is their certain amount of lift per inch for a planes wing?
152180
Lift force depends on wing area, angle of attack, air density, airspeed, and several other parameters.  Google "aerodynamic lift" and see.  Happy landing.
101831
if you want plane flying at a high speed you must use small wings ,because this will reduce drag .But in this process you will have to use longer runways due to loss in lift .\n\nif a slow moving plane is enough then you can use the larger wings they have more drag and more lift and hence require smaller runways \n\ndrag is the opposition to the motion of aplane in air\nlift is the force moving the plane into the sky
2504
More than Bernoulli's principle and wing shape (airfoil) are at work in keeping a plane in the air. The main criteria is the  "angle of attack" of the wing. That is, the angle at which the wing meets the air passing by it. When a plane is flying, its wing is always at a positive angle of attack; the leading edge of the wing is higher relative to the air going over it than the trailing edge. So the air pushes the wing up.  When the plane is inverted, the angle of attack must be great enough to overcome the "negative lift"  created by the airfoil. This is accomplished by adjusting the elevator. Inverted flight will always require the input of down elevator.
596616
Depend on where you want to measure the weight.\n\nWeight = mg\n\nWhere m is the mass of the plane and g is the accelleration of free fall.\n\nTo measue the weight of the scale you would park it on an aeroscale which would tell you its mass.\n\nThe mass of the plane wll be the same everywhere.\n\nTo find the weight of the plane you multiply the mass of the plane and the gravitational field strength from where you are measuring it.  On the srface of the earth tjis is 9.81.  The weight will be in Newtons.\n\nWhen the plane is in flight to measure its weight you need to find out the gravitational field stenth at the hight at which the plane is flying.  Unless the plane is flying exceptionly high (Like in space) then 9 will also be 9.81.
1084157
They found that the second wing (bi-wing planes) was not helping the planes lift, but rather was just adding unnecessary weight to the plane.  Therefore it was inefficient.\n\nSome planes today actually have a smaller wing in the front and a larger wings in the back.   Also, some one plane known as the flying wing did not have a wing in the back.  In fact this is basically the design of our new stealth fighters and bombers.   \n\nSo new designs are coming forward all the time that find new design concepts in flying.
294601
Simply put, faster air moving over the top of the wing creates a lower pressure than the slower air under the wing.  This creates lift and causes the wing and the plane to rise.\n\nThe shape of an aircraft wing is curved on the top and flat on the bottom, the air has to move further on the top of the wing in the same time, so it moves faster creating lower pressure. \n\n(This is Bernoullis principle, higher speed = lower pressure, lower speed = higher pressure).  \n\nThe plane is propelled by a jet engine or propellor fast enough until lift is achieved.
99997
Increased lift at low altitude due to ground effect, yah? \n\nI'm curious.  You apparently know the answer, so why ask the question?
596883
Lift of WHAT?   Crane, Ballon, Brassier, Airplane wing....???\nGive us a CLUE
179408
Bernoulli principle is only partially true for a airplane.\n \nThe main reason for airplane creating lift is when an airstream passes by something which deflects it downward. The force created by this deflection of the air creates an equal and opposite force upward on the wing according to Newton's third law of motion. The deflection of airflow downward during the creation of lift is known as downwash.\n\nA false explanation for lift is known as the "equal transit-time" explanation, it states that the parcels of air which are divided by an airfoil must rejoin again; because of the greater curvature (and hence longer path) of the upper surface of an aerofoil, the air going over the top must go faster in order to "catch up" with the air flowing around the bottom. Therefore, because of its higher speed the pressure of the air above the airfoil must be lower. Despite the fact that this "explanation" is probably the most common of all, it is false.
215818
Basically, airplane uses the same aerodynamic forces as forces that lifting your hand, when you reach out your hand through the moving car window.\nLittle slope of your hand is enough to create air force that pushes your hand up or down depending of angle.\n\nSimilarly, wind speed can elevate your sun umbrella on the beach.\nOnly difference is that an airplane creating enough wind speed by own moving straight ahead and forcing the air to push his sun umbrella (in case of airplane – sun umbrella or sloping hand  is WING )
791708
By flapping. Air molecules have substance. When you push down on them they push back up with an equal and opposite force (See Newton's Laws of Physics). So when the bird flaps its wings, it pushes down, air pushes and up and this creates lift. The shape of a birds wing also helps create lift. Because a bird's wing is curved on the top, air must travel faster along the top than the bottom to meet at the end. This creates a pressure difference above and below the wing creating lift.
594231
Anything can glide. Some just do it better than others. It's easy to see in paper airplanes. Or tree seeds. The maple's twirlers manage to say up for quite a distance. Pinccones  and apples, don't. \n\nWhat makes the difference? Well... \n\nLift is needed to overcome (to the extent possible) the downward force of gravity. It's generated at the expense of air speed, and depends in part on the shape of the wing (called airfoil shape). Fighter wing airfoils aren't well chosen for low speed lift generation. Points against fighters and in favor of low speed wing airfoils. \n\nWing size broadly correlates with lift. So most purpose built gliders (eg, sailplanes) have long and narrow wings -- usually pretty flappy. The U-2 plane was the next thing to a glider and it's wings were famously droopy. These are best for slow speed lift generation. Fighters typically have short and very strong wings, able to cope with the high G-loads of abrupt manuvers. Points against fighters again, and in favor of long narrow wings. \n\nGliding performance generally improves with lower weight. So very large and heavy planes are unlikely to glide well, even with long properly airfoiled wings. Fighters are quite heavy (powerful engines, lots of fuel, lots of electronics, lots of weapons, heavy airframes to resist all those G loads, ...) for their size, and so points against fighters and other heavy things, and in favor of lightly built delicate planes. \n\nSo, from multiple perspectives, fighters make lousy gliders. That some of them are inherently unstable and require computer assistance to fly at all is another issue. Even slow speed planes could be so designed, but in those cases the cheapest available flight computer (ie, a pilot) is more than adequate, so no one will bother to design a computer controlled crop duster. Fighters have small, heavily loaded wings, whose airfoils are optimized for high speed manuvers. They generally glide better than rocks, but perhaps not much better. \n\nIf safety is close enough to reach from the burnout altitude (with a typically bad glide ratio -- ie, lots of drop for a given forward motion), they can make it to safety. This is why naval aviation is risky. Safety is a little bitty deck perhaps hundreds of miles away. Landing on a carrier is a sort of controlled crash, and requires an operating engine to bolt if the wire is missed, so gliding landings on carriers are vanishingly rare. Safety in naval avaition is largely getting close enough to ditch and hoep that weather permits recovery before you drown are are eaten by big carnivorous fish.
141770
To answer this question there are two principles of physics involved and to really understand it is a little difficult.\nThe shape of the wing determine the lift on the wing. The birds know it very well they know how to fly.\nBy making the top of the wing a curves and the bottom a straight line,we obtain two different traveling distances for the air fluid to flow.The angle which the fluid flows is called the angle of attack and in order to fly the airpla must have the proper andgle of attack least it stalls.\n\nBernoulli's principle says that if the velocity of the moving fluid is increased the pressure is decreased.\n\nThe velocity of air over the top of the wing is greater than the air flowing under the wing.Because the air travels a longer distance for the same time as the air floweing below the wing.Hence the pressure is less on top of the wing.\n\nBy Newton third law the bottom of the wing gets the greater lifting power.\nTherefore the statement in the first line of you question is correct.\nSo the plane mimics the flight of a bird.
301491
Lift on a wing typically occurs only in a very narrow band along the length of the wing.  Everything outside of that is only adding to friction.  So a long wing, with a narrow width (cord) has more lift and less drag since more of the wing is in that lift "band" and less causing drag.\nSo why not make all wings narrow and long?  Because of strength requirements (1) and; (2) a wide wing can increase its lift as the nose is tilted up as one does when slowing down to land.  A narrow wing would not do that and one would have to land at much higher speeds and with greater danger of stalling!
45989
I not very sure about applications of air resistance force. However here is a possible answer. \n\n  There is always some force that provides centripedal acceleration. Air resistance for the straight plane is perpendicular to surface of plane = D (say)\nLet radius of circular motion be r and tangential velocity be v\nSince this force is given to be constant at that altitude,\n\n     Dsin10 = mv*v/r   .........(1)\n     Dcos10 = mg       .........(2)\n\nSolving, we get,\n      tan10 = (v*v)/rg\n\n         r  = (v*v)/gtan10\n         r  =  (135*135)/(9.8*0.176)\n         r  = 10566.44 m\n\n By simple trigonometry, you can draw a right angled triangle ABC representing the plane as hypotenuse AC where B=90 degree, C=10 degree, BC=r and AB = elevation = H\nHence, tan10 = H/r\n           H = tan10 * r\n             = 0.176 * 10566.4\n             = 1859.69 m\n\nIf one of the planes wings which was down comes up after one rev, then the approx. change in altitude will be 1859.69m
516805
If you look at the shape of the wings you will notice that they are not 'flat'.  They have a unique shape to them.  The shape forces the air that flows below the wing to travel faster than the air above them, which pushes up on the underside of the wing, otherwise known as 'lift'.
286223
The Bernoulli effect does not help inverted flight, it hinders it. The Bernoulli "lift" is downwards when flying inverted. Actual upward lift is generated by Newtonian lift.\nAirplane wings use a combination of Bernoulli's principle (the faster air flows over a surface the lower its pressure) and "Reaction" or Newtonian lift, the force produced by the downward acceleration of an air mass by a plane surface that is tilted with respect to the velocity. (See references). The upper surface of the wing is curved and the lower surface is relatively straight. Thus air passing over the wing has farther to travel before it rejoins the air that went under the wing, and must move faster. The lower pressure over the wing creates a Bernoulli lift force. The wing also has a positive "angle of attack" (basically the tilt angle of the wing's lower surface) producing Newtonian lift. Ref. 1 estimates that airplanes have more Newtonian than Bernoullian lift. In normal flight the total lift is the sum of these two forces.\nInverted flight requires the difference, not the sum, of the two lift components to equal the plane's weight, in other words, a lot more Newtonian lift. This is achieved by increased angle of attack, flaps, etc. which also increase drag. That is why inverted flight takes more power.