- Видео 9
- Просмотров 380 091
Vector Pilot Prep
Добавлен 6 апр 2018
Types of Airspeed, Explained
When you're moving an object through a moving air mass of varying density and temperature, and using that air mass + speed to keep the airplane in the sky, its important to know about more than one type of speed. Learn about them all here. Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Groundspeed (GS): Speed of the aircraft over the ground
True Airspeed (TAS): Speed of the aircraft past the air
Indicated Airpseed (IAS): Measured speed of the aircraft through the air
Calibrated Airspeed (CAS): IAS corrected for pitot tube position error
Mach Number: TAS/Speed of sound
Groundspeed (GS): Speed of the aircraft over the ground
True Airspeed (TAS): Speed of the aircraft past the air
Indicated Airpseed (IAS): Measured speed of the aircraft through the air
Calibrated Airspeed (CAS): IAS corrected for pitot tube position error
Mach Number: TAS/Speed of sound
Просмотров: 197 510
Видео
Airfoil Basics
Просмотров 90 тыс.5 лет назад
An excerpt from our forces of flight lesson, which you can watch here: ruclips.net/video/WT-RIstV57M/видео.html. Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Center of Lift/Center of Pressure, Explained
Просмотров 35 тыс.5 лет назад
The Center of Lift is just the mathematical average of all the upaward acting forces on the wing. It's the one point where all of the lift can be said to center. Watch our complete lesson on lift here: ruclips.net/video/WT-RIstV57M/видео.html. Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Viscosity, Explained
Просмотров 4,6 тыс.5 лет назад
Understanding viscosity is key to understanding what happens to the airflow as it passes an airfoil. Watch our complete lesson on lift here: ruclips.net/video/WT-RIstV57M/видео.html. Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Bernoullis Principle and Fluid Flow, Explained
Просмотров 6 тыс.5 лет назад
An introduction to Bernoulli's Principle and how a fluid behaves. Watch our complete lesson on lift here: ruclips.net/video/WT-RIstV57M/видео.html Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Common Misconceptions About Lift
Просмотров 10 тыс.5 лет назад
When it comes to lift, there is a lot of misinformation out there. We put to rest some of the commonly given, but very wrong explanations that you might hear. Watch our complete lesson on lift here: ruclips.net/video/WT-RIstV57M/видео.html Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Lift According to Bernoulli's Principle, Explained
Просмотров 3,6 тыс.5 лет назад
How Bernoulli's Principle Contributes to lift. Watch our complete lesson on lift here: ruclips.net/video/WT-RIstV57M/видео.html. Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Lift According to Newtons 3rd Law, Explained
Просмотров 16 тыс.5 лет назад
How Newtons 3rd Law contributes to lift. Watch our complete lesson on lift here: ruclips.net/video/WT-RIstV57M/видео.html. Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
Forces I: Lift
Просмотров 17 тыс.5 лет назад
Lift, made as simple as possible but not simpler. A thorough explanation of how an airfoil creates lift, along with the fundamental physics required to understand the topic. Subscribe for new lessons and pilot training videos.
You probably believe in the Easter Bunny.
Fantastic explanation, I thought True air speed was more complicated than indicated, so I was very surprised to hear how simple it actually is.
Incorrect. There was never any need for the air to "meet" at the end, that is just an additional reason the lift would be greater. That doesn't refute the transit time being roughly equal. The skipping stone explanation also only spies in certain cases like flaps. I'm sure this account will be deleted though.
This is amazing. So well explained, love the illustration.
So what mechanism is producing the pressure distribution around a wing that results in the lift force? And for anyone still clinging to ideas of the upward pressure on the underside of the wing producing most of the the lift force, the greater proportion of that force is actually produced by the reduction in pressure on the upper surface. This has been measured experimentally and demonstrated many times over the years. Essentially, as a wing is speeding through the still air, it’s producing a vortex, and the wingtip vortices are an extension of that mechanism. Aerodynamicists will talk about Circulation Theory, with velocity added to the airflow over the upper surface of the wing and subtracted from the airflow beneath the wing. However, they tend to suffer from Wind Tunnel Syndrome, where the air has velocity, momentum and kinetic energy. In total contrast, still air has none: it is the wing, along with the aircraft, that has velocity, momentum and kinetic energy, some of which is transferred to the air. In a wind tunnel, the air must keep flowing around the wing towards the fan that’s inducing the airflow, whereas in the real world, displacement of the air is produced entirely by the movement of the wing. The downwash decays in seconds and the wingtip vortices in minutes: the energy transferred to the air is soon dissipated. But how can I convince any sceptics that a wing is producing a vortex? Let me start by referring to the Magnus Effect. This is the same aerodynamic effect that causes a spinning baseball to curve, and a spinning soccer ball to bend: the spin produces a lift force. The Magnus Effect is also exploited by a device known as a Flettner Rotor, which is simply a long, rotating cylinder that, with its axis vertical, has been experimented with as a sail on ships. It has even been experimented with as an aircraft wing. So how does a Flettner Rotor produce a lift force? Let’s start by consider it rotating in still air: there’s no lift force generated, but what is happening to the air around it? Because of the viscosity of the air, the rotor develops a forced vortex around it. As disastrously demonstrated by a tornado, the closer to the centre of the vortex, the higher the rotational velocity and the lower the pressure. Didn’t Daniel Bernoulli have something to say about this? When a wind blows across the rotor, the flow is speeded up on one side and slowed down on the other by the vortex. This produces a relative lowering of the pressure on the one side and an increase in pressure on the other. Consequently, the rotor produces a lateral force at right-angles to the airflow: in other words, it’s producing a lift force - but sideways. There is also a displacement of the airflow, the equivalent of the downwash of a wing. I hope that the similarity between the effect on the airflow around a Flettner Rotor and around a lifting aerofoil, otherwise known as a wing, will be obvious. One is producing a vortex, and so is the other: there can be no real difference in the mechanism. Forget the idea of the curvature of the upper surface of the wing increasing the velocity of the airflow over it, relative to the velocity across the flatter lower surface: that same wing; in inverted flight, still produces a lift force. Even a flat plate at an angle of attack to the airflow produces a lift force, with a reduction in pressure on the upper surface and an increase in pressure on the lower. I have one final thought for you: it is the viscosity of the air that results in the production of a lift force - and drag. If air was not viscous, there would be no lift - and no drag.
"it is the viscosity of the air that results in the production of a lift force" This is fairly often stated but is not universally accepted. There are studies and a substantial body of work to the contrary. After all, why would a transverse force not be possible if there is a pressure asymmetry produced from a geometrical asymmetry of the airfoil shape? Where's the proof? The Kutta condition being regularly applied to potential flow? That's no proof of lift being a viscosity phenomenon, it's a technique of mathematical simplification. Again, where is the proof that an asymmetrical solid needs viscosity to produce a transverse force? Most of what you mentioned could be placed under the broad category of "effects of asymmetry," which is fundamentally what causes lift of course: asymmetry of a solid to the relative flow, turns the flow. The pressure asymmetry that results from the conservation fundamentals (mass, momentum and energy) provides the first principle of physics details.
I've only just come across this, and I've been interested in arriving at my own understanding of how a wing works not just for years, but for decades. I have to say that, despite plenty of evidence provided by professional aerodynamicists, there are still many out there - and here - who still do not understand and cling to their pet misconceptions. The 'Equal Transit Time' myth has long since been debunked. There are video clips on RUclips of a wing section in a wind tunnel, with the airflow made visible by pulsed smoke trails. These very clearly show that a visible section of the airflow over the upper surface arrives at the trailing edge long before the equivalent visible section of the flow across the lower surface. Look for Holger Babinsky and How Do Wings Work? on RUclips: he's Professor of Aerodynamics at the University of Cambridge. However, to get to a real understanding, it helps to free oneself from what I characterise as 'The Wind Tunnel Syndrome', and think about what happens to a real wing on a real aeroplane: it's the wing that is moving at speed through still air, not the air flowing over the wing. Someone has mentioned the book 'Understanding Flight' (Second Edition) by David F Anderson and Scott Eberhardt. I recommend the book as a good introduction, as the authors do make this point very clearly. The simple fact is that a wing produces lift by diverting air downwards: if one could see the air movement as a plane flew past, one would see that it is being propelled downwards (and slightly forwards). There are plenty of photos and video clips of aircraft flying above and through clouds, with the downwash producing a 'trough' in the cloud tops, plus the downward and inward curl of the wingtip vortices. It's an impressive and graphic demonstration of Newton's Third Law of Motion in action. A wing produces lift in accordance with Newton's statement that, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction": that's a fact. OK, there then arises the question of what exactly is the mechanism that produces the pressure variations around the wing, which produce the upward force that we call lift? Again, go to Holger Babinsky, who explains this in a lecture that is available on RUclips. However, I have another way of explaining the same mechanism, which I'll do in another post.
Babinsky brings Coanda effect too much into the explanation, which creates more than one problem. Mass transit time still has to be equal to what it was (viewed from the moving reference frame) as when no airfoil was there. So, in that sense, equal transit time is needed. Your wind tunnel "syndrome" is your misunderstanding, apparently, that all motion is relative, and the laws of physics apply to all reference frames. Of course lift is made by moving air downwards. Not widely disputed (who would dispute Newton's 3rd law for very long?). The pressure differences were explained by Babinsky, by falling back on Coanda (if I'm not mistaken), which rather weakens his entire explanation. The pressure difference is clearly caused by "energy borrowing" from static pressure to increase dynamic pressure enough to sustain momentum (that is: conservation of energy in service of conservation of momentum). There's nothing new in this, it is fundamental: conservation of momentum, energy and mass flow rate are first principles of physics. This is precisely why these are encoded in the Navier-Stokes equations which accurately describe lift using cfd methods.
Air is not a "liquid" fluid. NASA had it right when they sent the MARS rover. NASA explained that the very thin atmosphere meant it was going to be harder for the propellers to push.
The term fluid is the general term for both liquids and gases.
@@Observ45er Yes. And there is one of the problems because they are not the same. A liquid and a gas are different states. The term fluid confuses the matter and creates invalid assumptions.
@@animatem There is no problem, you must simply explain to the student what the terminology means and it is simple. . . In science and engineering we use the terms 'fluid' mechanics and dynamics because the behaviors are very, very similar and we use the same techniques for both liquids and gases. You did not explain why you thought they were different, but if you are thinking about PV=nRt the ideal gas law, and think that air is different because it is compressible, you should know that in normal flight speeds, air acts so close to being incompressible that we consider it as such, just like water. The pressure changes around the wing in normal flight are a very small percentage and the resulting compressibility and, therefore, the density change is insignificant for these common purposes. . And yes, on Mars the atmospheric pressure is similar to what it is on Earth at 100,000 ft. As I recall, that is 0.088 psi, or only 0.6% sea level pressure on Earth. This is easily available on the internet.
@@Observ45er Airplanes, sailboats, etc, do not start at normal flight speeds. An equilibrium obtained in a wind tunnel simulating normal flight speeds with a stationary wing is flawed. My issue started with trying to understand sailboat sails. No sailboat works at those speeds, but this same "wing" process is used to explain sailboats moving in wind. The answer is that seems very unlikely. I am looking for the NASA article, but admit I cannot find it anymore. They were very clear about the push process. That process makes more sense in air.
I at least found "who" talked about the flight but not the full NASA explanation of flight: One of the biggest engineering challenges is getting the Mars Helicopter’s blades just right. They need to push enough air downward to receive an upward force that allows for thrust and controlled flight - a big concern on a planet where the atmosphere is only one percent as dense as Earth’s. “No helicopter has flown in those flight conditions - equivalent to 100,000 feet (30,000 meters) on Earth,” said Bob Balaram, chief engineer for the project at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
This is the best explanation of the different sounds that I have ever heard or read. Thank you!
Hers a more simplified answer that is very informative. Type this into RUclips search.( doofer 911 how wings actually create lift)
Must admit, I’m a masters student of physics and I simply never truly understood Bernoulli’s principle til this video! Thanks so much man
Who are you !?!?!? You made a very good explanation !!! Was it hurt? When you fell from the heaven
It's not Mach seven zero. It's Mach point seven zero / Mach .70 Whole numbers are used when the airspeed is faster than the speed of sound, E.g. Mach two / Mach 2, etc...
Thank you
I believe this misconception comes from the effects of a venturi. In the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, concerning explaining Bernoulli's principle, it says that for a venturi tube "The mass of the air entering the tube must exactly equal the mass exiting the tube. At the constriction, the speed must also increase to allow the same amount of air to pass in the same amount of time as in all other parts of the tube." In a constricted environment like the tube, this would apply, however in the open space an airfoil operates in, this is not the case and thus two particles flowing over and under an airfoil do not meet at the same time.
Actually, since air has inertia, external flow does behave like internal flow. This is a very common misconception in the education literature on the topic. This argument that internal and external flows are not equivalent is used all of the time to argue against Bernoulli based explanations, and they are as wrong as the things they are trying to correct. Everyone can try this, you can use blu tack or playdough to make a venturi, combined with a straw and measure the effect. Like a carburettor or an airbrush, one end of the straw is in the middle of the venturi, and the other is in a liquid (a glass of water). Blow through it and see the reduction in static pressure as the liquid is drawn up the straw. You can then make a "half venturi", or a hump around the same straw, and you can still observe the effect. It is not as significant, but because air has inertia, it still "compresses" around the hump and as such speeds up resulting in a lower static pressure at the top of the hump. People claim Coanda explains this, and that is just wrong. You can do simple CFD and the presence of the hump provides an increase in pressure at the wall, and this in turn gives an acceleration to the flow based on a simple balance of Newton's 2nd law (either Euler or Navier-Stokes). It is common for most aviation and pilot based texts to ignore the pressure on the wall of the venturi, and to only present the static pressure along the centreline. As a result, you never appreciate where the acceleration is coming from.
Best explanation
groundspeed is not an airspeed
Bernouli pressure dont work😮....its Aristotle air pushing it .
I wish he would do video on weather theory and more other videos T_T
this video is not valid for Aerodynamic center
So if the downward pressure creates equal pressure upwards, how don't they cancel each other out and airplanes just not get lifted? Something is missing here.
Its confusing right,,,Newtons first law says that when any object moves with uniform velocity ,, no net force is acting on it 😢...
If you want to know where the equal transit time came from I have an article on arXiv, On the Origins and Relevance of the Equal Transit Time Fallacy to Explain Lift. Sorry can't post URLs.
I assume it's an oversimplification of mass flow continuity, which is a very real constraint driving the creation of lift.
@@davetime5234 It is a result of not including viscosity. Without a non-conservative force, every path (streamline) around an aerofoil is like every other potential (hiking around a mountain), where the path does not affect the balance of energy. However, when you add a non-conservative force (in the case of aerodynamics that is viscosity, or friction when hiking around the mountain) then the path taken means there will be an overall effect, and not all streamlines will now be traversed in equal time. I note in my paper that D'Alembert assumed equal transit, but both he and Euler calculated it to be true, hence giving D'Alembert's paradox. The common misconception is that equal transit time can be used to explain lift, where it was non lifting flows that give equal transit (and hence D'Alembert's paradox).
@@aerospacedoctor I don't quite understand this in relation to the mass flow continuity issue. A moving reference frame without the airfoil, but centered on where the airfoil will be, has a rate of mass flow traversing the region. When the airfoil is there, the same mass flow rate must be maintained. This must be accounted for by the combined mass transit speed above and below the airfoil. Because there is less available space, the average particle transit speed should be higher than before to keep the mass flow rate constant (for constant density). So, the asymmetry should result in yet even more speed above the wing than the already increased average particle speed (from the imposed transit space restriction), with the slow down below the wing being sufficient to keep the combined mass transit rate the same as in the case without the foil in the moving reference frame. Aren't these separate transit times affected by the need to have the composite mass transit time avoiding flow stagnation? How is this connected to viscosity?
@@davetime5234 Let me ask you a question. You note the keyword, "asymmetry". Fundamentally, and I mean very fundamental physics, what causes the asymmetry? You are correct in everything you say in the last paragraph, but what is the physical mechanism that results in asymmetry? I noted D'Alembert's paradox which was also the solution from Euler; they both predicted a symmetric flow, and hence no drag (or lift).
@@aerospacedoctor "I mean very fundamental physics, what causes the asymmetry...what is the physical mechanism that results in asymmetry? ?" Asymmetrical geometry of the solid to the relative wind (from the combined asymmetry of AoA plus any asymmetry of camber) resulting in an asymmetrical transit passage presented to the relative wind's dynamic pressure in the cross-sectional area of influence, which results in an asymmetrical pressure response necessary to maintain the prior existing mass flow rate in the that area of influence, is the best I can come up with at the moment.
This is an amazing video
Bernoulli really f's my brain! Squeezing a pipe reduces pressure? Whaaaat
After 7 months of studying to get my private and now in instrument training, I finally understand True Airspeed!!! I could never get an understandable explanation for it, and you got it through my hard head!! Thx!!
Brilliant explanation! Thanks a lot!!!
Come on man. Show that same line from above and put it below to show how much further the top air flows vs the bottom air. That would be a great example of how much faster the top air flows to make the same distance opposed to the bottom. That would be a nice visual example to those unfamiliar with the concept.
thanks, this was great
Thanks!
Thank you 👍
Here’s a question for everyone: Equivalent airspeed is CAS corrected for compressibility error. Is that for faster aircrafts, or can it be compressibility in the pitot tube?
The key, here is that air and lower surface is just like wind blowing on you. It pushes on you. This DIRECTLY causes a pressure increase within the air. NOTHING else is needed to explain the physics of that. Air has mass and therefore, inertia, so if pushes more increasing the pressure. .. That pressure ALSO slows down the air. At some points it slows to a stop. It slows BECAUSE that pressure ahead of it is greater than the pressure behind it [atmospheric pressure] . The relative motion of wing and air approaching each other DIRECTLY causes a pressure increase. .. Therefore, the "ricochet" story is kinda' a little in the right direction.. . . It's not a bounce, but there is still an increase of the push. .. If you analyze it correctly, you should be able to reason it out that for the flying, moving wing, the moving wing is directly increasing the air's pressure because it is pushing more on the air when it advances on the air. It has to *PUSH* the air out of its way. THat push is pressure more than ambient. . This is such simple physics. Grade schoolers understand it. - - Cheers. P.S. The converse happens above a wing. . .
The Wright Bros flew on around 16 horsepower with very low octane fuel. They built their own aluminum in line engine including the carburetor. They tested out their airfoil before use on wings and propellers. They got 80 lbs of thrust from their big propellers.
This is a weak almost partial explanation. .. The wing can only "push air downward" by creating some pressure to do it. Therefore, you're not explaining what causes lift. Lift is the Top-to-Bottom pressure difference. <-- THAT is one reason. .. The easiest part to see is the air running into the lower surface of a slightly upturned wing. Some reasonable Angle of Attack. That is just like the wind pushing on you, or you running into the air by sticking your face out a car window. <--THAT relative motion DIRECTLY CAUSES an increase in lower surface pressure. . The converse happens above a wing to lower the downward pressure above it.. . The Top-to-Bottom pressure difference it the loft; *ALL of it.* .. THEN. . . . . The result of those VERY SAME pressures is also the Down-wash you call pushing some air down. Think of this: With more pressure under the wing, know that fluid pressure pushes in all directions. THEREFORE, that pressure pushes up in the lower surface ... AND .. it pushes down on the air further below. THEREFORE, Newton's Third law is satisfied. . BTW: Those very same pressure changes ALSO cause the up-wash ahead of the wing and teh tip vortex. . . .. Full story of *Understanding Lift Correctly:* *rxesywwbdscllwpn.quora.com/* - - Cheers.
Really good stuff now I understand exactly what is going on with the GU Canard of the Rutan EZE especially when wet & more, keep up the good work Thanks
Thank you.
Great job explaining why a common misconception regarding lift is incorrect. It could have been beneficial as well to include a corrected explanation of how lift is generated to avoid other potentially wrong explanations.
Yes. So many amateurs with yet another video either simply repeating the misconceptions, or explaining they are wrong, but not the real physics. Here is an explanation of the true physics pf one and the hardest part, above a wing: ruclips.net/video/3MSqbnbKDmM/видео.html
As a Lockheed Martin dev engineer told me. “We don’t know how exactly lift comes about but our computers find a good shape that does”
Just reminder! I come here from your first video, the pressure occurance did not due to the stream getting pintched. Because of the external flows do not behave like internal flows with solid surfaces such as a Venturi. The pinching does not always yield a pressure and velocity change resulting in lift! I suggest you could going to check the Babinsky's research and the Mclean's theory to fix this misconception.
Good job to said the fluid is not moving like the ballistic particles. But since when you mentioned this part I highlly reccommend you to illustrate most of the Misconception people think how the lift occurs. By the way, the generation of the lift also depends on so many bunch of the various factor. So I highlly recommend you could increase the length of the video to disccus the factor like the angle of attack or the pressure some how. That will be great for the readers!
Video clearly shows common misconceptions, but it would be great if you could briefly explain why lift is generated by the airfoil. In this case it is due to the change in the curvature of the incoming pressure gradient due to the geometry of the airfoil. The top surface of the airfoil has more curvature compared to the bottom surface. An increase in curvature causes an increase in velocity and decrease in pressure of a fluid. This causes the stream at the top of the airfoil to be travelling much faster than the bottom which creates the pressure differential and thus lift.
J.R., Actually, your description has no physics behind it. I am very sorry, but you have thrown words together that actually make no sense. First, "Curvature of pressure gradient" is meaningless. The *flow* is curved. Second, Pressure Gradient is the difference in pressure between two locations. Third, it is the curvature of the *flow* that is important because a flat surface produces a similarly curved and accelerated flow. .. .. There is no physics to explain why a curvature in a flow can directly cause an increase in velocity of a fluid. There are missing steps in that explanation. . A- Fluid has mass and follows Newton's Laws. Therefore, a force is required to accelerate mass and, therefore, fluid. B- In this case, as Euler figured out in the mid 1700s following up on Bernoulli's work, a Pressure Gradient is the source (cause) of the force that accelerates the fluid. Force accelerates an 'object' (having mass). C- It is the pressure reduction that is *caused by* the flow being forced to curve. D- It is the atmospheric pressure far above the wing that provides the centripetal force causing the curved flow: .. .. The true physics of ONE part of lift and the hardest part for people to grasp, is above a wing. The decrease in pressure above a wing is caused as shown in this short video. Once you see that it is the new Pressure Gradient between atmospheric pressure *ahead* of the wing and this lower pressure *above* the wing that is the *cause of* the Acceleration toward the trailing edge: *ruclips.net/video/3MSqbnbKDmM/видео.html*
Great job 👌
Sir in this video you only explained centre of pressure not Aerodynamic centre..
Your illustration just made my light bulb go off 👍🏼👍🏼
Thanks this was very good.I have been flying a long time and this is one of the best descriptions of airspeeds that I have ever seen. Thank you for your hard work.
If the static pressure decreases with altitude too, shouldn't the airspeed remain the same? Because the difference between static and total pressure musst be the same.
At 17:22 which mentioned as we speed up, the air travels on the upper surface will increase therefore to create a greater pressure difference; however, as we speed up, the entire aircraft is speeding up, which means the air travels both on top and on the bottom of the airfoil will speed up, in that case the air travels on the lower surface will also speed up, how can it create greater pressure difference?
I’m really trying to study the Lift and I have a hard time to come up my own words explaining why the air flows faster over the wing and this video helped me a lot, I just have that one question if anyone can help. The only assumption I can make is that the increase in airspeed on the upper and lower surface are not proportional, but then I’m wondering if any theory or statement can back it up that idea….
@@huiruzhang5616 You are somewhat correct. When viewed from the stationary wing point of view, the air under the wing is slowed down and the air above the wing speeds up. .. Because the increased pressure has been established under the flying wing, the "new" air approaching that higher pressure region is slowed down - decelerated. .. Conversely, because the lowered pressure above the wing has been established, the higher pressure ahead of the wing pushes more and the air is accelerated into the lower pressure - toward the trailing edge. . What may blow your mind is that if you view this from the ground, the air starts out being pushed forward ahead of the wing, then about where the upper air passes the highest point, it has REVERSED DIRECTION and it is traveling OPPOSITE to the direction of flight. That upper air has been Accelerated much more than the lower air. It also finishes close to where it started. . Pressure Gradients Accelerate fluid. This is Newton in fluids. . The air that goes below the wing is constantly pushed forward from before the wing arrives and winds up far form where it started. Its forward speed is FASTER than the upper air's reverse speed! . Bernoulli is about ACCELERATION not speed! .. This is shown in Fig, 7 here: rxesywwbdscllwpn.quora.com/
out of all the videos and descriptions ive seen and read,this one is the best. This one makes me truly understand the differences between TAS and IAS. Thank you for this video.,
bravo
Well explained.
if it is a symmetrical wing?🤔
that was all i need