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

Downwash — where it appears

The downward velocity a lifting wing induces on the air near it, produced by the vorticity it trails. It tilts the effective flow direction at the wing, which is why a finite wing has drag in a fluid with no viscosity.

Named by 15 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A control volume round an aerofoil. A rectangle drawn in the fluid around a lifting section. The arrows on the right-hand face show the downward velocity of the air leaving it, drawn to scale. Adding the momentum carried through all four faces to the pressure acting on them gives the force on whatever is inside, without the calculation ever going near the surface.

Air must be pushed down, and the usual sum is wrong

The momentum explanation of lift is the one physicists reach for, and it is right — a wing does hold itself up by throwing air downwards. The version usually given then does the accounting badly, and the face of the control volume it keeps turns out to carry the least of it.

misconceptions · Momentum lift Circulation across the span, for three planforms. How much circulation each part of the wing carries, plotted across the span. It has to reach zero at both tips, because a wing cannot carry circulation off its end, and the rate at which it falls is what determines the vorticity shed into the wake.

The price of having ends

An infinitely long wing in a fluid with no viscosity has no drag at all. Cut two ends into it and the drag appears — not from friction, which is still absent, but from the fact that circulation cannot be carried off the end of anything.

circulation · Finite wing Induced drag against aspect ratio, all at C_L = 0.6. Induced drag for wings of different aspect ratio, each flown at whatever incidence makes it carry the same lift coefficient. The drag falls as one over the aspect ratio, so the longest wing here pays a fraction of what the shortest does for exactly the same load.

The span is the whole story

Induced drag is the price of having ends, and the only thing that lowers it at a given lift is putting those ends further apart. Not more area, not a better section, not a cleverer planform — span, and everything else is a correction of a few per cent to it.

circulation · Finite wing The lift does not arrive when the incidence does. Bound circulation against distance travelled, in units of the settled value. The wing starts far short of its final lift and takes tens of chords to collect the rest, because every scrap of circulation it takes has to be paid for with an opposite vortex shed behind it, and that vortex's own downwash holds the wing back until it is far away. Wagner's exact 1925 answer is drawn beside the model in the colour this site keeps for a borrowed claim: the shapes agree and the model is slower, by about a fifth at its worst.

The lift that arrives late

A wing set into motion does not have its lift. Every scrap of circulation it takes has to be paid for by shedding an equal and opposite vortex behind it, and until that debt is far downstream its own downwash holds the wing back — for tens of chords, not for an instant.

circulation · Unsteady lift What the ground actually gives a wing. Induced drag near the ground as a fraction of the same wing's in free air, against height in spans, at constant lift. The ground is a plane of symmetry, so the wake is joined by a mirrored wake of opposite circulation below it, and the upwash from that image is what takes the drag away. At a tenth of a span the wing keeps 0.516 of its induced drag — a saving of 48 per cent — and by a span and a half the effect is 1.3 per cent and going. The lift is held fixed all the way along this curve: what the ground gives here is not more lift, it is the same lift for less drag, and the two are different claims about a landing aeroplane.

The cushion that is not there

Ground effect is usually explained as air trapped under the wing and compressed into a cushion. At the heights an aeroplane actually flies at, the air under the wing is moving at four fifths of flight speed and most of what the ground gives is a drag saving the story never mentions.

misconceptions · Ground cushion 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 The downwash approaches twice the value at the wing — from above. The downwash behind an elliptically loaded wing of aspect ratio 8, as a multiple of the induced angle at the wing itself, against distance in spans. Every account of tail sizing quotes a factor of two here. Two is the value at infinity: the trailing legs of the horseshoe system contribute a factor (1 + x/√(x² + a²)) which is one at the lifting line and two far downstream. Close behind, the bound vortex dominates and the field is much larger, and the curve comes down to its limit. A tailplane sits two or three chords behind, which on this wing is 0.31 of a span — where the factor is 2.46, a quarter above the number in the formula.

The surface in the wake

A wing has no opinion about its own incidence, which is why it needs a second surface behind it. How much that surface is worth depends on how much of the wing's downwash it is sitting in, and the factor of two everybody quotes for that is the value at infinity — where no tailplane has ever been put.

circulation · Moment 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 The wall is a boundary condition, solved for rather than reflected. A model's trailing vortices in a closed working section, with the sheet of sources that makes the wall a wall drawn as a displacement of the wall itself. The interference is an upwash — the model looks better than it is, and the correction factor comes to 0.1242 against the exact value 0.1250 that the image at the inverse point gives for a circle. The arrows are the interference velocity alone, with the model's own downwash removed, drawn to a common scale set by the longest of them.

The walls are in the answer

A wind tunnel measures a wing in a box the aeroplane will never fly in, and the box is worth a fifteenth of the induced drag. The correction is exactly an eighth for a closed circular section and exactly minus an eighth for an open jet, and the sign is the whole argument.

circulation · Tunnel interference A high tail buys a second trim point, at 31.52 degrees. The pitching moment of two layouts against incidence, with the stable trim points marked. Both cross zero with a negative slope near 0.76°, which is the ordinary cruise trim. Past the stall the conventional layout's tail is caught only glancingly by the wake and its moment stays nose-down, so it has no second crossing; the T-tail's tail is swept into the wake and sees 12 per cent of the dynamic pressure, its download collapses, and the wing's own nose-up moment carries the curve back across zero at 31.52°. That second crossing is stable — the slope there is negative too — which means an aircraft that reaches it stays there.

A stall that is a place

A stall is an event, and the usual accounts treat it as one — a boundary reached, a damping lost. A high tailplane makes it something else. Swept into the wing's wake, the tail loses the download that held the nose up, and the aircraft finds a second stable trim point thirty degrees past the stall from which the elevator cannot bring it back.

misconceptions · Stall speed How the weight is shared between the two surfaces, against the centre of gravity. The wing's load and the tail's, for an aeroplane in level flight, against the static margin. The two must sum to the weight and their moments must cancel, and those two equations decide the split. At a forward centre of gravity the tail carries down and the wing carries more than the weight; the crossing is where the tail carries nothing.

More lift than weight

An aeroplane in level flight is drawn with one arrow up and one arrow down, equal and opposite. That equation collapses the whole configuration onto one number, and it is not true of any aeroplane with a tail behind it: there are two surfaces, two equations, and the second decides the split.

circulation · Trim Two theories, one composite, and the aspect ratio between them. The lift-curve slope against aspect ratio. Prandtl's lifting line is exact as the aspect ratio goes to infinity and Jones's slender-wing theory is exact as it goes to zero, and each is generous outside its own limit. Helmbold's formula reduces to both with no free constant, which is what a composite expansion is, and runs under them where they disagree.

Where the line stops being a line

Prandtl's lifting line replaces a wing with a single bound vortex and its trailing sheet, and the formula that comes out is the most quoted in low-speed aerodynamics. Solved numerically at aspect ratio one it returns its own closed form to sixteen decimals — and the answer is forty-one per cent too high.

circulation · Finite wing How flat the optimum is. The same curve near its maximum, with the bands within a tenth and a half of one per cent of the best shaded. Every taper ratio from 0.31 to 0.42 is within a tenth of a per cent of the optimum, and the whole band from 0.25 to 0.51 is within half a per cent. The optimum is exact, and choosing it rather than its neighbour buys nothing a wing can measure.

The optimum that does not matter

Elliptic loading gives the least induced drag, exactly, and the proof is one line: the penalty is a sum of squares. Which is also why the optimum is flat enough that a quarter of the design space sits inside a tenth of a per cent of it.

circulation · Taper The trailing sheet rolls up into two vortices, and nothing it carries is lost. The trailing vortex sheet behind an elliptically loaded wing, seen in a plane across the wake, at times 0, 0.05, 0.2, 0.6 in units of b²/Γ₀, represented by 160 point vortices with a smoothing length of 0.03 of the span. The tips curl up first and the sheet winds into two concentrated vortices while the whole system sinks under its own induced velocity; by t = 0.6 the pair's centroid has descended 0.122 of the span. Through all of it the crossflow energy — the induced drag — and the separation of the two halves' centroids, 0.7854 of the span, stay exactly what they were.

The drag a wake keeps however it rolls up

A plane drawn across the wake of a finite wing contains its induced drag as the kinetic energy of the swirling crossflow. The trailing sheet then rolls up into two vortices, and the energy does not change at all — roll-up moves the drag around the plane without spending any of it. What does spend it is viscosity, which turns crossflow energy into a total-pressure defect, so a plane farther back reads less induced drag, more profile drag, and the same total.

misconceptions · Momentum lift 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.

Induced dragCirculationModel limitSpan efficiencyThe Trefftz planeLift coefficientLifting lineOptimisationSpan loadingAspect ratioBoundary conditionLift

All concepts