Hang on, something doesn't feel right. Ah, that's better.

Now everyone knows that a wing generates lift due to its characteristic shape

Since air travels farther over top of the wing, it must go faster than the air underneath

so that both streams meet up simultaneously at the trailing edge

And according to Bernoulli's principle, faster flowing air exerts less pressure than the

slower air beneath the wing This pressure difference creates an upward

force -- lift. Job done. Right? Nope

This simple explanation taught in many textbooks and classrooms has obvious problems

Like how could a plane fly upside down? Some planes like the Wright brothers' had

nearly flat wings. So presumably air would travel the same speed over both sides and

there would be no lift Plus experiments show that air streams don't

meet up at the back of the wing. Air over the top goes significantly faster, reaching

the trailing edge first. So how does a wing actually generate lift?

Well the key is the wing must deflect air downwards

This can be achieved using asymmetric or cambered air foils

Or by increasing the angle of attack Air under the wing is deflected down

And by the coanda effect air above the wing is guided along its surface

and down as well Since the air is slowed and deflected down

by the wing, it pushes the wing up and back. Lift, and

drag. This is in accordance with Newton's Third

Law of Motion But hang on, if you can explain lift only

using the deflection of air and Newton's laws, then the Bernoulli explanation must be completely

wrong Well, no,

air over the top of the wing does go faster than air beneath, creating a pressure difference

that generates lift Then this Newtonian explanation is unnecessary

rubbish and the original explanation was right! That's not true either. The original explanation

incorrectly assumed that air over and under the wing must reconnect at the trailing edge,

and there was no mention of deflecting air down.

Each explanation, done correctly, completely accounts for the lift generated by a wing.

They're just two different ways of looking at the same thing.

So next time someone brings up the standard misconception, you can tell them that explanation

just doesn't fly. And if you liked that, you've gotta check

out MinutePhysics. I've got total respect for a guy who does this every week.

Sincerely, a collection of particles known as Derek.