我的瑞典朋友马丁·宋贝先生于1953-1983年长期担任瑞典航空研究院(FFA)低速气动力部主任.他是一名至今还开飞机上天的有54年历史的老飞行员.这两年他常和我讨论飞机升力产生原理的传统说法,他认为许多人误用了伯努利定理来解释升力.他说:长达半个世纪,遍布全世界的飞行员教材中的错误概念,已经酿成了飞行事故,他有责任为此进行斗争.退体后的这几年,他东奔西跑到处说服人们接受他的意见,先是在 FFA内有了市场,接着欧洲民航年会(ECAC)采纳了他的批评,现在他又在争取国际民航组织(ICAO)和美国联邦航空局(FAA)纠正错误.不久前他寄给我一篇用英文写成的“檄文”,希望我帮助征求中国同行的意见.我将它翻译整理并加了标题“伯努利升力原理批判”介绍给大家.我觉得这篇文章涉及到科学原理的准确表述和科学普及的通谷解释的关系问题.飞机为什么能飞?或升力怎么产生的?这既是航空空气动力学要研究的课题,也是科普教育要回答的问题.文章所批判的说法在我国的科普读物、中学教材、飞行员课程、航空概论中也都采用,因为其通俗易懂,当然在真正的高等空气动力学教程中又是另外的讲法.关键是通俗解释不应当引入错误的概念,更不应当因错误概念导致危险的后果.诚然,飞行员的教材不可能和飞机设计师的空气动力学课本相同,但是升力产生和飞机尾涡与下洗的密切关系却因此被忽略了.本来,在明白升力产生的原理同时,就能知道任何飞机后方都有强下洗和强尾涡,谁也不会贸然冲进这个危险地带.所以从这个意义上说,如此“通俗”法地向飞行员讲授,意思不大,而且应对尾涡事故负一定责任.文章还指出了许多概念性的错误,尤其是因果顺序的颠倒,即使对于空气动力学专业的教员与学生也必须重新认识,建立科学的物理概念.因为科普教育中错误说法的流传之广,它同样也渗入气动专业人员脑中,这种逻辑的混乱同样存 在,因为从中学物理课起就是这么教的.目前,我国中学和大学的力学教育有一个重复循环但又逐步深化的过程;同样的现象和原理,在大学时可以用更高级的数学工具科学地描述,而在中学时则要既通俗又科学地教授基本概念.如果这种通俗中杂有许多错误,那么它并不会在大学的高等教育中自然纠正的,只会贻误终生或造成混乱.那么,科学的原理能不能作通俗的解释呢?宋贝先生的文章本身就做了肯定的答复.他在解释升力、机翼、分离、失速等现象时,一直以中学的牛顿定律作为出发点,而且把机翼空气动力学的许多基本概念串起来了,可以说是“老少咸宜”,又能摒弃错误概念的渗入.目前中学物理的教学越来越强调基本概念,其中非常重要的是明辨一个定理或原理的孰“因”孰“果”,宋贝先生在文章中反复争辨的就是这一点.现在,我们进行科普教育的媒体越来越多,除了学校课本外还有报刊杂志、广播电视、甚至文艺小说和商业广告,全社会都应当负起传播正确的术语、概念、原理的责任.这是宋贝文章的又一点启示,他作为一名空气功力学家兼老飞行员为我们做了一个榜样. My Swedish friend, Martin Song Bei, was a longtime Director of Low Speed ​​Aerodynamics at the Swedish Aviation Research Institute (FFA) from 1953 to 1983. He is a 54-year-old pilot who still has a plane flying to heaven today He often talks to me about the traditional notion of aircraft lift-generating principles, which he believes many erroneously used Bernoulli’s theorem to explain lift. “The false notion in the pilots’ teaching materials for half a century, all over the world, has been brewed In the years since his retirement, he has been running around trying to persuade people to accept his opinions, first having a market within the FFA, followed by the European Civil Aviation Conference (ECAC) Adopted his criticism, and now he is fighting for the ICAO and the FAA to correct their mistakes, not long ago he sent me an article written in English, hoping I would help solicit Chinese colleagues I translated it and added the title ”Critique of Bernoulli’s Lift Principle“ to everyone, and I think this article relates to the question of the relationship between the precise formulation of scientific principles and the explanation of the valley of science. fly? This is not only the subject of aeronautical aeronautics research, but also the problem to be answered by popular science education.The article’s criticism is also used in popular science books, middle school textbooks, pilots courses and aviation theories in our country because Its easy-to-understand, of course, is another story in the true course of higher aerodynamics. The point is that popular interpretations should not introduce false concepts, but should not lead to dangerous consequences due to false notions. And the aircraft designer aerodynamics textbook the same, but the lift and tail vortex and wash the close relationship was thus ignored.Originally, in understanding the principle of lift generated at the same time, we can know that any rear of the aircraft have strong Wash and strong eddies, who will not rush into this dangerous zone, so in this sense, so ”popular“ law taught to the pilot, not mean, and should be responsible for the wake vortex accident responsibility.The article also pointed out A lot of conceptual mistakes, especially the reversal of the causal order, must be re-established, even for aerodynamically trained faculty and students The scientific concept of physics, which is also present in the minds of aeronautical professionals because of the widespread misrepresentation in popular science education, also exists in the logic of chaos, as it has been since the physics of secondary school. Mechanics education in universities has a repetitive but progressively deepening process; the same phenomena and principles can be scientifically described by higher-level mathematical tools in universities, while in secondary schools both basic and scientific concepts are taught both in general and in science. If there are so many mistakes in this popular tradition, it will not be naturally corrected in higher education in universities, but will only be delaying life or chaos, so can the principle of science be used as a general explanation? The article itself affirmed the answer.He explained the lift, wing, separation, stalling and other phenomena, has been the Newton’s law of high school as a starting point, but also wing many of the basic concepts of aerodynamics string together, we can say Is ”all ages", but also to abandon the concept of the infiltration of errors.At present, the teaching of physics in secondary schools more and more emphasize the basic concepts, of which it is very important to identify one This is what Mr. Song Bei has repeatedly argued in his article. Now that we have more and more media for popular science education, in addition to school textbooks, there are newspapers and magazines, radio Television, and even literary novels and commercials, the whole society should take up the responsibility of spreading the correct terminology, concepts and principles.This is another enlightenment of Song Bei’s essay. As an aerodynamicist and pilot, he has done for us An example