There seems to always be debate around aerodynamic principals; specifically around the theory of lift and the textbook versions taught on the principles of flight. Many times it confuses physics students, even causes them to miss questions on test as the test answers often question the reality of what lift is and how aircraft really remain airborne, fly and remain aloft.

Students of aeronautics and aviation enthusiasts often debate these principles with one another. If you go to any aviation forum you will find online debates which rage thru the middle of the night. You can see that if you have ever had a question yourself on what you were taught or how things work you are not alone, but why all the debate on Lift and the Principles of Flight? Well most of it is a definitional debate, although much is a theoretical debate. Meanwhile you can see you are not the only one who has made has questioned the debates, as there are those who are scrabbling over definitions of flight characteristics all over the virtual world of the Internet. Here are some of those debates;

http://www.amasci.com/wing/airfoil.html

http://www.amasci.com/wing/rotbal2.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2528

http://www.airandspacemagazine.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1995/DJ/ssfw.html

Now these guys really got going here? How many types of lift are there? Bumble Bee lift, compression lift, aerodynamic lift, Bernoulli Lift, Reaction Lift, deflection of airflow, down wash, Coanda Effect, Eddy or vortex suction lift? I give up? These debates are really intense and somewhat out of control. Sometimes this scares aeronautic students, no wonder everyone is arguing. Whose idea was it to throw all these different types of lift in together anyway?

http://mb-soft.com/public2/lift.html

One online debate had a gentleman who asked a simple question: