EQUAL TRANSIT THEORY:

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.

Why this is wrong?

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!
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.
SKIPPING STONE THEORY:

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.

Why this is wrong?

 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.
 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.
 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.

VENTURI THEORY:

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 a Venturi 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.

Why it is wrong?
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.

 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.

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.