There are many theories of how lift is generated.

Unfortunately, many of the theories

found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some textbooks are incorrect,
causing unnecessary confusion for students.
The theory described on this slide is one of the most widely circulated, incorrect
explanations. The theory can be labeled the "Longer Path" theory, or the "Equal Transit
Time" theory. The theory states that airfoils are shaped with the upper surface longer
than the bottom. The air molecules (the little colored balls on the figure) have farther to
travel over the top of the airfoil than along the bottom. In order to meet up at the trailing
edge, the molecules going over the top of the wing must travel faster than the molecules
moving under the wing. Because the upper flow is faster, then, from Bernoulli's
equation,the pressure is lower. The difference in pressure across the airfoil produces
the lift.
Before considering what is wrong with this theory, let's investigate the actual flow
around an airfoil by doing a couple of experiments using a Java simulator which is
solving the correct flow equations. Below the simulator is a text box with instructions. Be
sure that the slider on the right of the text box is pulled to the top to begin the
experiments
Due to IT security concerns, many users are currently experiencing problems running NASA Glenn
educational applets. There are security settings that you can adjust that may correct this problem.

Let's use the information we've just learned to evaluate the various parts of the "Equal
Transit" Theory.

{Lifting airfoils are designed to have the upper surface longer than the bottom.}
This is not always correct. The symmetric airfoil in our experiment generates
plenty of lift and its upper surface is the same length as the lower surface. Think
of a paper airplane. Its airfoil is a flat plate --> top and bottom exactly the same
length and shape and yet they fly just fine. This part of the theory probably got
started because early airfoils were curved and shaped with a longer distance
along the top. Such airfoils do produce a lot of lift and flow turning, but it is
the turning that's important, not the distance. There are modern, low-drag airfoils
which produce lift on which the bottom surface is actually longer than the top.
This theory also does not explain how airplanes can fly upside-down which
happens often at air shows and in air-to-air combat. The longer surface is then
on the bottom!

{Air molecules travel faster over the top to meet molecules moving underneath at
the trailing edge.} Experiment #1 shows us that the flow over the top of a lifting
airfoil does travel faster than the flow beneath the airfoil. But the flow is much
faster than the speed required to have the molecules meet up at the trailing
edge. Two molecules near each other at the leading edge will not end up next to
each other at the trailing edge as shown in Experiment #2. This part of the theory
attempts to provide us with a value for the velocity over the top of the airfoil
based on the non-physical assumption that the molecules meet at the aft end.
We can calculate a velocity based on this assumption, and use Bernoulli's
equation to compute the pressure, and perform the pressure-area calculation and
the answer we get does not agree with the lift that we measure for a given airfoil.
The lift predicted by the "Equal Transit" theory is much less than the observed lift,
because the velocity is too low. The actual velocity over the top of an airfoil is
much faster than that predicted by the "Longer Path" theory and particles moving
over the top arrive at the trailing edge before particles moving under the airfoil.

{The upper flow is faster and from Bernoulli's equation the pressure is lower. The
difference in pressure across the airfoil produces the lift.} As we have seen in
Experiment #1, this part of the theory is correct. In fact, this theory is very
appealing because many parts of the theory are correct. In our discussions
on pressure-area integration to determine the force on a body immersed in a
fluid, we mentioned that if we know the velocity, we can obtain the pressure and
determine the force. The problem with the "Equal Transit" theory is that it
attempts to provide us with the velocity based on a non-physical assumption as
discussed above.

There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of the theories
found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some textbooks are incorrect,
causing unnecessary confusion for students.
The theory described on this slide is often seen on web sites and in popular literature.
The theory is based on the idea that lift is the reaction force to air molecules striking the
bottom of the airfoil as it moves through the air. Because this is similar to the way in
which a flat rock thrown at a shallow angle skips across a body of water, it is called the
"Skipping Stone" theory of lift. It is sometimes called a Newtonian theory of lift, since it
involves Newton's third law, but to avoid confusion with the correct Newtonian theory of
flow turning, we shall call it the "Skipping Stone" theory.
Before considering what is wrong with this theory, let's investigate the actual flow
around an airfoil by doing an experiment using a Java simulator which is solving the
correct flow equations. Below the simulator is a text box with instructions. Be sure that
the slider on the right of the text box is pulled to the top to begin the experiments
Due to IT security concerns, many users are currently experiencing problems running NASA Glenn
educational applets. There are security settings that you can adjust that may correct this problem.

Let's use the information we've just learned to evaluate the "Skipping Stone" Theory.

This theory is concerned with only the interaction of the lower surface of the
moving object and the air. It assumes that all of the flow turning (and therefore all
the lift) is produced by the lower surface. But as we have seen in our experiment,
the upper surface also turns the flow. In fact, when one considers
the downwash produced by a lifting airfoil, the upper surface contributes more
flow turning than the lower surface. This theory does not predict or explain this
effect.

Because this theory neglects the action <--> reaction of molecules striking the
upper surface, it does not predict the negative lift present in our experiment when
the angle of attack is negative. On the top of the airfoil, no vacuum exists.
Molecules are still in constant random motion on the upper surface (as well as
the lower surface), and these molecules strike the surface and impart momentum
to the airfoil as well.

The upper airfoil surface doesn't enter into the theory at all. So using this theory,
we would expect two airfoils with the same lower surface but very different upper
surfaces to give the same lift. We know this doesn't occur in reality. In fact, there
are devices on many airliners called spoilers which are small plates on the upper
surface, between the leading and trailing edges. They are used to change the lift
of the wing to maneuver the aircraft by disrupting the flow over the upper surface.
This theory does not predict or explain this effect.

If we make lift predictions based on this theory, using a knowledge of air density
and the number of molecules in a given volume of air, the predictions are totally
inaccurate when compared to actual measurements. The chief problem with the
theory is that it neglects the physical properties of the fluid. Lift is created
by turning a moving fluid, and all parts of the solid object can deflect the fluid.

You can download your own copy of the program to run off-line by clicking on this
button:

BUT..... this theory is not totally inaccurate. In certain flight regimes, where
the velocity is very high and the density is very low, few molecules can strike the upper
airfoil surface and the Newtonian theory gives very accurate predictions. These are the
conditions which occur on the Space Shuttle during the early phases of its re-entry into
the Earth's atmosphere at altitudes above about 50 miles and at velocities above

10,000 mph (hypersonic conditions). For these flight conditions, the theory gives a good
prediction. However, for most normal flight conditions, like those on an airliner (35,000
feet, 500 mph), this theory does not give the right answer.

There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of the theories
found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some textbooks are incorrect,
causing unnecessary confusion for students.
The theory described on this slide is often seen on web sites and in popular literature.
The theory is based on the idea that the airfoil upper surface is shaped to act as a
nozzle which accelerates the flow. Such a nozzle configuration is called aVenturi
nozzle and it can be analyzed classically. Considering the conservation of mass, the
mass flowing past any point in the nozzle is a constant; the mass flow rate of a Venturi
nozzle is a constant. The mass flow rate m dot is equal to thedensity r times the
velocity V times the flow area A:
m dot = r * V * A = constant
For a constant density, decreasing the area increases the velocity.

Turning to the incorrect airfoil theory, the top of the airfoil is curved, which constricts the
flow. Since the area is decreased, the velocity over the top of the foil is increased. Then
from Bernoulli's equation, higher velocity produces a lower pressure on the upper
surface. The low pressure over the upper surface of the airfoil produces the lift.
Before considering what is wrong with this theory, let's investigate the actual flow
around an airfoil by doing a couple of experiments using a Java simulator which is
solving the correct flow equations. Below the simulator is a text box with instructions. Be
sure that the slider on the right of the text box is pulled to the top to begin the
experiments
Due to IT security concerns, many users are currently experiencing problems running NASA Glenn
educational applets. There are security settings that you can adjust that may correct this problem.

Let's use the information we've just learned to evaluate the various parts of the "Venturi"
Theory.

The theory is based on an analysis of a Venturi nozzle. But an airfoil is not a

Venturi nozzle. There is no phantom surface to produce the other half of the
nozzle. In our experiments we've noted that the velocity gradually decreases as
you move away from the airfoil eventually approaching the free stream velocity.
This is not the velocity found along the centerline of a nozzle which is typically
higher than the velocity along the wall.

The Venturi analysis cannot predict the lift generated by a flat plate. The leading
edge of a flat plate presents no constriction to the flow so there is really no
"nozzle" formed. One could argue that a "nozzle" occurs when the angle of the
flat plate is negative. But as we have seen in Experiment #2, this produces a
negative lift. The velocity actually slows down on the upper surface at a negative
angle of attack; it does not speed up as expected from the nozzle model.

This theory deals with only the pressure and velocity along the upper surface of
the airfoil. It neglects the shape of the lower surface. If this theory were correct,
we could have any shape we want for the lower surface, and the lift would be the
same. This obviously is not the way it works - the lower surface does contribute
to the lift generated by an airfoil. (In fact, one of the other incorrect
theories proposed that only the lower surface produces lift!)

The part of the theory about Bernoulli's equation and a difference in pressure
existing across the airfoil is correct. In fact, this theory is very appealing because
there are parts of the theory that are correct. In our discussions onpressurearea integration to determine the force on a body immersed in a fluid, we

mentioned that if we knew the velocity, we could obtain the pressure and
determine the force. The problem with the "Venturi" theory is that it attempts to
provide us with the velocity based on an incorrect assumption (the constriction of
the flow produces the velocity field). We can calculate a velocity based on this
assumption, and use Bernoulli's equation to compute the pressure, and perform
the pressure-area calculation and the answer we get does not agree with the lift
that we measure for a given airfoil.

Lift is the force that holds an aircraft in the air. How is lift generated? There are many
explanations for the generation of lift found in encyclopedias, in basic physics textbooks,
and on Web sites. Unfortunately, many of the explanations are misleading and incorrect.
Theories on the generation of lift have become a source of great controversy and a
topic for heated arguments for many years.
The proponents of the arguments usually fall into two camps: (1) those who support the
"Bernoulli" position that lift is generated by a pressure difference across the wing, and
(2) those who support the "Newton" position that lift is the reaction force on a body
caused by deflecting a flow of gas. Notice that we place the names in quotation
marks because neither Newton nor Bernoulli ever attempted to explain the

aerodynamic lift of an object. The names of these scientists are just labels for two
camps.
Looking at the lives of Bernoulli and Newton we find more similarities than differences.
On the figure at the top of this page we show portraits of Daniel Bernoulli, on the left,
and Sir Isaac Newton, on the right. Newton worked in many areas of mathematics and
physics. He developed the theories of gravitation in 1666, when he was only 23 years
old. Some twenty years later, in 1686, he presented his three laws of motion in
the Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis . He and Gottfried Leibnitz are also
credited with the development of the mathematics of Calculus. Bernoulli also worked in
many areas of mathematics and physics and had a degree in medicine. In 1724, at age
24, he had published a mathematical work in which he investigated a problem begun by
Newton concerning the flow of water from a container and several other problems
involving differential equations. In 1738, his work Hydrodynamica was published. In this
work, he applied the conservation of energy to fluid mechanics problems.
Which camp is correct? How is lift generated?
When a gas flows over an object, or when an object moves through a gas, the
molecules of the gas are free to move about the object; they are not closely bound to
one another as in a solid. Because the molecules move, there is a velocity associated
with the gas. Within the gas, the velocity can have very different values at different
places near the object.Bernoulli's equation, which was named for Daniel Bernoulli,
relates the pressure in a gas to the local velocity; so as the velocity changes around the
object, the pressure changes as well. Adding up (integrating) the pressure
variation times the area around the entire body determines the aerodynamic force on
the body. The lift is the component of the aerodynamic force which is perpendicular to
the original flow direction of the gas. The drag is the component of the aerodynamic
force which is parallel to the original flow direction of the gas. Now adding up the
velocity variation around the object instead of the pressure variation also determines the
aerodynamic force. The integrated velocity variation around the object produces a
net turning of the gas flow. From Newton's third law of motion, a turning action of the
flow will result in a re-action (aerodynamic force) on the object. So both "Bernoulli" and
"Newton" are correct. Integrating the effects of either the pressure or the velocity
determines the aerodynamic force on an object. We can use equations developed by
each of them to determine the magnitude and direction of the aerodynamic force.
What is the argument?
Arguments arise because people mis-apply Bernoulli and Newton's equations and
because they over-simplify the description of the problem of aerodynamic lift. The most
popular incorrect theory of lift arises from a mis-application of Bernoulli's equation. The
theory is known as the "equal transit time" or "longer path" theory which states that
wings are designed with the upper surface longer than the lower surface, to generate
higher velocities on the upper surface because the molecules of gas on the upper
surface have to reach the trailing edge at the same time as the molecules on the lower

surface. The theory then invokes Bernoulli's equation to explain lower pressure on the
upper surface and higher pressure on the lower surface resulting in a lift force. The error
in this theory involves the specification of the velocity on the upper surface. In reality,
the velocity on the upper surface of a lifting wing is much higher than the velocity which
produces an equal transit time. If we know the correct velocity distribution, we can use
Bernoulli's equation to get the pressure, then use the pressure to determine the force.
But the equal transit velocity is not the correct velocity. Another incorrect theory uses
a Venturi flow to try to determine the velocity. But this also gives the wrong answer since
a wing section isn't really half a Venturi nozzle. There is also an incorrect theory which
uses Newton's third law applied to the bottom surface of a wing. This theory equates
aerodynamic lift to a stone skipping across the water. It neglects the physical reality that
both the lower and upper surface of a wing contribute to the turning of a flow of gas.
The real details of how an object generates lift are very complex and do not lend
themselves to simplification. For a gas, we have to simultaneously conserve
the mass, momentum, and energy in the flow. Newton's laws of motion are statements
concerning the conservation of momentum. Bernoulli's equation is derived by
considering conservation of energy. So both of these equations are satisfied in the
generation of lift; both are correct. The conservation of mass introduces a lot of
complexity into the analysis and understanding of aerodynamic problems. For example,
from the conservation of mass, a change in the velocity of a gas in one direction results
in a change in the velocity of the gas in a direction perpendicular to the original change.
This is very different from the motion of solids, on which we base most of our
experiences in physics. The simultaneous conservation of mass, momentum, and
energy of a fluid (while neglecting the effects of air viscosity) are called the Euler
Equations after Leonard Euler. Euler was a student of Johann Bernoulli, Daniel's father,
and for a time had worked with Daniel Bernoulli in St. Petersburg. If we include the
effects of viscosity, we have the Navier-Stokes Equations which are named after two
independent researchers in France and in England. To truly understand the details of
the generation of lift, one has to have a good working knowledge of the Euler Equations.