
>>16547173cairo... home...
>>16547173Aircraft designed for aerobatics have "more" symmetrical airfoils than the standard variety, making it require less pitch input to maintain level inverted flight.
