Seems that would have to be due to downwash and Newton's 3rd.

So then you two are saying that a flat-bottom (or also convex bottomed) wing with a level angle of attack would not generate lift?

I mean, the leading edge stagnation point of say a NACA 2412 is inline with the trailing edge at zero angle of attack yet it provides positive lift.

How does this wing have a net downward throw? http://forums.pelicanparts.com/suppo...ool_shades.gif

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1666793355.JPG

its not a mystery, this is why.

because the air on top is going faster.

net doward throw is a simplified answer, and not a true determiner. useful, but not the be all end all determiner. lift is a force, a force is generated by pressure over an area. you can generate a pressure differential with the shape of the wing, or with the angle of the wing, but both methods create a pressure differential, higher on the bottom, lower on the top (until stall).

get a sail boat to play with

the results of totally screwing up
are you stop or go backwards
vs in an aircraft stall = crash

driving forces are the same

its important to note that static angle of attack is a stability characteristic built into many model and light duty aircraft. ergo, the wing could be flat on both sides (like a balsa glider with stamped flat wings), and with enough power, it would fly. you can make damn near anything fly with enough power.

Great question, and I look forward to the answer. Just looking at and thinking about things (because intuition is clearly the best source of knowledge for physics and aerodynamics), the top edge of the wing comes down to the trailing edge of the wing at a greater angle than the lower edge of the wing. And the air going over the top of the wing is moving faster than the air over the bottom, so that air will follow Newtons 1st law and overpower the slower air under the bottom, still causing a downwash that creates lift?

Like I said before, growing up, I'd only ever heard the Bernoulli speed/pressure theory of lift. Back about 2007 I heard the downwash theory. I've since heard that the truth is a combination of the two, and that science isn't really 100% on it.

Why is it going faster? Because it's getting pushed forward faster by the leading edge?

I mean, the air is still until the plane flies into it. The air is going to be pushed forward and up by the top side of the wing. :cool:

the aero dynamics question that always blows my mind, is the super sonic flows esp around high performance jet intakes. using certain design principles you can arrive at an intake design that significantly multiplies the thrust of the engine at super sonic speeds by basically removing the air in front of the engine, and the whole thing is then sucked forward, rather than pushed by the thrust of the engine. this is counter intuitive because the intake designs primary design goal is to slow the air before the compressor. because the compressor will stall/explode if fed super sonic air. well, at least turbo compressor jets (ie not scram or ram jets)

super sonic flows are facinating and a key reason why i became an engineer. i have wanted to experiment at work with super sonic flows in metal, but the science isnt there yet. someday maybe.

the air is not pushed forward and up until flow separates (ie it stalls). the flow stays attached, and follows the profile of the wing.

ding ding ding...

Yes, multiple forces at play.

IOW, it's not "one thing."

See "Lifting bodies" for example.

Then there are wave pulses that keep bees in the air.

:)

Magic pixie dust keeps bees in the air. Duh! Pixies love honey.

You clearly believe that you have a good mental model of "the flow stays attached" yet I see that you do not. You are simply regurgitating an engineering concept that is used as tool for categorizing general flow types. IOW, all "attached flows" are not equal.

Oh, and the air (even when laminar about the foil) is absolutely pushed forward and upward by the leading edge. (mind your reference frame.)

i didn't say all attached flows are equal.

we were discussing mass flow rate directions (ie "downflow"), not pressure distributions. the mass flow until stall is not upwards and forward, it is rearward.

<iframe width="1280" height="720" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VEe7NxB5Vo8" title="Why is the top flow faster over an Airfoil?" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

yup, as i said, its about pressure distribution, not "down flow"

https://peer.asee.org/aerodynamic-performance-of-the-naca-2412-airfoil-at-low-reynolds-number.pdf

You just said the the opposite SMH.

i mean you edited out the part about pressure distributions. its clear you have an ax to grind with me from PARF and didnt read the post and/or dont care what i said.

this is the post which clearly says that pressure distribution is the important thing when computing lift:

"net doward throw is a simplified answer, and not a true determiner. useful, but not the be all end all determiner. lift is a force, a force is generated by pressure over an area. you can generate a pressure differential with the shape of the wing, or with the angle of the wing, but both methods create a pressure differential, higher on the bottom, lower on the top (until stall)."

bolded for emphasis.

either you didnt read it, or you didnt care and decided to lie about my post.