Fluid Flow & Aerodynamics
why things fly, and why the usual explanation is wrong
Concept

Biplane — where it appears

Two lifting surfaces one above the other, whose induced drag is less than one wing of the same total lift and more than one of the same total span. The saving depends on the gap between them and not at all on the stagger.

Named by 4 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Four aeroplanes, one number. Four biplanes with the same gap and the same loadings, staggered by nothing, by four tenths, by nine tenths and by one and six tenths of a chord. Their induced drags agree to the last bit of the arithmetic — the calculation cannot even express the stagger, because the Trefftz plane is a cross-section and everything drawn here projects onto the same one. That is Munk's stagger theorem, and stating it as the drag is unchanged understates it: there is no place in the computation where the stagger could be entered.

Two wings and it does not matter where

Move one wing of a biplane a chord forward and the induced drag does not change. Not approximately, not to a good approximation — the calculation that gives the induced drag has nowhere to put the stagger, because everything projects onto the same cross-section of the wake.

circulation · Biplane A closed wake, and the loading of least drag on it. The wake of a box wing in the plane that decides its drag, with the circulation of least induced drag drawn as a thickness along it. The horizontal members carry a loading close to elliptic and the vertical ones carry a share that lifts nothing — they contribute no lift, since lift is Γ dy and dy is zero on a vertical, and they change the drag by changing where the wake's vorticity is. At a gap of 20 per cent of span this system costs 67.1 per cent of what a single wing of the same span and lift would.

A wake that closes on itself

Prandtl's best wing system is a rectangle, not a wing. Solving for the loading on a closed wake turns up a circulation that costs nothing and does nothing — a gauge freedom in the middle of an optimisation — and a drag that keeps falling with no floor under it.

circulation · Box wing Joined at the tips, the spars share the moment as a couple. The share of the lift's root bending moment that the box wing's two spars carry as an axial couple — one in tension, the other in compression, the gap for a lever arm — against the fins' bending stiffness as a multiple of a spar's, for gaps of a tenth, a fifth and two-fifths of the span. With floppy fins the spars bend independently and the couple is nothing. With fins as stiff as the spars, which a fin of the wing's own section is, the couple carries 29 per cent at a gap of a fifth. However stiff the fins, it stops near a third.

A box wing's fins earn their keep in the spar

Constrain a box wing's root bending moment and its fins stop saving drag: it becomes a biplane. But that constraint counted the lift's moment, not the spars', and the fins join the spars into one frame. Joined at the tips, the two spars hand part of the moment to a couple across the gap — tension in one, compression in the other — which costs far less material than bending. With fins as stiff as the spars that is three-tenths of the moment; with rigid fins it stops at a third, whatever the gap, because a tip joint can only guide a tip. Counted in the spar, the box has less drag and a lighter spar than the elliptic monoplane at once.

circulation · Box wing A phantom biplane partner doubles the induced drag. Induced drag at a given lift, as a multiple of its deep-water value, against the foil's depth in spans. The surface's image of the foil is an identical wing, equally loaded, twice the depth above it, so the real foil pays its own induced drag plus the mutual drag of a biplane with a gap of twice its depth: 1 + σ, with σ Prandtl's biplane factor. The elliptic biplane's 1 + σ and the aspect-ratio-9 foil's lattice both run to two as the depth closes.

A foil under the surface flies with a phantom

At foiling speed the water's surface cannot hold a pressure, and the image that condition requires is not the reversed one a wall makes. For a horizontal foil it is an identical wing, equally loaded, above the surface — a biplane partner that takes lift and gives nothing back, doubling the induced drag as the foil rises. For the board that pierces the surface it is a reversed copy, which makes the board pay two and a half times what a keel under a hull pays. It is the board, not the foil, that decides how deep a foiling boat rides.

applied · Sailing

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Induced dragModel limitSpan loadingThe Trefftz planeCirculationMunk staggerOptimisationBending momentBoundary conditionBox wingConstraintDownwash

All concepts