Difference between revisions of "Talk:2678: Wing Lift"
RAGBRAIvet (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | :There's also a [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-one-can-explain-why-planes-stay-in-the-air/ Scientific American] article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
:It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | :It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.125|162.158.159.125]] 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
+ | :It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw. | ||
+ | So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) | ||
Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though. | Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though. |
Revision as of 21:58, 29 September 2022
Any chance this is related to the equal-transit-time fallacy? 162.158.146.57 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
"The plane of the wing" - looks like Randall messed up on the title text InfoManiac (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Or maybe not: It's the plane of the wing of the plane! 172.68.51.160 07:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I also don't think that this is a mistake. The word "plane" is not used as the device that can fly but as the description for the (bottom) surface of the wing. One word for two totally unrelated things. I removed the trivia-part. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry) vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airplane Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want to know how a wing really produces lift, it's complicated, and the best reference on the net for that is See How It Flies. B jonas (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- There's also a Scientific American article from a couple of years ago that says there's no scientific concensus. Barmar (talk) 13:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's quite simple really - without wings, people wouldn't believe the plane would fly - the wings create faith, and faith lifts the plane.162.158.159.125 15:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's even simpler than that. As the air goes over the curved top of the wing, it has farther to travel; this creates a pressure differential between that mass of air and the air beneath the wing. This low pressure draws the wing up, like pulling liquid up a straw.
So in other words, airplanes fly because the wings suck. RAGBRAIvet (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Could the spooky skulls be an inderect reference to quantum spooky action? Not sure how that would apply to lift, though.
- I assumed this was in reference to recurrent discussions of the use of 'golf ball' dimpling in anything related to aerodynamics. AFAIK this is entirely theoretical/experimental as far as use in aircraft wings, but I imagine it's something that crops up a lot in semi-informed lay conversations on the subject. 172.70.86.26 15:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
This, following "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate", suggests to me that Randall is in the middle of a private pilot training course and reflecting on its lessons. BTDT. 172.70.38.237 14:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
it says 3 main reasons and then lists 2?? 172.69.68.20 15:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Bumpf
- If you mean 1) Bernoulli, 2) the angle, and 3) Coanda... that's definitely three. If you don't, then I'm not so sure what you're referring to. 172.71.178.187 21:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)