> The wings act like a scoop forcing air downward behind the wing
Only bottom side of the wing acts as a scoop, creating positive pressure. Upper side, in opposite, creates negative pressure which "sucks" the plane into it, creating additional lift.
It surprised me how much lift is coming from the negative pressure - about a half: https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/16202
Notice that this isn't a separate effect from the effect of pressure - it's just a different way of seeing the same effect. The wing is accelerating the air both upwards and downwards, but because the pressure is higher below the wing than it is above it, more air is accelerated down than it is accelerated up - which lifts the airplane, but makes the air go down.
If you take the difference between the pressures above the wing and below the wing, you get a negative number.
A thing not existing absolutely can still exist relatively.
They (or their stackexchange source at least) are - like the referenced article and as is commonly done in aero engineering - subtracting out ambient pressure as a reference pressure, and then viewing pressure above the wing as ‘negative’ and pressure below as ‘positive’. It’s a convenient choice to make, for various reasons, but it is essentially an arbitrary one.
The problem comes when you then go on, like OP did, to come across statements like “how much lift is coming from the negative pressure - about a half”
Now, since in analyzing the pressure we have subtracted the reference pressure and made a zero point in between the low pressure value above the wing and the high pressure value below it, it actually shouldn’t surprise us at all that ‘about half’ of the lift seems to be attributed to the positive pressure below the wing, and half to the negative pressure above the wing.
This is just saying that half the lift on the wing is attributable to the first half of the pressure differential across the wing, and about half the lift attributable to the other half.
One of the problems of using a relative pressure and thinking about negative air pressure is that it gives the impression that negative air pressure, like positive air pressure, can grow arbitrarily large. It can’t. You can’t have a negative air pressure lower than negative ambient air pressure, because the absolute air pressure cannot go below zero.
But what you’re talking about is a relative pressure differential. We can have an arbitrarily large negative pressure differential because we can have an arbitrarily high pressure on one side of it.
> made a zero point between ... shouldn't surprise us
Whether or not you are surprised is immaterial, but it is not guaranteed a priori -- you could get a net upward force with ambient pressure above the wing and positive pressure below or with ambient pressure below the wing and negative pressure above (meaning gauge pressure, relative to the ambient pressure distant from the wing, to be clear). The person who started this thread seemed to be implying that the former was a good mental model, and the person you replied to was just saying that in fact for practical wing designs it is somewhere in between.
FWIW it is very common to talk about positive and negative gauge pressure. Some people may say that without understanding what is going on, but it is a mistake to assume that they don't understand just because they use that language.
Yet a 747 can produce 850000 pounds of lift with only 729000 square inches of wing? Feels like a very incomplete description at best
In order to use "scoop" approach for lift, you need to have either very low wing loading (think paper airplanes) or very high speeds (above transsonic range).
No, it wouldn't.
I think the article does a pretty good job building a more complete understanding than the simplistic "deflection" mental model.
If we could somehow "draw a box around" the entire plane+air system, then the plane's upward lift will create a corresponding downward force on the box, one way or another.
So, in the broad sense that you push the earth away from you when you jump, the plane also pushes the earth away from it when it flies (mediated by a bunch of fluid dynamics).
Or, classic example: if a (sealed) truck full of birds is jostled so that they start flying, does the truck weigh less? [1]
Certainly if we flew the plane very low over the ground, the air pretty directly pushes down on it, and the hypothetical scale would register something. Just look at the grass when a helicopter hovers over it.
As the aircraft flies further up, we'd need a bigger scale to capture the full area affected, and if it's moving there would be increasing lag between the location of the plane and the (large) area where the downward force hits the ground.
Or do you disagree with that? At what point does the scale stop working?
Obviously there would be practical limitations — that force is so spread out that it would be hard to measure. But let's not have practice get in the way of theory (:
Planes fly through gas, not solid particulate. Gas has intrinsic kinetic energy when energized. Diffusion plays a huge role in all this of course.
The airflow is split at the leading edge. The area of positive pressure is not entirely below or focused under the wing. The top and bottom of the airfoil are both involved in turning the air flow.
The pressure under the airfoil increases a bit, but the pressure above decreases by as much to much more depending(2-3x or more). This hypothetical scale is under the aircraft but much of the lift occurs by decreasing forces on the top surface.
Scales measure weight/mass. Barometers measure changes in atmospheric pressure. So it's not even the tool for the job even if the stone skip theory of lift was accurate.
Perhaps my mention of Newton's third law gave you the impression that I was advocating for that "stone skip" theory — I assure you I wasn't! Especially as presented on that page, it is obviously junk (:
But surely you agree, broadly, that if birds are flying inside a sealed box, the box still weighs the same amount as if they were standing, right? (modulo some fluctuations)
All of the pressure differentials and whatnot have the net effect that an upward force on the wing results in a downward force elsewhere. The purpose of the scale is to measure that force — like measuring the weight of the box with birds in it.
In the hovering helicopter example, wouldn't you agree that a (large) scale directly under the helicopter will measure a weight corresponding to the helicopter's lift force? Like if I blow directly onto a kitchen scale — it will measure some grams.
Edit: I feel we are kinda re-hashing the Bernoulli/Newton discussion also addressed at the nasa site: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/a... — 'So both "Bernoulli" and "Newton" are correct ...'
For reference, the correct Newtonian explanation (flow turning) is also covered: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/a...
Actually that is a bit of a lie, the airfoil shape only falls out due to a third implied force that needs to be accounted for. the wing needs to be strong enough to hold itself up. if you had infinitely strong materials the deflector shape that would fall out would be like a slightly bent piece of paper.
A clarification note on fluids: you are deflecting fluids, and everything this implies. just because I say newtonian deflection don't think I mean billiards balls, or if it has to be billiard balls think trillions of them simultaneously