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

Constraint — where it appears

A condition that an optimisation must respect, which is where the physics in an optimal result usually is. Changing what is held fixed changes the answer entirely — a minimum-drag loading at fixed span is not the one at fixed bending moment.

Named by 15 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Three accounts of lift, one of them tuned to be exactly right at five degrees. Thin-aerofoil theory, which is the answer; Newtonian impact theory with its constant tuned so that it passes exactly through the truth at five degrees; and the equal-transit story, which has no free constant and sits along the bottom. At the tuning point the tuned model and the truth are indistinguishable, and no measurement there separates them.

A right total from a wrong picture

Newtonian impact theory has a free constant in it. Tuned at five degrees it reproduces a NACA 2412's lift exactly, and no measurement at five degrees can tell it from the truth. What separates them is the derivative — a lift-curve slope 2.8 times too steep — which is a second constraint rather than a better one.

misconceptions · Momentum lift Five quarters of the span, the same bending moment, 64/75 of the drag. The bell-loaded wing's induced drag and root bending moment against its span, both as fractions of an elliptic wing of unit span carrying the same lift. At equal span the bell is worse: its span efficiency is exactly three quarters. But its bending moment is exactly four fifths, and bending moment grows in proportion to span while drag falls as its square — so there is a span at which the bell has bought back the structure and is ahead on drag. It is at exactly five quarters, where the two curves are at 1 and 0.8533. Both numbers are rational and neither was put in by hand.

The loading nobody used

Elliptic loading is the least-drag answer to a question no aeroplane asks. Constrain the moment the lift makes about the wing root instead of the span, and a different curve comes out — five quarters of the span for sixty-four seventy-fifths of the drag, both exact — with an upwash over the outer wing and a yaw that turns the right way.

circulation · Bell shape Four sections, and what the shape story says about each. A flat plate, a symmetric section twelve per cent thick, a cambered one, and a section with a wavy upper skin. The first two have upper and lower surfaces of exactly equal length; the last has an upper surface two and a half per cent longer than its lower one, which is twice the cambered section's excess.

The wing that is flat, and flies

Refuting the equal-transit story by computing the parcels leaves its premise standing, and the premise is the part most readers believe: that the shape is what makes the lift. It is a claim about shapes, so it is tested with shapes — a flat plate, a symmetric section, and a cambered one flown upside down.

misconceptions · Equal transit 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 The hodograph plane, where the unknown boundary is the known one. The same flow drawn in the plane of its own velocity, ζ = (u − iv)/U. The plate, whose shape is known in the physical plane, becomes a segment of the imaginary axis; the axis of symmetry becomes a segment of the real one; and the free streamline — whose shape nobody knows — becomes an arc of the unit circle, because the speed on it is exactly the free stream. The unknown and the known have changed places, which is why the problem can be solved at all.

Where the unknown boundary is the known one

A free surface is the hardest kind of boundary — its shape is part of the answer, so the region the problem is posed in is not known until the problem is solved. Draw the same flow in the plane of its own velocity and the shape becomes an arc of a circle, known in advance and exactly.

inviscid · Free-streamline Four bodies of identical length and volume, and their wave drags. Each body has the same length and the same volume; only the distribution of area along it differs. The Sears–Haack body — the spindle whose area goes as the three-halves power of x(L−x) — has the least wave drag of the four, and every other shape pays between thirty-seven per cent and a hundred and seventy-five per cent more for carrying the same volume the same distance. Nothing about the cross-sections' shape enters: only the area distribution does.

The least drag a volume can have

A body's supersonic wave drag depends on nothing about it except how its cross-sectional area is distributed along its length. Minimising that for a given volume gives one shape — and the answer goes as the volume squared over the fourth power of the length.

compressible · Wave drag Four corners, and what the flow does in each. The local flow in corners of four different interior angles, drawn from the exact local solution ψ = r^(π/α) sin(πθ/α). The exponent of the speed is π/α − 1 and depends on nothing else: at a right angle the corner is stagnant, at a flat wall nothing happens, and at any angle greater than a straight line the speed has no bound at the corner. The last panel, at 360 degrees, is the flow round the edge of a plate.

Nothing turns a sharp corner

Near a corner the flow is fixed by the angle and by nothing else — not by the size of the corner, not by the flow far away, not by the fluid. The exponent is π/α − 1, and every sharp edge in aerodynamics is the one case where it comes out at minus one half.

inviscid · Wedge flow The junction the minimisation is over. A parent vessel entering from the left and two daughters leaving to fixed points. The radii are settled by Murray's law; what is left free is where the branch point sits, and the cost of the junction depends on it. The point drawn is the one the minimisation finds.

The angle a junction chooses

Murray's law fixes the radii at a branching vessel and is where every account of it stops. The same minimisation fixes the angles completely — 74.93 degrees for a symmetric bifurcation, a right angle for a vanishing side branch — and it does so as a triangle of forces, with tensions proportional to the squares of the radii.

applied · Branching Five approach profiles a meter might be looking at. The velocity across the pipe upstream of a contraction, for a uniform flow, fully developed laminar flow, two turbulent power laws and an annular jet of the kind a bend or a partly open valve leaves. All five carry the same volume flow. The meter reads a pressure difference and cannot see any of this.

The profile a meter cannot see

A differential-pressure flowmeter measures a force balance and reports a flow rate. The step between them needs two integrals of a velocity profile the instrument has no access to — and two profiles differing by half the mean velocity across the pipe give identical readings, which is why the standards specify straight pipe rather than a correction.

applied · Metering Four wall models, through the buffer layer. Van Driest's damped mixing length, Reichardt's fit, Spalding's implicit law, and a control with no buffer layer at all — the viscous sublayer joined straight to the logarithm where they cross, at y+ = 11.6. The three fitted models agree with each other to a per cent and a half; the control is nineteen per cent above them at y+ = 10.

Three buffer layers, one friction

Four wall models are put through a pipe. The one with no buffer layer at all is nineteen per cent wrong where the turbulence production peaks and two and a half per cent wrong in the friction; the three respectable ones are within two per cent of each other in the buffer layer and spread by seven in the friction. The answer is not where it was expected.

turbulence · Wall law Four wakes carrying exactly the same drag. Four velocity-deficit profiles behind a body, each normalised so that the integral of the deficit across the wake is exactly the same. That integral is the drag: the far-wake momentum balance says so with no assumption about the shape of anything. The four are a narrow Gaussian, a wide top hat, the two-lobed wake a body with a splitter plate leaves, and a profile with heavy tails.

Exact in the total, free in the profile

A constraint is one number imposed on a function. Four wakes built to carry exactly the same drag differ by a factor of four and a half in their peak deficit, and the general statement behind that is a question about angles: how much of the wanted answer survives being projected off the constraints, and how much does not.

regimes · Dimensional Four guesses at a boundary-layer profile. A straight line, a parabola, Pohlhausen's cubic and a quarter sine, each rising from zero at the wall to the free stream at the edge. Two of them also satisfy the conditions the true profile satisfies — no curvature at the wall, no slope at the edge — and two do not, which is what sorts them.

Four profiles, one drag

The momentum integral is exact and asks nothing about the shape of the velocity profile. Four guesses at that shape span twenty-three per cent in the drag they give — and the two that satisfy the conditions the true profile satisfies are within three, which says the freedom belongs to the family rather than to the constraint.

viscous · Boundary layer A force ceiling ends the similarity: a breeze makes the boat slower as a share of the wind. Speed made good to windward as a fraction of the true wind, on the best course for each wind, for a rig that is flattened once the righting moment binds and for one that is reefed, with the hull's drag angle held at 6°. Below 3.70 m/s the two are the same boat, and the fraction does not depend on the wind — 1.122 at every speed, which is the similarity the two-angle polar rests on. Above it the flattened rig's fraction falls: 0.918 at 6 m/s, 0.572 at 10 m/s, 0.321 at 15 m/s and 0.169 at 20 m/s. The reefed rig's stays at 1.122, because a reefed sail keeps its least drag angle and the hull's angle is held. Once a force is limited, the triangle is no longer the same shape in every wind.

A breeze the boat cannot use

The two-angle polar makes a boat's speed a fixed fraction of the wind, in any wind. A righting moment ends that at 3.7 metres a second on the beat. Past it the crew must spill force, a flattened sail's drag angle climbs, and the best course to windward moves closer to the wind rather than away from it — which 45° + λ/2 cannot say, because λ now depends on the course.

applied · Sailing Two camber lines, one lift and one moment. A NACA 2412 mean line and the same line with a fourth harmonic added to its slope. They are eight tenths of a per cent of the chord apart, which is forty per cent of the section's own camber, and they have the same lift and the same pitching moment at every incidence — to the last bit of double precision.

Three numbers out of a camber line

Thin-aerofoil theory takes a whole function and returns a lift and a moment. Only three coefficients of that function survive: two camber lines matched in the first three, and eight tenths of a per cent of chord apart, have the same lift and the same moment at every incidence and load distributions thirty-seven per cent apart.

circulation · Thin-aerofoil What every wing pays to bend its root less. Least induced drag against the root bending moment of the lift, both as fractions of the elliptic monoplane of the same span and lift, for the monoplane and for box wings with gaps of a tenth, a fifth and two-fifths of the span. Each curve is a parabola with its minimum at that wing's unconstrained optimum. The box wings' minima sit to the right of the monoplane's — they load their lift further out — and their parabolas are shallower: the gap-of-a-fifth box can bend its root 21 per cent less than the elliptic monoplane and still match its drag.

A lighter spar turns a box wing into a biplane

Prandtl's best wing system has two-thirds of a monoplane's induced drag at a gap of a fifth of the span, and part of that saving is carried by circulation turning the corner into its fins. Ask the box to bend its root less and it pays about half what a monoplane pays — but a biplane with no fins pays nearly as little, and by the time the spar is a fifth lighter the fins carry almost nothing and the box has become the biplane it was built from.

circulation · Box wing

Named alongside it

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

MeasurementCirculationModel limitOptimisationInduced dragLift coefficientCamberPressure distributionSeparationSpan loadingThin-aerofoil theoryThe Trefftz plane

All concepts