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

Interference — where it appears

The change in the forces on one body caused by the presence of another. It is computed from the flow each induces at the other, and for lifting systems it depends on their separation across the stream and not along it.

Named by 5 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A slotted flap at 30°, in a flow with no viscosity anywhere. Streamlines through a main element and a flap, computed by a two-body panel solve. Each element carries its own circulation and its own Kutta condition, and the two interfere through their velocity fields and through nothing else — there is no boundary layer here, no wake, no mixing region and no high-energy air. The system's lift coefficient is 2.757 against 0.698 for the main element alone at the same incidence, and the main element itself is carrying 3.98 times the circulation it carries by itself.

A slot is not a nozzle

The gap between a wing and its flap is supposed to blow fast air into a tired boundary layer. A solver with no boundary layer in it at all — no viscosity, no wake, no mixing — produces most of the lift increment anyway, and produces it on the element nobody moved.

circulation · Slot 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 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 The local sweep of the isobars, across the span. The sweep of the half-load line at each spanwise station, for four geometric sweeps. Over the middle of the span it is the wing's own sweep, which is the simple theory being right. At the root it collapses — by twenty-one degrees at a geometric thirty-five — and at the tip it falls again. That root region is where the shock forms first on every swept wing ever built, and it is why they have waisted fuselages.

The sweep a root does not have

Simple sweep theory is one of the cleanest arguments in aerodynamics: an infinite yawed wing cannot know about the velocity along its own span, so only the normal component matters. A real wing has a root and two tips, and at the root of a thirty-five-degree wing the isobars are swept fourteen.

circulation · Sweep The worst jet amplifies the stagnation pressure by about the Mach number. The largest amplification of the stagnation pressure, over every incident turn, against the free-stream Mach number, on a logarithmic axis: the type IV jet, the best single turning shock followed by a normal shock, and the lossless ceiling. The jet's peak runs close to the line equal to the Mach number itself, from 3.5 at Mach 4 to 12.4 at Mach 12. The ceiling grows as the Mach number to the power of three and a half and is never approached. The estimate with one turning shock falls further behind the jet as the Mach number rises.

The spot a local theory cannot see

Newtonian theory gives every panel of a hypersonic vehicle a pressure set by its own angle to the stream, and no panel more than the stagnation pressure behind a normal shock. Let a shock from one part cross the bow shock of another and a supersonic jet forms that reaches the surface through weaker shocks. At Mach 8 it stagnates at 8.6 times the ceiling — and the worst amplification at every Mach number is close to the Mach number itself.

misconceptions · Newtonian

Named alongside it

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

Model limitCirculationInduced dragPanel methodPressure distributionSpan loadingSuperpositionAerodynamic centreAerodynamic heatingThe Biot–Savart lawBiplaneBoundary layer

All concepts