The Secret of Flight 10: Lift Theory, High Lift Devices
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- This educational series, hosted by German aeronautical engineer Dr. Alexander Lippisch, explains the mysteries of flight and the science behind it.
Learn more about the University of Iowa at www.uiowa.edu
Subscribe: bit.ly/uiowasubscribe
Interested in studying at the University of Iowa? Visit admissions.uio...
More University of Iowa:
▸ Official Site: www.uiowa.edu
▸ Facebook: / universityofiowa
▸ Twitter: / uiowa
▸ Instagram: / uiowa
---
Founded in 1847, the University of Iowa is the state’s first, flagship institution of higher education. The UI is home to one of the largest and most acclaimed medical centers in the country, the world-renowned Iowa Writers’ Workshop, and leading academic programs in more than 200 areas of study.
Best aerodynamics lecture series I have ever seen! Thanks!
Wow! I met a German scientist at a conference last week who referred me to this! This is one of the best scientific videos to have ever encountered!
If u cant explain it simple enough, u don’t understand it well enough
- Einstein.
This teacher is awsome
i only had to visit his home workshop once to gain a very firm footing in aerodynamics. Which I have put to very good use on my road vehicle.
AND in the design of other vehicles of rather higher performance. Track Day car.
true...
Not true. Aerodynamics is incredibly complicated, there is a Millenium Maths Prize for the underlying theory, Navier-Stokes, and Feynman called turbulence the greatest unsolved problem in classical physics. The reason there are "debates" is because it is not easy to simply explain.
@@aerospacedoctorexactly,, then you don’t understand it well enough.
Yes Richard Feynman was defeated by turbulence, the man responsible for Quantum Electrodynamics, and Albert Einstein nor Newton, nor Euler understood aerodynamics, but it is just easy according to you.
It is a classic Dunning Kruger effect, the more you learn the more you understand how complicated it is and how little you know. I have an array of papers on the topic, all open access, I am very aware of what I know and how complicated it is. It is a shame people insist on adhering to a romantic notion of simplicity. Yep it only takes 3 or 4 college maths courses, plus engineering mechanics, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and then aerodynamics for most engineering students to have a vague understanding... But then again, you claim it is easy... Sure.
I wish our 21st century universities had this level of cutting edge technology.
analog demonstration of some physical process is much more intuitive than digital demonstration.
the best lecture so far.
Superb. You just don't see such a succint but wide-ranging take on a particular aspect of the workings of a wing anywhere else.
What a concise explanation
And “mumbles”
He said And “the fantastic thing is this “
Definitive!
🎉
Where is the 9th?
It is wrong approach researching the creation of Lift force and Low pressure at upper side of the wing. I explain the aerodynamic cavitation and existence of Lee side aerocavern, and creation of Aerodynamic force.
There is NO Lift `force` and NO Drag `force`, it is Aerodynamic force. Lift and Drag are just components in coordinate system.
You are referring to a theory that the British believed and set them back by decades because they did not listen to Lanchester and his understanding of circulation. This was fully formulated by Prandtl.
The theory you have recreated was championed by Rayleigh, and refers to dead air. This has been thoroughly disproven, and Prandtl and the viscous boundary layer producing the bound vortex has been proven correct.
NASA has published three Incorrect Lift Theories so far, in my book "DROWNED IN THE AIR - The Lee side and/or Backside Vacuum Flight Paradigm" I explain how it works.
my address is my name_surname ( ) y....
Interestingly I didn't reference NASA, I am talking about Prandtl and him solving the Navier-Stokes to give the boundary layer. Happy to look for your book, but noting what I said about Lord Rayleigh I do expect it to be incorrect.