>>11705095There are people on /sci/ right now that unironically don't know how to use "catalog" to check if there's already a thread about the topid you want to discuss.
>>11705311You forgot to tell them about the Biggs Blowson, the elementary air particle
>>11705341>The pressure of the air above the wing drops, and so the air forces the wing upwards to balance the downward change in momentum of the air. This would explain most of it, but there's still the matter of "flying upside down" and still generating lift.
>>11705107>>11705270>>11705278>>11705299The wing is displacing the air which causes a pressure difference of it. Similar to how a hotair balloon traps a different pressure of air to "lift" itself with the help of the denser outside air pushing it to it's equilibrium (where the atmosphere starts getting to thin). A hot air balloon is stationary though and will only move relative to the interplay of pressures caused by the air. A planes wing does the exact same thing as the hot air balloon, only when you apply a particular velocity to it. This causes it to "lift" like the balloon but only when in motion or with the airspeed mimicking its velocity. Which then leads us to:
>>11705486>I'm pretty sure you need to stay at a certain velocity in order to fly upside down for an extended period of time >Fighter jets are able to be flown upside down since they're supposed to be versatile and are traveling at a higher rate of speed, so those aerofoils on a fighter jet have a smaller angle of attack than day a commerical plane since it'll create more drag than lift.The reason they can fly upside down is because the velocity of them is still setting up that "lifting pressure difference" around the wings. It's a "trapped displacement of the air" of the traveling wing which will cause it to rise to that lighter atmosphere. Like the hot air in the balloon, only with the motion of the air acting as the "container" of it at the same time.
