- BERNOULLI PRINCIPLE THAT MAKES AIRPLANES FLY FULL
- BERNOULLI PRINCIPLE THAT MAKES AIRPLANES FLY SERIES
Bernoulli’s Principle does not imply that a flat-plate airfoil would not generate lift. Bernoulli’s Principle does not imply that airplanes cannot fly inverted. (It only relies on the upper surface being more convex than the lower surface). One is more abstract, the other sticks to easily-observable concrete details.ģ) Bernoulli’s Principle does not rely on the upper surface of the wing being longer than the lower surface.
One is more holistic, the other is more fine-grained. It’s ridiculous to say that these are “competing” explanations. You could say “He won because more people related to him, there was a lot of criticism of the other guy, or at least that's one way to think about it…”, or you could say “He must have gotten more votes somehow”). (It’s like explaining how a candidate won an election, in two different ways. Newton’s Third Law of Motion says “There must be a force there, somehow”, and Bernoulli’s Principle says “Here is one way to see how the force is generated”. Both are 100% correct, they simply explain things at different levels of detail. an understanding of what Newton's Third Law of Motion can and cannot explain).Ģ) It makes no sense to say that Bernoulli’s Principle and Newton’s Third Law of Motion are “competing” explanations for lift. Non-intuitiveness is in the eye of the beholder, especially when many people DO intuitively understand how wings generate lift (and when the beholder lacks high-school-level knowledge of Newtonian physics, e.g.
BERNOULLI PRINCIPLE THAT MAKES AIRPLANES FLY SERIES
I'll summarize them here at the start, then I’ll give an intuitive explanation of how wings actually make lift, and then I will finally dive into each of those five points in detail (for people who want to see, step-by-step, how the article makes a series of mistakes that snowball into a giant mess).ġ) If a mathematical model of a real-world phenomenon is not intuitive to you, and if experts fail to explain it to you, then that does not justify a claim that “no intuitive explanations exist”. There are five serious mistakes made by the Scientific American article. (Text that is bold and in italics is from the original article, and as you can imagine, I picked out the worst "low-lights" to criticize).
However, I would suggest that you give the rest of the write-up at least a quick scroll, so that you can appreciate that the bulk of the Scientific American article consists of a series of misconceptions. This is a long write-up, so below, I summarize it into five quick points (numbered "1" through "5"), basically a one-page version. The article is so painfully bad – and it is so frustrating to watch people not realize how bad it is – that I thought it would be worthwhile to write up exactly what’s wrong with it. Surprisingly, about once a month, I see this article shared on various Facebook groups about aviation, and it is sometimes mentioned in other conversations and online discussions. If you think I’m exaggerating The title of the article was “ No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air”.
BERNOULLI PRINCIPLE THAT MAKES AIRPLANES FLY FULL
Their attempt to discuss how airplane wings generate aerodynamic lift, however, was a convoluted mess full of misconceptions It was written so poorly that the reader is left believing that this topic is literally not understandable by any human. This struck me as odd because Scientific American is usually quite good at explaining technical concepts in easily-understandable ways.
In February of 2020, Scientific American published one of the worst articles about airplanes that I’ve ever read.
0 kommentar(er)
