803: Airfoil - Revision history

82.132.239.239: Undo revision 406258 by Maxcodes (talk) Not 'featured', could be Jack/Jill/Little Bobby Tables/etc, talking, as no child is actually shown.

2026-02-15T12:35:43Z

Undo revision 406258 by Maxcodes (talk) Not 'featured', could be Jack/Jill/Little Bobby Tables/etc, talking, as no child is actually shown.

Maxcodes: added Category:Comics featuring Kidball using HotCat. (Not quite sure, as the questioning voice is off-panel, but the comic says Ms. Lenhart is speaking to kids)

2026-02-15T02:43:20Z

added Category:Comics featuring Kidball using HotCat. (Not quite sure, as the questioning voice is off-panel, but the comic says Ms. Lenhart is speaking to kids)

Lettherebedarklight: /* Transcript */ add Category:Comics with a Spanish translation

2025-12-15T08:57:37Z

‎Transcript: add Category:Comics with a Spanish translation

FaviFake at 10:25, 28 July 2025

2025-07-28T10:25:37Z

Mushrooms: added category

2023-01-27T09:09:33Z

added category

172.69.34.94: /* Explanation */ Wikipedia has been known to change.

2022-09-30T06:21:19Z

‎Explanation: Wikipedia has been known to change.

DKMell: added a link for the 707 barrel roll

2022-09-29T20:32:31Z

added a link for the 707 barrel roll

Natg19: /* Transcript */

2022-09-22T23:09:27Z

‎Transcript

172.69.109.5: fixed un-closed parenthesis

2022-08-03T13:34:37Z

fixed un-closed parenthesis

172.70.90.227: /* Explanation */ This discounts the projecting spars, but better describes the fabric element.

2022-06-10T10:12:13Z

‎Explanation: This discounts the projecting spars, but better describes the fabric element.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:35, 15 February 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:
	[[Category:Comics featuring children]]		[[Category:Comics featuring children]]
	[[Category:Comics with a Spanish translation]]		[[Category:Comics with a Spanish translation]]
−	~~[[Category:Comics featuring Kidball]]~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:43, 15 February 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:
	[[Category:Comics featuring children]]		[[Category:Comics featuring children]]
	[[Category:Comics with a Spanish translation]]		[[Category:Comics with a Spanish translation]]
		+	[[Category:Comics featuring Kidball]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:57, 15 December 2025
Line 60:		Line 60:
	[[Category:Aviation]]		[[Category:Aviation]]
	[[Category:Comics featuring children]]		[[Category:Comics featuring children]]
		+	[[Category:Comics with a Spanish translation]]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 [[Category:Christmas]]
 [[Category:Aviation]]
-[[Category:Kids]]
+[[Category:Comics featuring children]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 27 January 2023
Line 59:		Line 59:
	[[Category:Christmas]]		[[Category:Christmas]]
	[[Category:Aviation]]		[[Category:Aviation]]
		+	[[Category:Kids]]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 The final set of panels posit three potential responses from Miss Lenhart, upon realizing her theory has been disproved:
-In the '''right''' one, Miss Lenhart realizes that perhaps the model she's been using to explain how an airfoil works is wrong (or, at a minimum, too simple). She is curious about it and suggests that this is an area for further exploration, and encourages additional study — in effect, rewarding the student for their insight. It seems that Miss Lenhart has taken the right course as it is shown later in [[843: Misconceptions]] that she wished her students to generally avoid any {{w|List of common misconceptions|common misconceptions}}. The title text also mentions that this is a common misconception and it is actually the first mentioned on {{w|List_of_common_misconceptions#Physics|list of common physics misconceptions}} on Wikipedia.
+In the '''right''' one, Miss Lenhart realizes that perhaps the model she's been using to explain how an airfoil works is wrong (or, at a minimum, too simple). She is curious about it and suggests that this is an area for further exploration, and encourages additional study — in effect, rewarding the student for their insight. It seems that Miss Lenhart has taken the right course as it is shown later in [[843: Misconceptions]] that she wished her students to generally avoid any {{w|List of common misconceptions|common misconceptions}}. The title text also mentions that this is a common misconception and it is (currently) the first mentioned on {{w|List_of_common_misconceptions#Physics|list of common physics misconceptions}} on Wikipedia.
 In the '''wrong''' panel, Miss Lenhart, out of apparent embarrassment, avoids the question entirely, saying simply that it's complicated (and implying that such questions are outside the student's understanding). This way to continue a discussion where you wish to be right was much later used in [[1731: Wrong]].

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 Lift may be more usefully described as resulting from the deflection of air, although this explanation still does not explain how symmetrical wings will work (at least, absent effects caused by a change in the "angle of attack") nor how a plane may fly upside down. The Wikipedia article on {{w|lift (force)|lift}} provides a more detailed explanation. It in fact gives an explanation as to these two issues. It explains that with zero angle of attack, a symmetrical wing will not generate lift (though it is possible that other factors may generate other slight upward force, such as updrafts, the shape of the plane, and the angle of the engine relative to the wings). It also explains that an asymmetrical (or "cambered") wing may adjust angle of attack to compensate and still generate lift.
-Finally, to answer the question in the second panel in a general sense: most planes ''can't'' fly upside down for an extended period of time. While many aerobatic aircraft can sustain inverted flight with negative g forces, some others can achieve an inverted attitude only momentarily, and are experiencing positive g forces. Usually the reason for this is not the wings, which function perfectly fine upside down (albeit sometimes at lower efficiency), but the engines, which may not get fuel or oil under such conditions. It has to also be noted that if angle of attack were ignored, movable control surfaces would be useless. Almost any airplane can do a {{w|barrel roll}} or {{w|Aileron roll}}, given sufficient altitude (a {{w|Boeing 707#Model 367-80 origins|Boeing 707 prototype}} once did this, and so did the Concorde in a demonstration).
+Finally, to answer the question in the second panel in a general sense: most planes ''can't'' fly upside down for an extended period of time. While many aerobatic aircraft can sustain inverted flight with negative g forces, some others can achieve an inverted attitude only momentarily, and are experiencing positive g forces. Usually the reason for this is not the wings, which function perfectly fine upside down (albeit sometimes at lower efficiency), but the engines, which may not get fuel or oil under such conditions. It has to also be noted that if angle of attack were ignored, movable control surfaces would be useless. Almost any airplane can do a {{w|barrel roll}} or {{w|Aileron roll}}, given sufficient altitude (a {{w|Boeing 707#Model 367-80 origins|Boeing 707}} prototype [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaA7kPfC5Hk once did this], and so did the Concorde in a demonstration).
 ==Transcript==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 22 September 2022
Line 58:		Line 58:
	[[Category:Physics]]		[[Category:Physics]]
	[[Category:Christmas]]		[[Category:Christmas]]
		+	[[Category:Aviation]]

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
 [[File:Karman trefftz.gif]]
-Lift may be more usefully described as resulting from the deflection of air, although this explanation still does not explain how symmetrical wings will work (at least, absent effects caused by a change in the "angle of attack") nor how a plane may fly upside down. The Wikipedia article on {{w|lift (force)|lift}} provides a more detailed explanation. It in fact gives an explanation as to these two issues. It explains that with zero angle of attack, a symmetrical wing will not generate lift (though it is possible that other factors may generate other slight upward force, such as updrafts, the shape of the plane, and the angle of the engine relative to the wings. It also explains that an asymmetrical (or "cambered") wing may adjust angle of attack to compensate and still generate lift.
+Lift may be more usefully described as resulting from the deflection of air, although this explanation still does not explain how symmetrical wings will work (at least, absent effects caused by a change in the "angle of attack") nor how a plane may fly upside down. The Wikipedia article on {{w|lift (force)|lift}} provides a more detailed explanation. It in fact gives an explanation as to these two issues. It explains that with zero angle of attack, a symmetrical wing will not generate lift (though it is possible that other factors may generate other slight upward force, such as updrafts, the shape of the plane, and the angle of the engine relative to the wings). It also explains that an asymmetrical (or "cambered") wing may adjust angle of attack to compensate and still generate lift.
 Finally, to answer the question in the second panel in a general sense: most planes ''can't'' fly upside down for an extended period of time. While many aerobatic aircraft can sustain inverted flight with negative g forces, some others can achieve an inverted attitude only momentarily, and are experiencing positive g forces. Usually the reason for this is not the wings, which function perfectly fine upside down (albeit sometimes at lower efficiency), but the engines, which may not get fuel or oil under such conditions. It has to also be noted that if angle of attack were ignored, movable control surfaces would be useless. Almost any airplane can do a {{w|barrel roll}} or {{w|Aileron roll}}, given sufficient altitude (a {{w|Boeing 707#Model 367-80 origins|Boeing 707 prototype}} once did this, and so did the Concorde in a demonstration).

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 In the '''very wrong''' panel, not only does Miss Lenhart avoid answering the question, she attempts to distract them (or even punish them for asking such an insightful question - note that in this panel, Miss Lenhart has clenched her fists, suggesting anger) by telling the kids that {{w|Santa Claus}} isn't real but in fact that he is really their parents — something that would obviously distress children if they still believe in Santa Claus (in addition to distracting them from the question they've asked) and constitute harsh punishment for pointing out the teacher's ignorance. Of course most children old enough to be taught about the airflow around plane wings should be too old to believe in Santa. However, if she just wished to tell them a bit about planes she may have drawn this drawing even in very early grades making the Santa trick effective.
-The title text suggests additional reasons for re-thinking the common theory as to how airfoils create lift. It points out that (1) it is absurd to believe the air has to get across the airfoil's two sides in the same amount of time, and (2) the {{w|Wright brothers}} plane's wings were curved the same amount on both sides of the airfoil (which is not actually true; the Wright Flyer's wings were concave, like an arch), meaning that the distance that the air needs to travel to get across the wing is not the dispositive factor in creating lift.
+The title text suggests additional reasons for re-thinking the common theory as to how airfoils create lift. It points out that (1) it is absurd to believe the air has to get across the airfoil's two sides in the same amount of time, and (2) the {{w|Wright brothers}} plane's wings were curved the same amount on both sides of the airfoil (the Wright Flyer's wings were concave, like an arch; and thus the curves were in the same direction, not reflected vertically), meaning that the distance that the air needs to travel to hug along each face of the wing is not the dispositive factor in creating lift.
 The strip is correct in noting that lift is a far more complicated process than the simple theory posited by Miss Lenhart. While the role of Bernoulli's Principle (that is, the difference in pressures) cannot be entirely discounted, the theory here is vastly too simple. As an initial matter, as suggested by the title text, there is no reason that the air on top of the wing should be compelled to "keep up" with the air on the bottom of the wing. Indeed, as demonstrated by the illustration below, in the time that the air below the wing travels across, the air on top of the wing has not only traveled the length of the entire top of the wing (a distance that may be farther than the distance under the wing, due to its shape), but often additional distance.