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

d'Alembert's paradox — where it appears

The exact result that a body in a steady inviscid flow experiences no drag at all. It is not an error but a correct consequence of the assumptions, and its failure against every measurement is what taught the subject to look at boundary layers.

Named by 16 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

d'Alembert's paradox, measured. Surface pressure round a cylinder in ideal flow, plotted against angle. The distribution is symmetric front to back, so every push on the front is matched by an equal push on the back, and the total force along the stream is exactly zero.

The exact theory says nothing has any drag

Solve the flow past a body in a fluid with no viscosity and the answer is beautiful, closed-form, and predicts that a cyclist needs no legs and an airliner no engines. This is not a small error, and it is the most useful failure in the subject.

inviscid · Dalembert The fluid a moving cylinder carries with it. Kinetic energy density around a cylinder moving through fluid that is at rest far away. The fluid is not dragged along in a lump: it is pushed aside in front and closes in behind, and the energy in that motion is what has to be supplied to change the body's speed.

The force of getting going

The exact theory says a body moving steadily through an ideal fluid feels no force at all. It does not say the fluid is free. Accelerating the body has to accelerate the fluid too, and the bill for that is exactly the mass of fluid the body displaces.

inviscid · Dalembert One more condition, and the price of it. The model problem ε u″ + u′ = 0 with a condition at each end, at three values of ε. The outer solution is the flat line at one — that is the whole of the answer when ε is zero, and it is a first-order equation that can meet one condition, so it meets the one at the far end and misses the one at the wall by the whole range. Restoring ε restores the second condition and pays for it with a layer of thickness ε, inside which the gradient is of order 1/ε. The product of those two — which is what a stress is — does not depend on ε at all: it is 1.0000 at every value tried, to nine decimal places. Drag does not vanish as viscosity does. It converges.

How many things a flow must be told

The equations of motion do not have one answer. They have as many as the conditions on the edge allow, and the number of those is decided by the order of the equation — which is why viscosity does not make the same problem harder, it makes a different problem.

kinematics · Boundary conditions Lift and wave drag on a flat plate at Mach 2, exactly and to first order. The lift and wave-drag coefficients of a supersonic section against incidence, computed face by face from shocks and fans, with Ackeret's linear result dashed over them. The two agree to three decimal places at small angles and part company slowly — which is what a first-order theory is supposed to do, and evidence rather than tautology, since the two routes share no algebra.

Drag with nothing to rub

d'Alembert's paradox says a closed body in a steady, inviscid flow has no drag, and four essays on this site argue it and none of them is wrong. Above Mach one it is false — the flow is still inviscid, still steady, and the drag is real, finite and quadratic in incidence.

compressible · Wave drag 1.5U at the equator, and no drag at all. The exact ideal flow past a sphere, in the meridional plane, with speed contoured behind the streamlines. The fastest fluid is at the equator at 1.5U — a cylinder's is at 2U — and the field is fore-and-aft symmetric, so the pressure integral over the surface gives a drag of -1.2e-16 against a dynamic scale of order one. The streamline spacing here does not measure speed the way it does in a plane flow: the flux between two meridional streamlines depends on the distance from the axis as well, which is why the speed is contoured rather than left to be inferred.

Three dimensions are kinder

Every ideal flow solved on this site so far is plane, and plane flow is the harsh case. Put the third dimension back and the fastest surface speed drops from twice the free stream to one and a half times, the disturbance dies as the cube of distance instead of the square, and the body cannot carry circulation at all.

inviscid · Axisymmetric A steady pressure field, from a flow with no steady part. The time-averaged pressure round a cylinder in a stream that oscillates as U₀cos ωt. The mean velocity is exactly zero at every point — the flow spends as long going one way as the other — and the mean pressure is not, because pressure depends on the square of the speed and a square has no sign. The mean coefficient reaches -2.00 at the shoulders and averages -1.00 over the surface, and its resultant is 6.6e-16: a real field with no force in it. The pale lines are the instantaneous streamlines, which reverse every half cycle.

The mean is not the flow

Average an unsteady flow and the result is a new object with its own properties, and it is not a solution of anything. An inviscid stream oscillating about zero has a mean velocity of exactly nothing everywhere, a mean pressure that reaches minus two dynamic pressures at the shoulders, and a missing term in its own momentum equation that can be written down in closed form.

kinematics · Averaging A loading that integrates to nothing and turns the aeroplane over. The loading a slender body carries at 6 degrees, drawn along it. It is positive over the front half and negative over the back, in equal measure, so the lift integrates to -3.6e-18 — nothing, which is d'Alembert's paradox for a body of revolution. The moment does not: the two halves act at different stations, and the couple that survives is nose-up, grows with the square of the speed, and is what a tail is sized against.

A body with no lift, and a moment anyway

A fuselage in ideal flow carries no lift at any incidence and still tries to turn the aeroplane over. The couple is computable in one line, it is why tails are the size they are, and the line comes from applying the wall condition to a place where there is no wall.

inviscid · Slender body The two bodies the far field cannot tell apart. A circular cylinder and the Rankine oval that has the same doublet strength: 1.17 radii long against the circle's one, and 0.94 tall against its one, with a source and a sink 1.2 apart inside it. On the pale ring, one and a half radii out, the two flows differ by 19 per cent of the disturbance; at six radii by one per cent; at infinity not at all. What a far field records of a body is three numbers — its circulation, its net outflow and its doublet — and nothing else survives the journey.

What the far field remembers

Three numbers survive the journey to infinity — a circulation, a net outflow and a dipole — and nothing else about a body does. Two shapes with nothing in common can therefore make the same flow a few radii away, and the difference between them dies two orders faster than the disturbance either one makes.

inviscid · Far field The Kirchhoff flow past a flat plate. A uniform stream meeting a flat plate held across it, with two streamlines leaving the edges and never returning. Between them is a wake of fluid at rest at a constant pressure. The equations solved are the same equations that give d'Alembert's paradox for a closed body, and this flow has a drag coefficient of 0.8798.

Drag in the theory that forbids it

d'Alembert's paradox is a theorem about flows that close behind the body. Stop requiring that, let two streamlines leave the edges and never come back, and the same equations — no viscosity, no vorticity — produce a drag coefficient of 0.8798.

inviscid · Free-streamline Two things moving by a million, and their product standing still. Viscosity, the squared velocity gradient at the dissipation scale, and their product, across six decades of Reynolds number at a fixed large-scale flow. The viscosity falls by a factor of 1e+6; the squared gradient rises by exactly the same factor, because η falls as Re^(−3/4) and u_η as Re^(−1/4); and the dissipation ν(u_η/η)² does not move at all. That is the dissipation anomaly stated as arithmetic: the limit of the dissipation as viscosity vanishes is not the value it takes when viscosity is zero.

The limit that is not the value

Dissipation is viscosity times the square of a velocity gradient, so it ought to vanish as the viscosity does. It does not. The gradient rises by exactly the factor the viscosity falls by, the product stands still, and a fluid with no viscosity at all would dissipate nothing — which is why the limit and the value are different numbers.

turbulence · Dissipation Why a flat plate has no drag, drawn as a triangle. A flat plate at incidence with the three forces that must balance. Pressure can only act along the plate's normal, so the pressure force is the arrow perpendicular to the plate. Kutta–Joukowski says the resultant is perpendicular to the free stream. The difference between the two directions is the suction force at the leading edge, which acts forwards along the plate and is exactly L sin α. Without it the plate would have a drag of L sin α, and an inviscid fluid does not permit one.

A finite force from an infinite speed

Pressure on a flat plate can only act along the plate's normal. Kutta–Joukowski says the force is perpendicular to the free stream. Those two directions differ by the angle of attack, and the discrepancy is made up at a single point where the velocity is infinite and the area is zero.

circulation · Leading edge suction Three answers for the lift-curve slope, with three different signs. Thin-aerofoil theory has no thickness term at all and returns 2π for every section. The exact potential solution rises: 2π(1 + 0.766 t/c), measured off the Joukowski map. Real sections do the opposite, because the boundary layer thickens towards the trailing edge and decambers the section. Two of these curves are computed here; the third is what measurement says.

The half that carries nothing

Thin-aerofoil theory splits a section into a camber line that carries all the lift and a thickness distribution that carries none — at any incidence, exactly none. That is very nearly true, and what it discards decides the peak suction, the critical Mach number and where the boundary layer gives up.

circulation · Thickness Five flows past one cylinder, every one of them a solution. Surface pressure round a cylinder in a stream, at five circulations. Each satisfies Laplace's equation, the tangency condition on the body and the condition at infinity, and each has a different lift. Nothing in the problem chooses between them: the domain has a hole in it, so the potential is many-valued and the circulation is a free constant.

The constant a hole leaves behind

In a region without holes, Laplace's equation and the boundary values have exactly one solution. Cut a hole and they have a one-parameter family. Nothing in the mathematics chooses between its members, which is why the Kutta condition has to exist and why it cannot be derived.

inviscid · Multiply-connected The free surface a submerged body leaves behind it, and the flat water in front. The linearised free-surface problem solved as a Fourier integral with a radiation condition. Behind the body a wave train of the wavelength that stands still relative to it, 2 pi U²/g; ahead of it, an amplitude a hundred and twenty times smaller. The asymmetry is the drag: an ideal fluid with a free surface can carry energy away.

The drag that is made of waves

D'Alembert's paradox says a body in a steady, irrotational, incompressible, inviscid flow feels no drag. Put a free surface above it and every one of those words still holds — and the drag is not zero. It is the energy walking away in the wave train behind.

inviscid · Dalembert The six bodies, drawn at the same scale. Two circles, two ellipses and two Joukowski sections, each at the incidence that gives it a circulation of exactly two. There is no family resemblance and no common parameter; what they share is one number, and the theorem needs nothing else.

One formula, and it does not ask what the shape is

Kutta–Joukowski gives the lift of any two-dimensional body from one number. Six bodies with nothing else in common are put at that number here and come out with identical lifts — and with pitching moments, load distributions and suction peaks that are not even close.

circulation · Lift In clean water a bubble rises nearly three times as fast as the same bubble in tap water. The terminal rise speed of an air bubble in water at 20 °C against its radius, from buoyancy balanced against drag: with a clean, shear-free surface using Moore's law, and with a surface immobilised by contamination using the rigid-sphere correlation. At 0.3 mm the clean bubble rises at 13.0 cm/s against 6.7; at 0.5 mm at 31.0 against 11.2, a factor of 2.76. Beyond a radius of 0.47 mm the clean bubble's Weber number passes one, its shape flattens, and a spherical calculation stops describing it; that region is shaded. Nothing about the bubble's size, gas or liquid changes between the two curves — only whether its surface can move.

The vorticity a clean surface cannot refuse

A clean bubble's surface cannot hold a shear stress, and it is easy to conclude that it makes no vorticity. On a curved surface it must carry exactly 2κu — three times the speed over the radius at a sphere's equator, whatever the Reynolds number. That is so much weaker than a rigid wall's that the flow stays irrotational to leading order, and the bubble's drag is the dissipation of that irrotational flow: 48/Re, three to ten times below a rigid sphere's.

kinematics · Boundary conditions

Named alongside it

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

Potential flowDoubletInviscidModel limitAdded massBoundary conditionBoundary layerCirculationLiftDragSeparationSuperposition

All concepts