there is a static lift. the bernouli effect is when wing is at angle of attack. while at flight the wing are at static lift where its nearly falt horizontal at the flat bottom, and merely relying on the upper surface curve to maintain lift. but the part the generate the lift is the curved upper surface. the negative pressure that is pulling the wing up. not the high pressure of the lower ambient air. even when the wing is at angle, the near vacuum pressure left behind by the upper surface that is lifting the wing up. actually its a synergy, but its the negative pressure that generate the force. this is due how thin and light the mass of the air molecules are. unlike water. with water is the opposite. since water molecule itself has more collective mass, that mass is the one that is the propelling factor, thats why the porpeller are designed with large sweeping blades for efficiency with the water molecules mass and viscousity. while air propellers has narrow width for efficiency with the negative pressure to maintain a smooth non distorted/non broken flows.
@paulbessell615417 сағат бұрын
Tyson is living proof you should never rely only on social media for accurate information.
@jdlives899217 сағат бұрын
not to split hairs but he says dudes can be women
@derekturner327218 сағат бұрын
Tyson is a DEI hire and as much a "scientist" as Bill Nye the science guy. They are entertainment for those who don't know any better. Unfortunatly, that' s a large portion of the nation thanks to the mesrassa's we cann public schools.
@gavindeane367018 сағат бұрын
The beginning of that video was mind-blowing. As a teenager learning to fly sailplanes, I soon encountered people who told me that wings generate lift because the air on top has to go faster, because it has further to go and has to catch up with the air on the the bottom. Not long after that, I encountered people who pointed out that that's nonsense. And that, I thought, was the end of it. Until watching this video I had no idea that the "equal transit time" hypothesis existed anywhere outside of amateur pilots who like to sound clever and don't know what they're talking about.
@christopherkohl651119 сағат бұрын
Neil Degrasse Tyson is a scholar of the famous Dunning Krueger University.
@stephenjdixon120 сағат бұрын
that use of turbulant is incorrect. In that wing context, smooth or streamlined is appropriate
@sharpe6721 сағат бұрын
Do not trust Tyson. Pseudo scientist.
@jfarill83422 сағат бұрын
Two fools!
@claytondaddy23 сағат бұрын
After I heard Neil Degrasse say that biological men can compete with biological women in sports I realized he’s more interested in being popular than science, I stopped following him, very disappointing.
@jamescherney5874Күн бұрын
Wolfgang Langewiesche in his classic book Stick and Rudder provides the simplest explination of how a wing works by saying it simply pushes down on the air. The next question is what makes an airplane turn and very few pilots or aero engineers can explane it. The answer is in Stick and Rudder also. DeGrasse has always been full of @#$&.
@alfonsocantu9992Күн бұрын
Sir I agree with you cause neil thinks the sun is white yet the sun radiates at 5800 to 6400 Kevin just like a yellow sun and a white sun radiates at 10000 to 12000 Kevin making Earth into Mercury and Europa and IO at Jupiter the new Earth and Earth would not be a life capable planet anymore...yours very truly Alfonso Cantu USMC
@tebittКүн бұрын
Neil is not particularly bright. He doesn’t even know what a woman is.
@kineticinstallationspecial5775Күн бұрын
News flash: as soon as Neil talks about something that you know about personally what you find out is that he's not that smart. Original Didn't Earn It recipient.
@rogerhill3984Күн бұрын
The air in the sky does not behave like the air in a wind tunnel. The only similarity is its chemical composition!
@davetime523419 сағат бұрын
That's not true. Motion is relative, so the effects of flight are well studied by wind tunnel testing. Though there are scaling adjustments that need to be made to make the studied condition equivalent to the full-sized aircraft.
@rogerhill3984Күн бұрын
I was an airline captain and instructor. The shape of a wing accelerates air downward in proportion to the aircraft’s weight. Flying level the lift from the wing approximates the lift from the wing, (But lift from the tail is in a downward direction to keep the nose up) . Pull back on the stick and point the aircraft away from the ground and engine power together with wing lift makes the aircraft climb. So in a climb the wing gives less lift than level flight. Taken to ridiculous, in a vertical climb the engine is giving lift and thrust and the wings just keep the engines in place. If this could have been imagined by the Wright Brothers. Or solved with mathematical formulae, Concorde would have been the second aircraft to fly. Theory, test, wind tunnel, test. Fly it for real. Back to the drawing board. We don’t know everything. We have clues as to what is happening. Admit you don’t know everything and you can still learn.
@charlesreaddy6585Күн бұрын
He is a DEI degree graduate! Watered down education! Because he is a genius in HIS own mind!
@molotkovdmitryКүн бұрын
Congratulations with Fs2Crew ATR release! Nicely done, captain!
@alext8828Күн бұрын
All this guy's wing diagrams are showing a high angle of attack. Planes don't fly that way. I think this guy is full of beans too.
@pl7868Күн бұрын
Well that's why a millright looks at a set of plans and looks first at what it is supposed to be and builds that because engineers dunno what they are drawing aside from the headline on the top of the plan set
@gtmddnКүн бұрын
I'm not a scientist or have any education in aerodynamics. But ima use a bit of common sense and say. If the rounded shape of a planes wing is why it's able to fly is correct. Why does a paper aeroplane fly. I've made at least 100 paper airplanes in my years and I've never once made my wings like this. They are flat on both their top and bottom. Yet the plane will still fly or glide through the air. To me it seems this simple. Air has mass. Just like water. If that Mass is applied to something solid. Like a plane or a boat. At the right angle. With enough force. That plane or boat will lift. And as long as the force at which the air or water is hitting the bottom side of the solid object. It will continue to fly or lift until that force is reduced at which time that solid object will then lose its lift ability. I mean think about all the things that fly through the air that don't rely on this shape to do so. Bullets . arrows. People show out of a cannon. A rock. A rocket. All these things fly. BUT aren't shaped like a wings of a plane. See I think the shape only aides in the flight. Making it easier or more efficient for the plane to fly. Not the actual reason the plane flies in the first place. The reason something solid flies is because their is enough force being applied to its bottom surface at an angle that forces that object to lift. This can be achieved be any shape. Although some shape will require more engery than others to do so. Hence the wing design. It just allows for it to fly with less force
@hotfightinghistory9224Күн бұрын
God help the child or small animal that stands in a direct line between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and a TV camera.
@garymaclean6903Күн бұрын
Most of us get at least some stuff wrong when we discuss topics we are not experts in. Most of us aren't 'experts' in more than one thing, and many of us aren't even that, in spite of what we may think about ourselves... Yes, Tyson comes across as a know-it-all sometimes, but when pushed will acknowledge when he's discussing topics outside of his expertise. I give him a break when he's asked about stuff outside his field. I think a more realistic approach is to think of air as mass. When air travels over a longer distance over the top of the wing the molecules spread apart and the air pressure is reduced, causing lift. And yes, if you tilt a wing upward during take-off (as well as lower the trailing edge flaps) you are lengthening the travel over the top of the wing, further spreading apart the air molecules on the top of the wing and reducing air pressure / and increasing the pressure below, causing increasing lift.
@captaincat1743Күн бұрын
I hope Neil applies his kak handed explanations to even more subjects that he knows squat diddly about, as I really enjoy watching him falter and stall his way through the explanations, all the while making a complete twit of himself. It's like listening to somebody who thinks they can sing but can't hit a note to save their life. Highly enjoyable, long may it continue!!
@A350_PILOTКүн бұрын
You will offer him an offer that he cannt refuse?,,??,?, Maybe your name is not Mangar But Corleone! hahah! Very fun video but also very interesting I didnt know you could put both cindition levers from feather to auto in the samz time: small but useful!
@A350_PILOTКүн бұрын
Sorry a lil mispell "Mangar" : my finger flicked MaGNar
@tyronekim3506Күн бұрын
Wow! You punctured Tyson's ego. OK. Sometimes truth is painful.
@user-ee8hi9kc8kКүн бұрын
Lets all smoke some more pot
@user-ee8hi9kc8kКүн бұрын
All u got to do is put ur hand in water move it angle it then u can figure it out duh
@robc3056Күн бұрын
Hes bought and paid for what else could be expcected
@catothecensorКүн бұрын
Neil is ALWAYS wrong when you deep dive in the matter. He is approximative and he has a general knowledge, nothing more.
@mzaimyКүн бұрын
Neil is a celebrity 😅 expect him to behave like one. Forget pure science 😊
@jip5873Күн бұрын
Leave the fuel.........take the Cannoli's.
@livingtribunal4110Күн бұрын
Tyson = Biggest Internet Grifter of All Time
@jgarbo3541Күн бұрын
Old engineer (and PPL) here: My instructor (non engineer) said this: "The Bernouilli Effect creates lift." "Oh so how does a plane fly inverted?" Silence...I suggested Newton's 3rd law or just put his hand out the car window and tilt it a little, about 4°...lift!
@zuhrikamilmohdsapii7979Күн бұрын
Have you explained how aircraft fly upside down or did I miss it? Based on the pressure diagrams seems like lift generation will bring you straight to the ground.
@gavindeane367019 сағат бұрын
The lift that the wing generates is a function of the shape of the wing AND the angle of attack. At 8 minutes 50 in the video there is a diagram illustrating different pressure profiles for the same wing shape different positive angles of attack. The angle of attack is the alpha figure of +2 degrees, 8 degrees, 15 degrees and 20 degrees. This illustrates the effect of varying the angle of attack. If you look at, say, the alpha = 8 degrees diagram and literally just turn it upside down then yes, the green low pressure is underneath and the blue high pressure is on top, so the pressure would pushing the wing down into the ground. But if all you do is simply turn the picture upside down then you've changed the angle of attack from +8 degrees to -8 degrees, and that is not what happens when you fly inverted. You fly with the now-inverted wing at a POSITIVE angle of attack so it still generates lift. When you're designing an aeroplane that's intended to fly the right way up, you design it to fly at angles of attack that are good for generating lift and you give it a wing shape that's good at generating lift. If you turn that wing upside down but still give it a positive angle of attack then it can still generate lift. All you're really doing now is flying a wing at an angle of attack that is good for generating lift but with a wing shape that's not so good at generating lift. So it will work, but not as well as it did when it was the right way up. If you're designing an aerobatic aircraft that needs to be able to fly well when it's inverted inverted, then you might think about a wing shape that works quite well both ways up.
@riderofthemark6661Күн бұрын
hahaha amazing video!!
@FlywithMagnarКүн бұрын
Thank you!! 😁
@JustinThortsКүн бұрын
Cannot stand neil degrasse tyson. He's arrogant and insincere
@craigsaunders7037Күн бұрын
LOL. Niel's comment about Aircraft Carriers runways and the angle of the runways. "You don't want them at 90 degrees". No Neil, you wouldn't want the runways on an Aircraft Carrier at 90 degrees, at that point you have a giant pontoon, not an Aircraft Carrier. 😔
@peteralleyman1945Күн бұрын
Tyson should stick to debunking flat earth. That's his level playing field.
@littlenismoКүн бұрын
Neil is always right, just ask him.
@Flight.CompanionКүн бұрын
Ha ha, good one. I ueed to fly for a major airline in the desert, they had nicely printed banners & posters all over the company saying similar things. like, shut down that APU, taxi on 1 engine, saves $500,000 a year or something like that 🤣😅 but each one of those fancy posters probably cost $100 already to print!😆
@FlywithMagnarКүн бұрын
Nice one!
@klw141Күн бұрын
DeGrasse is the dumbest smart person I have ever heard!
@calumlittle9828Күн бұрын
Of course I would trust him, he's Magnar fucking Nordal.
@cruxader27Күн бұрын
Set one engine on FTR and another engine in AUTO during taxi. Once cleared to line up, set both engine to AUTO. Saves you 20-30kg fuel per flight 😉
@FlywithMagnarКүн бұрын
That would require a re-write of the SOP. In general, pilots do not like taxiing with amber alert lights (ACW GEN) before take-off.
@markm1514Күн бұрын
Science Explainers are definitely among the careers on the AI chopping block. Now we have LLMs to confidently hallucinate in response to our questions.
@threadripper979Күн бұрын
Listening to Neil "Snake in the Grass" Tyson was his first mistake. He's another Michio Kaku - a huckster who's in it for the money.
@robertallgeier2109Күн бұрын
Professional pilots break ground and take off into the wind. Novice pilots often do exactly the opposite.
@keithcanfield3251Күн бұрын
It seems that there isn't a topic that Neil doesn't believe he's an expert in. "Scientists" like Neil is why there can be no debate on topics like climate change.
@sliglusamelius8578Күн бұрын
NDT is way out of his league on a lot of subjects. He's an embarrassment to himself.
Пікірлер
I only clicked like because I hate spiders.
there is a static lift. the bernouli effect is when wing is at angle of attack. while at flight the wing are at static lift where its nearly falt horizontal at the flat bottom, and merely relying on the upper surface curve to maintain lift. but the part the generate the lift is the curved upper surface. the negative pressure that is pulling the wing up. not the high pressure of the lower ambient air. even when the wing is at angle, the near vacuum pressure left behind by the upper surface that is lifting the wing up. actually its a synergy, but its the negative pressure that generate the force. this is due how thin and light the mass of the air molecules are. unlike water. with water is the opposite. since water molecule itself has more collective mass, that mass is the one that is the propelling factor, thats why the porpeller are designed with large sweeping blades for efficiency with the water molecules mass and viscousity. while air propellers has narrow width for efficiency with the negative pressure to maintain a smooth non distorted/non broken flows.
Tyson is living proof you should never rely only on social media for accurate information.
not to split hairs but he says dudes can be women
Tyson is a DEI hire and as much a "scientist" as Bill Nye the science guy. They are entertainment for those who don't know any better. Unfortunatly, that' s a large portion of the nation thanks to the mesrassa's we cann public schools.
The beginning of that video was mind-blowing. As a teenager learning to fly sailplanes, I soon encountered people who told me that wings generate lift because the air on top has to go faster, because it has further to go and has to catch up with the air on the the bottom. Not long after that, I encountered people who pointed out that that's nonsense. And that, I thought, was the end of it. Until watching this video I had no idea that the "equal transit time" hypothesis existed anywhere outside of amateur pilots who like to sound clever and don't know what they're talking about.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is a scholar of the famous Dunning Krueger University.
that use of turbulant is incorrect. In that wing context, smooth or streamlined is appropriate
Do not trust Tyson. Pseudo scientist.
Two fools!
After I heard Neil Degrasse say that biological men can compete with biological women in sports I realized he’s more interested in being popular than science, I stopped following him, very disappointing.
Wolfgang Langewiesche in his classic book Stick and Rudder provides the simplest explination of how a wing works by saying it simply pushes down on the air. The next question is what makes an airplane turn and very few pilots or aero engineers can explane it. The answer is in Stick and Rudder also. DeGrasse has always been full of @#$&.
Sir I agree with you cause neil thinks the sun is white yet the sun radiates at 5800 to 6400 Kevin just like a yellow sun and a white sun radiates at 10000 to 12000 Kevin making Earth into Mercury and Europa and IO at Jupiter the new Earth and Earth would not be a life capable planet anymore...yours very truly Alfonso Cantu USMC
Neil is not particularly bright. He doesn’t even know what a woman is.
News flash: as soon as Neil talks about something that you know about personally what you find out is that he's not that smart. Original Didn't Earn It recipient.
The air in the sky does not behave like the air in a wind tunnel. The only similarity is its chemical composition!
That's not true. Motion is relative, so the effects of flight are well studied by wind tunnel testing. Though there are scaling adjustments that need to be made to make the studied condition equivalent to the full-sized aircraft.
I was an airline captain and instructor. The shape of a wing accelerates air downward in proportion to the aircraft’s weight. Flying level the lift from the wing approximates the lift from the wing, (But lift from the tail is in a downward direction to keep the nose up) . Pull back on the stick and point the aircraft away from the ground and engine power together with wing lift makes the aircraft climb. So in a climb the wing gives less lift than level flight. Taken to ridiculous, in a vertical climb the engine is giving lift and thrust and the wings just keep the engines in place. If this could have been imagined by the Wright Brothers. Or solved with mathematical formulae, Concorde would have been the second aircraft to fly. Theory, test, wind tunnel, test. Fly it for real. Back to the drawing board. We don’t know everything. We have clues as to what is happening. Admit you don’t know everything and you can still learn.
He is a DEI degree graduate! Watered down education! Because he is a genius in HIS own mind!
Congratulations with Fs2Crew ATR release! Nicely done, captain!
All this guy's wing diagrams are showing a high angle of attack. Planes don't fly that way. I think this guy is full of beans too.
Well that's why a millright looks at a set of plans and looks first at what it is supposed to be and builds that because engineers dunno what they are drawing aside from the headline on the top of the plan set
I'm not a scientist or have any education in aerodynamics. But ima use a bit of common sense and say. If the rounded shape of a planes wing is why it's able to fly is correct. Why does a paper aeroplane fly. I've made at least 100 paper airplanes in my years and I've never once made my wings like this. They are flat on both their top and bottom. Yet the plane will still fly or glide through the air. To me it seems this simple. Air has mass. Just like water. If that Mass is applied to something solid. Like a plane or a boat. At the right angle. With enough force. That plane or boat will lift. And as long as the force at which the air or water is hitting the bottom side of the solid object. It will continue to fly or lift until that force is reduced at which time that solid object will then lose its lift ability. I mean think about all the things that fly through the air that don't rely on this shape to do so. Bullets . arrows. People show out of a cannon. A rock. A rocket. All these things fly. BUT aren't shaped like a wings of a plane. See I think the shape only aides in the flight. Making it easier or more efficient for the plane to fly. Not the actual reason the plane flies in the first place. The reason something solid flies is because their is enough force being applied to its bottom surface at an angle that forces that object to lift. This can be achieved be any shape. Although some shape will require more engery than others to do so. Hence the wing design. It just allows for it to fly with less force
God help the child or small animal that stands in a direct line between Neil DeGrasse Tyson and a TV camera.
Most of us get at least some stuff wrong when we discuss topics we are not experts in. Most of us aren't 'experts' in more than one thing, and many of us aren't even that, in spite of what we may think about ourselves... Yes, Tyson comes across as a know-it-all sometimes, but when pushed will acknowledge when he's discussing topics outside of his expertise. I give him a break when he's asked about stuff outside his field. I think a more realistic approach is to think of air as mass. When air travels over a longer distance over the top of the wing the molecules spread apart and the air pressure is reduced, causing lift. And yes, if you tilt a wing upward during take-off (as well as lower the trailing edge flaps) you are lengthening the travel over the top of the wing, further spreading apart the air molecules on the top of the wing and reducing air pressure / and increasing the pressure below, causing increasing lift.
I hope Neil applies his kak handed explanations to even more subjects that he knows squat diddly about, as I really enjoy watching him falter and stall his way through the explanations, all the while making a complete twit of himself. It's like listening to somebody who thinks they can sing but can't hit a note to save their life. Highly enjoyable, long may it continue!!
You will offer him an offer that he cannt refuse?,,??,?, Maybe your name is not Mangar But Corleone! hahah! Very fun video but also very interesting I didnt know you could put both cindition levers from feather to auto in the samz time: small but useful!
Sorry a lil mispell "Mangar" : my finger flicked MaGNar
Wow! You punctured Tyson's ego. OK. Sometimes truth is painful.
Lets all smoke some more pot
All u got to do is put ur hand in water move it angle it then u can figure it out duh
Hes bought and paid for what else could be expcected
Neil is ALWAYS wrong when you deep dive in the matter. He is approximative and he has a general knowledge, nothing more.
Neil is a celebrity 😅 expect him to behave like one. Forget pure science 😊
Leave the fuel.........take the Cannoli's.
Tyson = Biggest Internet Grifter of All Time
Old engineer (and PPL) here: My instructor (non engineer) said this: "The Bernouilli Effect creates lift." "Oh so how does a plane fly inverted?" Silence...I suggested Newton's 3rd law or just put his hand out the car window and tilt it a little, about 4°...lift!
Have you explained how aircraft fly upside down or did I miss it? Based on the pressure diagrams seems like lift generation will bring you straight to the ground.
The lift that the wing generates is a function of the shape of the wing AND the angle of attack. At 8 minutes 50 in the video there is a diagram illustrating different pressure profiles for the same wing shape different positive angles of attack. The angle of attack is the alpha figure of +2 degrees, 8 degrees, 15 degrees and 20 degrees. This illustrates the effect of varying the angle of attack. If you look at, say, the alpha = 8 degrees diagram and literally just turn it upside down then yes, the green low pressure is underneath and the blue high pressure is on top, so the pressure would pushing the wing down into the ground. But if all you do is simply turn the picture upside down then you've changed the angle of attack from +8 degrees to -8 degrees, and that is not what happens when you fly inverted. You fly with the now-inverted wing at a POSITIVE angle of attack so it still generates lift. When you're designing an aeroplane that's intended to fly the right way up, you design it to fly at angles of attack that are good for generating lift and you give it a wing shape that's good at generating lift. If you turn that wing upside down but still give it a positive angle of attack then it can still generate lift. All you're really doing now is flying a wing at an angle of attack that is good for generating lift but with a wing shape that's not so good at generating lift. So it will work, but not as well as it did when it was the right way up. If you're designing an aerobatic aircraft that needs to be able to fly well when it's inverted inverted, then you might think about a wing shape that works quite well both ways up.
hahaha amazing video!!
Thank you!! 😁
Cannot stand neil degrasse tyson. He's arrogant and insincere
LOL. Niel's comment about Aircraft Carriers runways and the angle of the runways. "You don't want them at 90 degrees". No Neil, you wouldn't want the runways on an Aircraft Carrier at 90 degrees, at that point you have a giant pontoon, not an Aircraft Carrier. 😔
Tyson should stick to debunking flat earth. That's his level playing field.
Neil is always right, just ask him.
Ha ha, good one. I ueed to fly for a major airline in the desert, they had nicely printed banners & posters all over the company saying similar things. like, shut down that APU, taxi on 1 engine, saves $500,000 a year or something like that 🤣😅 but each one of those fancy posters probably cost $100 already to print!😆
Nice one!
DeGrasse is the dumbest smart person I have ever heard!
Of course I would trust him, he's Magnar fucking Nordal.
Set one engine on FTR and another engine in AUTO during taxi. Once cleared to line up, set both engine to AUTO. Saves you 20-30kg fuel per flight 😉
That would require a re-write of the SOP. In general, pilots do not like taxiing with amber alert lights (ACW GEN) before take-off.
Science Explainers are definitely among the careers on the AI chopping block. Now we have LLMs to confidently hallucinate in response to our questions.
Listening to Neil "Snake in the Grass" Tyson was his first mistake. He's another Michio Kaku - a huckster who's in it for the money.
Professional pilots break ground and take off into the wind. Novice pilots often do exactly the opposite.
It seems that there isn't a topic that Neil doesn't believe he's an expert in. "Scientists" like Neil is why there can be no debate on topics like climate change.
NDT is way out of his league on a lot of subjects. He's an embarrassment to himself.