Table of Contents
Introduction: The Humiliation of the “Simple” Question
For nearly a decade, I stood in front of classrooms as a physics teacher, filled with the quiet confidence that comes from mastering your subject.
I would explain the universe’s grandest concepts—from the arc of a thrown baseball to the warping of spacetime around a black hole.
And when we arrived at the physics of flight, I would deliver the explanation I had been taught, the one found in countless textbooks and popular science articles.
It was neat, elegant, and wonderfully simple.
I would sketch a cross-section of an airplane wing, an airfoil, with its characteristically curved top and flatter bottom.
“You see,” I’d say, gesturing with the chalk, “the air traveling over the longer, curved top surface has to move faster to ‘catch up’ with the air moving along the shorter, bottom surface.
They have to meet at the back edge at the same time.” From there, it was a straight shot.
“According to Bernoulli’s principle, faster-moving air exerts less pressure.
So, you get lower pressure on top of the wing and higher pressure below it.
The high pressure pushes up more than the low pressure pushes down, and… voilà! You have lift.”
It was a satisfying story.
It felt right.
It combined a famous scientific name with an intuitive idea, and it seemed to explain the magic of a 400-ton machine defying gravity.
I taught it with conviction.
Until the day it all fell apart.
The moment of my undoing came not from a peer-reviewed paper or a conference lecture, but from a fifteen-year-old student in the third row named Sarah.
She was one of those wonderfully sharp, perpetually curious students who live in the “why” of things.
After I had finished my elegant explanation, her hand shot up.
“I get the part about the faster air,” she said, “but I saw an airshow last weekend.
The planes were flying completely upside down.
If the wing is flipped over, wouldn’t the ‘longer path’ be on the bottom now? Shouldn’t that create a downward force and make the plane fall out of the sky?”
The classroom went silent.
My mind raced, searching for a clever addendum, a footnote to my tidy theory that would account for this glaring exception.
I had none.
I mumbled something about “angle of attack” and the shape still playing a role, but I knew, and the students knew, that I was sidestepping the question.
Sarah’s simple, devastatingly logical query had revealed a fatal flaw in the story I had been telling for years.
If the theory can’t explain something as fundamental as inverted flight, it isn’t a theory; it’s a fable.1
That moment was profoundly humbling.
It was the kind of intellectual failure that sticks with you, a splinter in the mind.
It forced me to confront a disquieting truth: I, a physics teacher, did not truly understand how an airplane flies.
That single question launched me on a multi-year journey, a deep dive into the history and physics of aerodynamics.
I went back to the foundational papers, the NASA technical reports, and the heated debates among engineers.
I had to unlearn what I thought I knew and build my understanding from the ground up.
This report is the result of that journey.
It is not just an explanation of flight; it is the map of my path from a simple, convenient lie to a more complex, challenging, and ultimately far more beautiful truth.
I invite you to join me in dismantling a myth that has misled millions, and in its place, construct a new, more robust understanding.
By the end, you will not only know why planes fly, but you will also appreciate the elegant symphony of physical principles that allows them to grace our skies.
Part I: The Flawed Foundation – Why the Story We’re Told About Lift is a Lie
The most persistent and widely circulated explanation for aerodynamic lift is a theory known by several names: the “Longer Path” theory, the “Equal Transit Time” theory, or simply ETT.1
It is seductive because it appears to be built on a logical chain of reasoning using a legitimate physical principle.
Before we can build a correct model, we must first meticulously demolish this flawed one, because its errors reveal where the real truth lies.
The Anatomy of a Misconception
The Equal Transit Time theory, as I once taught it, rests on three core assertions that form a seemingly logical sequence 1:
- The Geometric Premise: An airplane wing (airfoil) is designed to have a longer, curved upper surface and a shorter, flatter lower surface.
- The “Equal Transit” Assumption: Air particles that are split at the leading edge of the wing must travel over their respective surfaces and meet up again simultaneously at the trailing edge. Because the top path is longer, the air on top must travel at a higher velocity to cover more distance in the same amount of time.
- The Bernoulli Conclusion: The higher-velocity air over the top surface creates a region of lower static pressure, according to Bernoulli’s principle. This pressure difference between the high-pressure bottom and the low-pressure top results in a net upward force: lift.
This explanation is so common that it appears in countless school textbooks, encyclopedias, and educational websites.6
Its appeal is its simplicity.
However, painstaking experimental evidence and rigorous analysis, much of it conducted by NASA, have proven that its central tenets are demonstrably false.
Debunking the Myth, Point by Point
The entire edifice of the ETT theory collapses when its foundational assumptions are put to the test.
1.
The “Longer Path” Requirement is Not Real. The idea that an airfoil must have a longer top surface is incorrect.
While many common airfoils do have this shape (known as camber), it is not a prerequisite for generating lift.
- Symmetrical Airfoils: Aerobatic aircraft, designed for high maneuverability and inverted flight, often use wings with symmetrical airfoils, where the top and bottom surfaces are mirror images and have the exact same length. These planes generate substantial lift.1
- Flat Plates: Even a simple flat plate, like a paper airplane’s wing or your hand held out of a moving car window, generates lift when tilted at an angle to the airflow. Here, the path length is identical on both sides.1
- Inverted Flight: This brings us back to my student’s brilliant question. When a plane with a conventional, cambered wing flies upside down, the “longer path” is now on the bottom. According to ETT, this should generate a downward force, or “negative lift.” While pilots do have to adjust their controls, the plane can and does continue to fly, proving that lift generation is not dependent on this specific geometric arrangement.2
2.
The “Equal Transit Time” Assumption is Physically False. This is the most critical failure of the theory.
The idea that air particles must “reunite” at the trailing edge has no basis in physical law.
There is no principle in fluid dynamics that compels this to happen.3
Smoke-tracer experiments in wind tunnels provide a clear verdict: it simply doesn’t happen.
- Air Over the Top is Much Faster: Visualizations show that the air flowing over the top surface of a lifting wing moves significantly faster than the ETT theory predicts. It doesn’t just move fast enough to “catch up”; it far outpaces the air below.1
- Particles Do Not Reunite: As a direct consequence, the particles of air that were split at the leading edge do not meet again at the back. The parcel of air that went over the top arrives at the trailing edge long before the parcel that went underneath.1
3.
The Theory Dramatically Under-predicts Lift. Because the “Equal Transit Time” assumption is wrong, the velocity it predicts for the air over the top surface is also wrong—it’s far too low.
If one were to actually use the velocities from the ETT model and plug them into the relevant physics equations, the calculated lift force would be a fraction of what is required to get a real aircraft off the ground.6
The theory fails not just qualitatively, but quantitatively.
A Seductive Pedagogical Failure
If the Equal Transit Time theory is so comprehensively wrong, why does it persist? The answer lies not in physics, but in psychology and pedagogy.
The theory is what one might call a “beautiful lie.” It provides a simple, linear narrative that connects a familiar shape (a curved wing) to a famous principle (Bernoulli’s) in a way that seems to make intuitive sense.3
It’s easy to teach and easy to remember.
The real problem isn’t just that it’s a wrong fact; it’s a flawed mental model that has become deeply entrenched.
It short-circuits genuine understanding by offering a plausible but hollow explanation.
My personal failure in that classroom wasn’t just a gap in my knowledge; it was a failure to see that the very tool I was using to explain the concept was the barrier to truly understanding it.
The journey to the correct answer, therefore, required more than just learning new facts.
It required dismantling the very framework of my thinking and searching for a new one—one that could accommodate all the evidence, from a 747 taking off to a stunt plane flying upside down.
Part II: The Epiphany – A Symphony in the Air
After the collapse of my ETT-based understanding, I fell into the next classic trap: the great “Bernoulli vs. Newton” debate.
The literature seemed to be divided into two warring camps.
One side championed Daniel Bernoulli, arguing that lift is purely a function of pressure differences.8
The other side rallied behind Sir Isaac Newton, insisting that lift is a straightforward reaction force from pushing air downwards.9
It felt like an impossible choice between two titans of physics.
Was lift a “pull” from the low pressure above or a “push” from the air below? Was it about pressure or was it about deflecting flow? This false dichotomy is the second major hurdle to understanding flight.
It presents two correct observations as mutually exclusive explanations, when in fact they are inextricably linked.
The epiphany that finally broke this deadlock for me came from a completely different field: the world of acoustics and Music.11
The struggle to understand the single phenomenon of flight from two different perspectives felt analogous to trying to understand the sound of a symphony orchestra.
This led me to a new paradigm, a new mental model that finally harmonized the conflicting views.
The Central Analogy: The Symphony Orchestra
Imagine you are trying to understand how a full symphony orchestra produces its powerful, emotive sound.
There are two fundamentally different, yet equally valid, ways you could analyze this phenomenon.
1.
The Listener’s Perspective (The “Bernoulli” View): You could take a seat in the concert hall.
From your perspective, the music is a purely sensory experience mediated by pressure.
Highly sensitive microphones could measure the precise fluctuations in air pressure that reach your eardrum—the compression and rarefaction of sound waves.
You could analyze the frequencies, amplitudes, and phases of these pressure waves.
This is a local, physical description of the effect of the Music. It is entirely correct, measurable, and predictive.
You can describe the entire symphony purely in the language of pressure.
2.
The Conductor’s Perspective (The “Newton” View): Alternatively, you could stand on the conductor’s podium.
From here, you see the orchestra not as a field of pressure waves, but as a system of physical actions.
You see the violinists drawing their bows across strings, causing them to vibrate.
You see the percussionists striking the surfaces of drums, and the brass players forcing columns of air through their instruments.
Each of these is a direct physical action—a force applied to a mass to accelerate it.
This is a global, action-reaction description of the cause of the Music. This perspective is also entirely correct and measurable.
The Unifying Epiphany
Here is the crucial realization: The listener’s pressure experience is caused by the orchestra’s physical actions. They are not two competing explanations for the sound.
They are two perfectly valid, causally-linked descriptions of the same, single event, viewed from different frames of reference.
The conductor’s view (Newton’s action-reaction) explains the origin of the energy put into the system, while the listener’s view (Bernoulli’s pressure) describes the state of the system as that energy propagates through the medium.
You cannot have one without the other.
The physical action of the bows on the strings creates the pressure waves that the listener hears.
This was the key.
Lift, I realized, is a symphony in the air.
The endless debate between Newton and Bernoulli is as pointless as arguing whether a symphony is “really” about vibrating strings or “really” about pressure waves.
It is about both.
They are two sides of the same coin, and to understand flight, we must appreciate them together.
This new paradigm—seeing flight as a unified “symphony” described by both cause (Newton) and effect (Bernoulli)—provided the framework I needed to finally build a complete and correct understanding.
Part III: The Orchestra in Motion – A New Framework for Understanding Flight
With our new “symphony” paradigm, we can rebuild our understanding of flight from first principles.
We will start by meeting the musicians—the fundamental forces at play.
Then, we will listen from the audience, understanding the pressure dynamics of Bernoulli.
Finally, we will step onto the conductor’s podium to see the direct action-reaction of Newton.
The Musicians – The Four Fundamental Forces of Flight
Before a single note can be played, we must introduce the members of the orchestra.
In flight, there are four fundamental forces that must act in concert.13
Any object flying through the Earth’s atmosphere is subject to a continuous, dynamic interplay between these four forces.
Their balance, or imbalance, determines whether the aircraft climbs, descends, accelerates, or cruises at a constant speed.15
These forces are best understood not as a simple list, but as two pairs of opposing partners, like a conversation between different sections of the orchestra.
The Four Forces of Flight: An Orchestral Overview
| Force | Role in the “Orchestra” | Opposing Force | Vector Direction | Acts Through… | Key Influencing Factors |
| Lift | The Upward Swell | Weight | Perpendicular to relative airflow | Center of Pressure | Airspeed, Angle of Attack, Wing Size, Air Density 15 |
| Weight | The Constant Bass Note | Lift | Towards the center of the Earth | Center of Gravity | Mass of aircraft, fuel, payload 15 |
| Thrust | The Forward Drive | Drag | Forward, in the direction of the engine(s) | Center of Thrust | Engine type, throttle setting, airspeed, air density 15 |
| Drag | The Resisting Friction | Thrust | Rearward, opposing motion | Center of Pressure | Aircraft shape, airspeed, air density, lift produced 15 |
Let’s examine each pair more closely:
- Lift and Weight (The Vertical Axis): Weight is the relentless, downward pull of gravity, acting on the total mass of the aircraft through a single point known as the center of gravity.17 Lift is the aerodynamic force, generated primarily by the wings, that opposes weight. It acts upwards, perpendicular to the direction of the plane’s motion through the air (the relative wind), through a point called the center of pressure.17 For an airplane to maintain level flight, lift must exactly equal weight. To climb, lift must exceed weight.15
- Thrust and Drag (The Horizontal Axis): Thrust is the forward-pushing force generated by the engines (propellers or jets), which propel the aircraft through the air.17 Drag is the aerodynamic force of resistance, the friction of the air pushing back against the entire surface of the plane. It acts rearward, directly opposing thrust.17 To maintain a constant speed, thrust must exactly equal drag. To accelerate, thrust must exceed drag.16
Understanding these four players and their dynamic balance is the first step.
When a plane is cruising at a constant altitude and constant speed, all four forces are in a state of equilibrium—a perfect, sustained chord.18
The art of piloting is the art of managing these forces, deliberately creating imbalances to climb, turn, or slow down.
But the central mystery remains: how, precisely, do the wings create that magical upward swell called lift? To answer that, we first take our seat in the audience.
The Listener’s Experience – The Truth of Bernoulli’s Pressure
From the “listener’s” perspective, lift is a phenomenon of pressure.
To understand this, we must revisit Daniel Bernoulli’s 18th-century principle, but with the correct physical context, not the flawed one provided by the ETT theory.
Bernoulli’s principle, in its simplest form, is a statement about the conservation of energy within a moving fluid.19
It states that for a fluid in motion, an increase in its velocity is accompanied by a decrease in its static pressure.20
Imagine the total energy of a parcel of air is constant.
This energy is composed of its kinetic energy (from motion) and its potential energy (manifested as static pressure).
If you force the air to speed up, its kinetic energy increases, so its static pressure must decrease to keep the total energy constant.
This is precisely what happens when an airfoil moves through the air.
The primary job of the wing is to turn the flow of air downwards.
To make the air follow the curve of the upper surface, the wing must accelerate that air.
Wind tunnel experiments using smoke tracers visualize this phenomenon beautifully: the streamlines of air bunch together and speed up significantly as they flow over the wing’s upper surface.21
This acceleration is the key.
Because the air above the wing is now moving much faster than the air below it, Bernoulli’s principle dictates that the static pressure on the upper surface of the wing will be significantly lower than the ambient atmospheric pressure.
Conversely, the slower-moving air beneath the wing exerts a pressure that is slightly higher than ambient pressure.
This creates a pressure imbalance.
There is a zone of relatively high pressure below the wing pushing up, and a zone of significantly lower pressure above the wing, which “pulls” up (or, more accurately, pushes down less).
The net result of integrating these pressures over the entire surface area of the wing is a powerful upward force.8
This is lift.
Crucially, the contribution from the upper surface is dominant.
Studies and aerodynamic models show that for a typical airfoil at a normal angle of attack, the reduced pressure on the top surface accounts for as much as 75% of the total lift generated.22
It’s less of a “push” from below and more of a “pull” from above.
This pressure-centric view is a completely valid and mathematically sound way to describe and calculate the force of lift.
It is the music as the listener experiences it.
But it doesn’t explain
why the air was forced to accelerate in the first place.
For that, we must go to the conductor.
The Conductor’s View – The Power of Newton’s Action
From the “conductor’s” perspective, we are not concerned with pressure fields but with direct physical action.
From this viewpoint, the explanation for lift is stunningly simple and intuitive.
A wing flies because it pushes air down.
This explanation is grounded in Sir Isaac Newton’s most famous law of motion: the Third Law.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.23
When a swimmer wants to move forward, they push water backward with their hands (the action); the water, in turn, pushes them forward with an equal force (the reaction).
An airplane wing does exactly the same thing, but in the vertical dimension.
As the wing moves forward, its shape and angle of attack are designed to deflect the oncoming air, forcing a massive volume of it to flow downwards behind the wing.25
This continuous downward redirection of air is known as “downwash.”
This downwash is the “action.” The wing is exerting a continuous downward force on the mass of the air it passes through.
According to Newton’s Third Law, the air must therefore exert an equal and opposite (upward) force on the wing.5
This upward reaction force is lift.
It is that simple.
To stay in the air, an airplane must continually push air down.
The amount of lift it generates is directly proportional to the mass of the air it deflects per second and how much it accelerates that air downwards.
This is why a larger wing or a faster speed generates more lift—both allow the wing to act on a greater mass of air each second.
This Newtonian view is powerful because it is so direct.
It bypasses the complexities of pressure and focuses on the fundamental exchange of momentum between the aircraft and the atmosphere.
It is the view from the conductor’s podium, seeing the direct physical actions that create the Music.
Part IV: The Grand Finale – A Unified Theory of Lift
We have now explored two seemingly different explanations for lift.
The Bernoulli camp describes a pressure differential, with low pressure on top of the wing and high pressure below.
The Newton camp describes an action-reaction pair, with the wing pushing air down and the air pushing the wing up.
The final and most crucial step in our journey is to see that these are not two different explanations at all.
They are two descriptions of the same event, one being the cause and the other being the effect.
Connecting Cause and Effect: The True Relationship
The resolution to the false debate is this: Newton’s action is the cause, and Bernoulli’s pressure state is the effect.
Let’s trace the sequence of events logically.
- An airplane wing, by virtue of its shape and its angle relative to the oncoming air (its angle of attack), must first act on the air to force it out of its straight path. It deflects the flow, turning it downwards. This is the fundamental physical action, the Newtonian cause.
- In order to make the air follow this curved, downward path, particularly over the top surface, the wing must accelerate the air. The flow on top must speed up relative to the flow on the bottom to navigate the turn imposed by the wing.
- This difference in velocity between the top and bottom surfaces creates the pressure differential that is perfectly described by Bernoulli’s principle. The faster flow on top results in lower pressure, and the slower flow on the bottom results in higher pressure.
You cannot have the Bernoulli pressure differential without first having the Newtonian turning of the air.
The pressure state is a direct consequence of the physical action.
The wing pushes the air down (Newton), and how it accomplishes this is by creating a pressure difference (Bernoulli).
As NASA’s own educational resources clarify, both explanations are correct and consistent.8
They are simply different mathematical ways to calculate the same resulting aerodynamic force.
One can integrate the pressure distribution over the wing’s surface (the Bernoulli approach) or one can calculate the net change in momentum of the air flowing past the wing (the Newton approach).
If done correctly, both methods will yield the exact same value for lift, because they are describing the same physical reality.
The Symphony Analogy Revisited: The Final Harmony
Let us return one last time to our concert hall.
We now understand that the symphony is not “caused” by pressure waves, nor is it “caused” by vibrating strings in isolation.
The symphony is the complete phenomenon that begins with the conductor’s view and ends with the listener’s.
The musicians (the wing) perform a direct physical action—drawing bows, striking drums, pushing air (Newton’s deflection of downwash).
This action is the fundamental cause.
This action, in turn, creates a specific and measurable state in the surrounding medium—a complex field of high and low pressure waves that propagate through the hall (Bernoulli’s pressure differential).
The listener’s experience is the inevitable effect of the musicians’ actions.
To ask whether lift is caused by Newton or Bernoulli is to reveal a misunderstanding of the system.
It is a single, unified process.
The wing deflects air downward by creating a pressure difference, and it creates a pressure difference by deflecting air downward.
Cause and effect are woven together into one magnificent piece of physics.
Conclusion: The Wonder of Flight, Rediscovered
My journey began with the humiliation of a simple question I could not answer.
It led me through the deconstruction of a comfortable lie, past the confusion of a false debate, and finally to a new, unified understanding grounded in a simple analogy: the symphony orchestra.
Today, if a student were to ask me how a plane can fly upside down, my answer would be ready and confident.
I would explain that a wing generates lift by deflecting air downwards.
The primary way it does this is by using its shape to create a pressure differential.
When flying normally, the wing’s natural curve and slight upward tilt do this very efficiently.
When flying upside down, the wing is at a much steeper negative angle.
Even though the shape is now “wrong,” the steep angle forces the air to turn downwards so aggressively that it still creates a net pressure difference sufficient for lift, albeit much less efficiently and with much more drag.
The principle—deflecting air down by creating a pressure differential—remains the same.
The simple “Equal Transit Time” story I once told was a disservice to my students and to the science itself.
It replaced a deep and fascinating interaction of physical laws with a trivial, incorrect cartoon.
The true explanation for flight is far more elegant.
It is a story of balance and imbalance, of the intimate dance between an object and the fluid medium it inhabits.
When we look up and see a colossal aircraft banking gracefully against a blue sky, we should not see it as a brute force machine defying gravity.
We should see it as a conductor, masterfully orchestrating the invisible atmosphere around it.
It is performing a symphony of physics, using Newton’s laws of action and reaction to create the beautiful pressure melodies described by Bernoulli.
It is a testament to human ingenuity, born from a profound understanding of the fundamental laws that govern our universe.
The magic of flight is not in defying the laws of physics, but in harnessing them with such sublime elegance.
Works cited
- Incorrect Lift Theory, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/wrong1.html
- Equal transit time fallacy and Newton’s laws of motion – Physics Stack Exchange, accessed August 9, 2025, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/265509/equal-transit-time-fallacy-and-newtons-laws-of-motion
- Where did the false “equal transit-time” explanation of lift originate from?, accessed August 9, 2025, https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/9931/where-did-the-false-equal-transit-time-explanation-of-lift-originate-from
- Theory of Flight – MIT, accessed August 9, 2025, https://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html
- Lift (force) – Wikipedia, accessed August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift_(force)
- How Planes Fly: What They Taught You In School Was Wrong | Daniel Miessler, accessed August 9, 2025, https://danielmiessler.com/blog/why-planes-fly-what-they-taught-you-in-school-was-wrong
- Is the Equal Transit Theory/Bernoulli’s Principle true about how a wing generates lift? : r/aerodynamics – Reddit, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/aerodynamics/comments/sytv9p/is_the_equal_transit_theorybernoullis_principle/
- Bernoulli and Newton, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/VirtualAero/BottleRocket/airplane/bernnew.html
- Bernoulli Or Newton: Who’s Right About Lift? – Plane & Pilot Magazine, accessed August 9, 2025, https://planeandpilotmag.com/bernoulli-or-newton-whos-right-about-lift/
- Bernoulli and Newton | Glenn Research Center – NASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/bernoulli-and-newton/
- Understanding QCM-D basics through musical analogies – Biolin Scientific, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.biolinscientific.com/blog/qcm-d-explained-using-musical-instrument-analogies
- The use of stringed instruments as an analogy to explain oscillation mechanics of the developing normal and diseased respiratory system – PMC, accessed August 9, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10978273/
- www.nasa.gov, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.nasa.gov/stem-content/four-forces-of-flight/#:~:text=Four%20forces%20affect%20an%20airplane,%2C%20thrust%2C%20drag%20and%20lift.
- Four Forces of Flight – NASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.nasa.gov/stem-content/four-forces-of-flight/
- Principles of Flight – The Four Forces Simply Explained, accessed August 9, 2025, https://selectaviation.com/principles-of-flight-the-four-forces-simply-explained/
- The Four Forces | How Things Fly, accessed August 9, 2025, https://howthingsfly.si.edu/forces-flight/four-forces
- Four Forces on an Airplane | Glenn Research Center – NASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/four-forces-on-an-airplane/
- Four Forces of Flight – FLY8MA Online Flight Training, accessed August 9, 2025, https://fly8ma.com/topic/four-forces-of-flight/
- Bernoulli’s principle – Wikipedia, accessed August 9, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli%27s_principle
- Understanding Bernoulli’s Principle & Its Real-World Impact – Pilot Mall, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.pilotmall.com/blogs/news/what-is-bernoullis-principle
- The Four Forces Of Flight – NASA SCI Files – YouTube, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGdhBAibT_s
- Bernoulli or Newton? – AOPA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/1998/november/flight-training-magazine/bernoulli-or-newton
- calaero.edu, accessed August 9, 2025, https://calaero.edu/aeronautics/principles-of-flight/newtons-third-law-in-aviation/#:~:text=The%20airfoil%20(wing)%20pushes%20air,to%20lift%20(Bernoulli’s%20Principle).
- Newton’s 3rd Law – Why does a swimmer push the water backward? – YouTube, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SA8-E2X7Xg&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
- What makes a plane go up? – NASA Glenn Research Center, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/Summer_Training/Elementary97/planearticle.html
- What is Lift? – Glenn Research Center – NASA, accessed August 9, 2025, https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/what-is-lift/
