Neil gets A LOT of things wrong.

One of the great challenges in this world, is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right...but not enough about the subject, to know that you're wrong...

Tyson’s greatest work was Cosmos where he was reading from a script written by people who actually knew what they were talking about.

As a pilot, listening to Tyson's explanation of lift was like listening to fingernails on a blackboard... Also, anytime anyone says that natural phenomenon "wants" to do something, it's time to change the channel.

DeGrasse isn't just in the wrong lane here, he's on the wrong highway!

I'm gonna correct one thing - he wants us to think he knows it all. I wish he'd stick to topics he really knows, but he likes the sound of his own voice, so I know he won't stop.

From the outside, it appears that Mr Tyson's self worth is wrapped around being the smartest person in any room he enters. And it doesn't seem like that meshes well with the final quote in this video.

Listening to Tyson talk, it boggles the mind how anyone ever took him seriously.

Magnar, well done! I too watched the Neil deGrasse Tyson video (due, in part, to his celebrity status), only to find myself muttering “no, no, no ….”. Thanks for putting together such a well researched, technically correct, exposé of three common misconceptions in aeronautics.

"Astrophysicist to the Stars" Neil deGrasse Tyson wanders into the weeds to find a rake. Steps on it.

Tyson ain't no Sagan, that's for sure...

I used to like Neil’s science descriptions. Then I saw him give a keynote live at a technical conference in San Francisco. I forgot what topic he was talking about, but the number and level of bombastic arguments and assumptions was counter to what I learned from my scientific mentors. (Three of them are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles.) But upon watching this (and I’m only at 11:30 ), my level of Picard facepalming has reached a new level. How does he get these cowpies past his fact-checking team?

On another explainer, Tyson said that airplanes taxi in the air above the airport, and not on the ground. Chuck Nice was visibly disturbed by Tyson's explanation, because even Chuck knew that aircraft taxi on the ground….on taxi ways.

Tyson is NOWHERE as smart as he thinks he is.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and most others, also forget that you can build a plane with thin flat wings and it will still fly. Inefficient, yes, but I build balsa models like that for fun.

Neil seems to be getting careless. Air does not "want" anything. It is a group of molecules under pressure due to gravity. I assure you, air does not want anything, just as water does not "seek its own level". It is water. Water seeks nothing. Words matter, Neil. 🙂

As noted by others - if “Equal transit time” were correct then inverted flight would be impossible, as would flat high-speed wings that have no curvature. Holding angled cardboard out a car window forces it upward.

Thanks for confirming what I have known as a pilot for years. Interesting to note, I still, on occasion have to correct certified flight instructors during bi-annual reviews, that bernoulli alone is not sufficient. In fact, there are still manuals out there that still teach it incorrectly.

NDT is evolving into Cliff Clavin from Cheers.

I respect Dr. Tyson, but it surprised me when he stated that a helicopter cannot glide if its only engine stops. I fly single-engine airplanes and helicopters, and I'd rather be in the latter when the engine quits.

What really scares me is that I have never taken a single class in aerodynamics... yet I still knew many of the things he said were wrong. Particularly the part about all airports and aircraft carriers have more than one runway are they are never at 90 degrees... you know... because I have eyes.

I went to engineering school with guys like NDT - so eager to teach and or sound smart that they have to sound authoritative in everything, regardless of how little understanding they have of whatever topic they're wandering through at the moment.

Your shirt is indeed cooler! More people should see this video.

I heard the bit about the air going a longer distance and wanting to "catch up" 50 years ago when I was 12. Seemed wrong to me even back then. Thanks for finally setting the record straight.

I was working on my pilot licenses while in college pursuing my civil engineering degree. My hydraulics professor was the first engineer I had heard who was so perplexed at how many otherwise credible people had the flawed "understanding" of Bernoulli and lift. To this day, from the FAA publications down, that misunderstanding continues. It's hard to understand why it has not been corrected after having been explained by so many sophisticated aerodynamic experts like those Magnar refers to at the end of his video.

Dunning-Kruger would be proud of their theory!

I love it when you can ‘see’ the low pressure envelope above a wing when planes are close to landing in wet humid conditions. That cloud above the wing.... now you see me, now you don’t. The same conditions also show the powerful vortices coming from the outboard tips of the trailing edge flaps. When lift and wake air turbulence become visible.

The primary purpose of an aircraft carrier's angled deck is to allow landings and launches simultaneously.

If Bernuoulli effect is dominant in producing lift, then upside down flight would be impossible.

Several years ago I was looking through a graduate level aeronautics textbook where the author was discussing lift via Bernoulli & upper/lower path length. He concluded that a Cessna 182 would have to accelerate to over 400MPH to lift its own weight if this were the mechanism that enabled a wing to generate lift. It is amazing that this myth is still being taught by the FAA and was a multiple choice answer on the airman 3rd class written test.

A simple experiment I was shown in the 1960s, long before I gained my humble private pilots license, involved 2 pieces of paper. Take a sheet of, let’s say, copy paper and hold it horizontally, like a mouth organ, but just under your bottom lip. If you blow across that paper, even quite gently, the sagging sheet will lift to be horizontal in both directions, left to right and front to back. A more dramatic experiment is to hold 2 sheets of paper vertically, close together and up against your lips. When you blow between them, fairly hard, you will be rewarded with the noisy report of the 2 sheets flapping wildly against each other. These are but 2 examples of Daniel Bernoulli’s principle at work. Oh. another example, I experience it every morning, is the way a shower curtain is drawn inwards by the water rushing past it, same principle. Smart man that Dutch born Swiss mathematician/physicist! The other factor keeping aircraft airborne is that the wings push the air down, via the angle of attack, not unlike a water skier’s skis. This is well illustrated by the slight drop in altitude noticed when an aircraft moves out of ground effect immediately after it leaves the end of the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. This is more pronounced with lower powered planes.

Thank you for your clarification on this issue. Good Job.

As a sailing instructor I sometimes had studends who knew all about Benoulli's theorem. When I pointed out that a sailboat's sail has no thickness, I was met with disbelief. "How dare you question Benoulli!" Newton's law of motion explain airfoil lift nicely. Those infatuated with Benoulli have to resort to Newton when challenged on the inconsistencies.

Tyson is a science _popularizer,_ just like Carl Sagan was. Nothing more.

A perfectly flat panel, with no curvature, generates lift. Small wooden children's toy airplanes use flat sheets for wings, and they fly just fine. Properly curved airfoils can increase lift efficiency. Cantilevered wing tips can help with reducing vortices, thereby reducing stall speed. There are optimal designs for these also. Long thin wings are more efficient than short fat wings at generating lift, but long thin wings are more susceptible to turbulence. Each blade in a jet engine is a type of wing.

As always captain, you correct misled people. Being always looking for the truth and do research is key to good pilots. Thank you for your wisdom 🙏

Another great video Captain. Well done

Thank you for this wonderful explanation

Thank you for this video. I am appalled at the number of amateurs who are putting out misinformation about aerodynamics on KZfaq! I never realized how mystifying the topic is to non-aviators. Videos like yours help set the record straight. I fear it is only fellow aviators who watch them, though. 👍🛫✈🛩

So glad to have found your channel.

It's actually a little bizarre that NDT got this so wrong. I mean if he thought for a moment and recalled - for example - that many airplanes regularly fly inverted (and that most airfoils don't look like his example and many are close to symmetrical about the chord line) he'd have to realize that his explanation was flawed. And don't even get me started by the "up the flaps on the tail wing" part. Sigh. Thanks for the video Magnar!

Great video explaining most important aspects There is one other thing Coranda effect . The tendency of a fluid to stay attached to a convex surface

Bravo, for your excellent work another time.

Brilliant video !

I recently saw him talk about landing the space shuttle. He claimed that NASA discovered that putting linear grooves in the runway would straighten out the shuttle when it landed. The Dept. of Transportation had been putting grooves in the highways and freeways before NASA even existed. They do this to help the road shed water when it rains to avoid hydroplaning. I've driven on these surfaces for almost 50 years and I can tell you that a grooved surface does NOTHING to keep a vehicle going straight.

Finally! someone else who knows about the Babinski principle.

FYI Magnar, I was subscribed and clicked 'like' before the spider :-) I look forward to your videos, thank you for the effort.

Lets simplify the previous post---if all lift was from Bernouli effect, a flat plate will not fly, but most 10 year olds have learnt that it does, and sometimes quite well!

as a kid in elementary school, one day an airline pilot came to the school to teach the class about how planes work. She used the equal transit time explanation to show how lift works, and unfortunately by the time I had learned that that wasn't entirely accurate, I had already been sharing that incorrect information for years.

The character Sheldon Cooper on the Big Bang Theory is smarter than Neil.

Excellent, clear explanation. Thanks!

Thanks for the debrief!

NDT needs to turn off his ego and watch this vid.

And this is why he needs to stay in his lane. My home airport of Plant City Municipal Airport(KPCM) only has one strip and 2 runways. There are airports that can have 2 strips and only 3 runway, not 4 like you would think, because one end is not used for takeoff or landing due to obstacles(but usually due to rich people). Also, where I used to work at Igor Sikorsky Memorial Airport(KBDR) has 2 strips and 4 runways(used to have 3 strips and 6 runways), and the two remaining strips are RWY 6-24 and RWY 11-29.

NdeGT is one of those people who think they're so smart they never need to check with actual experts to see if they're right. Thanks for setting him straight, Magnar.

Using the definition of NASA: "Lift is a *mechanical* force. It is generated by the interaction and contact of a solid body with a fluid (liquid or gas)" then, in a *strictly mechanical sense* only the lower part of the wing is able to generate lift in steady horizontal flight. By definition, no force is able to get a "grip" on the upper part of the wing (the outside surface which is in contact with surrounding air) and *pull* the upper part of the wing upwards. There is no pulling force on the upper part of the wing. However, because of the angle of attack and the fact that the wing is not moving through a vaccum but through pressurized air, the upper part of the wing is able to decrease the ambient static air pressure exercised by Earth's atmosphere, therefore less air molecules are hitting against the upper side of the wing pushing it downwards, but this is not lift as lift would be directed upward, not downward. So at all times, air is only pushing against the upper part of the wing pushing the wing down and that's why those diagrams here: 8:56 are wrong as they depict force vectors pulling the upper side of the wing upwards. There is no mechanical force pulling the upper part of the wing upwards. However, there is a force resulting from static air pressure pushing at all times against the upper AND lower part of the wing. So the lower part of the wing is able to push the wing upwards as the upper side of the wing it is no longer pushed down as much because of aerodynamic effects (angle of attack, wing shape, air speed and so on). The wing moves upwards because of the aerodynamically created influence on the effect the surrounding static air pressure has on the wing (greater on the lower part) + the aerodynamically generated force of lift on the lower part. On the upper part, there cannot be any aerodynamically generated force of lift, only an *aerodynamically generated local reduction of the effect of static air pressure pushing downwards against the wing* (because of Bernoulli) therefore diminishing the downward push of the static pressure on the upper part of the wing. Therefore not every surface on the wing produces lift, but every bit of the surface influences how air moves around the wing and how the airflow is bend. Also, in case you don't understand this argument: if you buy a vaccum suction cup holder, once installed on a window pane, it actually does not suck on the window to stay put. The part facing the window pane can be compared to the upper wing, the part facing you can be compared to the lower wing. So the "vaccum suction cup holder" remains put because static air pushes it against the window pane (that would be lift) the only difference is, in order to create it, there is no need for airflow because the surface facing the window is hermetically sealed of and the lower static pressure is permanently maintained so there is no need for dynamic airflow over a curved surface at an angle of attack in order to create a local reduction of static air pressure hitting the wing. Now, it would be foolish to say the inner part of that suction cup holder created "more lift than the outer part" - as no force is pulling the inner surface against the window pane, only the outside static air pressure is pushing the suction cup against it.

As an engineer and a pilot, I went so so so so many times into this discussion with "the public in general" and with other pilots... Honestly I was allowing myself to be desappointed already before watching your video, as a way to avoid an even bigger deception. It ended up working in reverse: how happy I am to finally see a pilot going through the real scientific relevant aspects of lift in a correct way... Thank you so much for this fresh air of clarity! It would be really nice if science communicators would do a little home work before addressing such huge audience as they have.....

It is interesting that two of the world's leading astrophysicists, Tyson and Kraus, rockstars of their field, think they can bang on about everything. I especially dislike their hubris, the emphatic way they pronounce their opinions. A real scientist is careful and uncertain - because science is a set of hypotheses which are only correct until we find something better. In consequence, I have no time for such people - because if they are wrong about a subject I do understand, they might well be wrong about everything.

Neil will always be a space cadet. Best description of lift I have seen yet. Never thought of it as a hybrid principle between Bernoulli and Newton.

Such a great video, even pilots often get this wrong, since I guess it's just easier to teach an oversimplified explanation to someone who won't ever actually have to design a wing, but great to see a pilot who really gets it!!!

Neil DeGrasse Tyson gets many things wrong outside of his own field of expertise. A typical example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I caught that video by NDGTyson. I am a physicist and a pilot, and I was shocked also about how badly he botched that explanation. Not sure if he just didn't do his homework, or was trying too hard to dumb it down for his audience. But it was surprising to see. I have been trying to figure out where that air moving faster over the top explanation came about in the first place. I can only surmise that a simplified explanation somewhere in the past got lost in translation. If one is going to try to simplify using that line of "explanation " it would be more intuitive to say that the angle of attack slows down the air on the bottom, so that the air on the top is moving faster relative to the average air on the bottom. That way there is no magical speed up of air on the top.

Looking at Tyson's quote and based on things I have heard him say, his days must be filled with new learning experiences.

I just love this stuff. As a kid, i watched the smoke lines move around the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil and understood how lift is generated, i just couldn’t understand the math. LOL.

Neil dG ... a lot of warm air. And he keeps talking and talking... Instead of just saying : I don't know a damn thing about flying. Hillarious. Thank you, Magnar! ✈

I know it's going to be a good day when I start with The Grass getting disproven.

This video is wonderful.

I was all ready to complain about this video, but no - this is all correct. So many people get aerodynamics and lift wrong because it's complicated. Great video! Earned a sub from me.

I had not listened ot Tyson's explanation previously, but it sounds like a simplified Physics class that ignores the complications of the real world. It reminded me of the joke told to me by one of my Physics professors in college to stress that point: "Physics is the study of frictionless elephants whose mass can be neglected". The forces on the air do indeed act to "keep it at one parcel", but real-world forces like friction and the energy imparted as the wing moves through it prevent this from happening. Terms get complicated depending on the frame of reference that is being used (ie. whether the wing acts on the air, is with an aircraft, or the air acts on the wing, as in a wind tunnel). At least Tyson discussed angle of attack and its effect on lift. Some drawings used to explain lift show the airfoil at an angle of attack that produces either no lift or sometimes even a net downward "lift".

Tyson is perhaps the most annoying explainer on KZfaq and I am not alone in my observation

We had a Designated Pilot Examiner that would get very upset with applicants that would claim the air particles would meet back up. I get it. But it's also what most people are taught because visually, it's easy for most people to picture. I feel like there's some "gotcha" and micromanaging going on with this subject. Like ok...cool. Just correct people. It's not a huge deal. Some people in here are probably not very fun at parties.

I took aviation mechanics in the late 80s and what Mr Tyson stated was exactly what was taught. The instructor even used dots to show the path taken by the air flow and the dots aways met up. Its been decades but I can remember plotting airfoils using stick pins and string. My instructor was a licensed pilot with the following ratings; instrumentation, multi-engine, instructor and was a licensed A/P mechanic. He never stated how many, but he spoke about the times he assisted in a crash investigation and a local kit plane producer in addressing undesired flight characteristics.

Again the dilemma, its not the air thats moving around the wing, because it is usualy static. Its the wing moving through the air. The low pressure over the wing is created because the underside is pushing a small portion of the air FWD and downward. The air over the wing is trying to rush in to equilize the low pressure. Thats what makes the lower pressure. And it works the same on all subsonic wing types.

Runway directions are chosen by monitoring wind conditions for a period before aerodrome construction which @gcpgrey did a video on. They aren't at 90 due to laziness . Nzch has it because wind commonly goes north south (02/20) but occasionally off the mountains (27/11).but klas doesn't have 90 diff. This is because analysis shows common wind directions.

The angled deck carrier only has CAT in the forward deck for launching planes, angled aft deck only has trap for retrieving planes. It's an operation consideration.

Neil is a great example of “being knowledgeable about one thing doesn’t mean you know about anything else”

Wel, holding your hand out of your car window is still a good analogy for a wing. A poorly designed wing but a wing none the less. You do not need an airfoil shape to achieve flight. A cinder block will fly and be controlled with enough thrust. The airfoil shape is more efficient at creating this effect of being sucked up like a noodle by the lower pressure air as this air is sucked down into the upper shape or surface of the airfoil. It's bernulis principle. It's a half Venturi shape layed on a flat surface instead of bent into a circle. A ram air engine of sorts. Sucks its way up and pushes that air downward. It's some wormhole stuff.

Arrogance and ignorance are never far apart.

Very good. A simple visual proof. No advanced math Thanks

Beautiful explanation. So the form of the wing throws tne air generating a sort of centrifugal force and accelerating the air above the wing. At higher speed lower pressure.

Honestly, as a huge fan of Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson is regular disappointment.

Captain you are very experienced and you are right. This guy has always been misleading people in physics and he has absolutely no idea about aerodynamic.

8:51 it’s meant to be drag, but in the wind tunnel experiment earlier the angle of attack of the wing was not flat. i always think it seems like a lot of it is the change of angle of the air rather than pressure change

As a college instructor, I can tell that Tyson doesn't understand the subject by just watching and listening to him. I don't know how to explain it, but the longer I look at him, the more I doubt his knowledge.

Tyson keeps disappointing me.

I love Neil's enthusiasm, even when he misses the mark a bit.

Airports also consider prevailing wind directions. So runways at a 30° angle may be the best if the winds almost never are at 90° from the first runway.

Agree with most of the other posters however the statement about all airports having two runways is correct. For instance at our home grass strip has a single strip of land runway 9 and runway 27 which you would announce to other aircraft so they know which way you are taking off or landing.

The point of this video and some other ones I’ve watched is to basically bash and discredit Neil. They don’t take in account that the guy is just trying to provide basic understanding of a complex subject without having to resort to graphs, or videos or formulas that most people do not know about. It’s a podcast! Is not a class! Also you said that Neil said “air particle”, which he didn’t. He said “a parcel of air”, which is quite different. I know that a lot of people don’t like Neil just because he is black, but the guy is a brilliant disseminator of knowledge. He may not be 100% precise because no one is perfect, but trying to criticize him with some kind of mockery is just pathetic.

I stopped listening to Neil when he said when you wake up in the morning you can decide which gender to be. I hope I can reverse the years of damage to my brain from listening to him for a decade. He gives science a bad name.

I've seen many experienced pilots and others describe the equal transit time theory. Starting in jr high school when I did a science project on Bernouli's principle. The upper wing actually forms a venturi between the wing upper surface and the air above. But not all wings are flat on the bottom and curved on top. Some are nearly symmetrical. Such as the laminar flow airfoil on the P-51.

good work

Tyson is a DEI poster boy

DeGrasse is a clown.

The Kutta-Jukovski circulation equation demonstrates that, when the upper stream and the lower stream depart the leading edge simultaneously and arrive at the trailing edge simultaneously, the nett lift is zero.

That quote at the end! Savage! 😆

Makes me wonder about QUOTAS

How much did tyson pay for his degree, ive quetioned a lot of his stuff and reserached that he has been wrong on many,many subjects. One or two mistakes can be forgiven but not on many.

Part of the reason for the wing curvature is to reduce stall speed to make landings safer. This is enhanced using flaps that reduce it further..

You are an amazing guy, you really are.