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

Span loading — where it appears

The distribution of lift along a wing's span, as distinct from its total. The drag depends on the distribution and the lift does not, which is why an elliptic loading is optimal and why a planform is a way of arranging one.

Named by 10 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

The rectangular wing stalls at the root; the tapered one stalls at the tip. Section lift coefficient across the half span for three planforms, each drawn at the wing incidence where its own worst section first reaches 1.5. A rectangular wing's peak is at the root, which is where a designer wants it: the stall starts inboard, ahead of the ailerons, and the pilot feels it. A tapered wing's peak has moved out to 0.62 of the semi-span — over the ailerons — because taper takes chord away from the tip faster than it takes circulation. The elliptic wing is the degenerate case: every section reaches the limit at once, which is elegant and is the worst possible stall behaviour.

Which part of a wing stalls first

A wing has one lift coefficient and its sections have a hundred, and no section is at the wing's. Which of them runs out first is decided by the planform, it decides whether the pilot keeps the ailerons, and the standard fix costs span efficiency in exact proportion to how much of it is applied.

circulation · Taper 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 wake, and the velocity it gives itself. The cross-section of the wake far behind a wing with turned-up tips, with the velocity the wake induces on itself drawn as arrows normal to the trace. Induced drag is the integral of the circulation against that velocity and nothing else — this picture contains the entire quantity. It also contains no information whatever about where the surfaces were: two wings a chord apart and two wings ten chords apart produce the same picture and therefore the same drag, which is Munk's stagger theorem stated as a fact about what the arithmetic can see.

A wing that leaves the plane

A winglet is not a fence and it does not block anything escaping round the tip. The induced drag of any system of lifting surfaces depends on one cross-section of its wake and on nothing else whatever, and a wake that reaches upwards is cheaper for the same reason a wake that reaches sideways is.

circulation · Winglet 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 Tip to tip, two wings cost exactly half of what they cost apart. The induced-drag saving of a pair of wings against the gap between their tips, as a fraction of what the two pay flying alone. With the tips touching the pair is one wing of twice the span carrying twice the lift, and the arithmetic of that is exact: the drag halves, and the computation returns 0.499257 of the separate figure. Pull them apart and the saving falls away with the square of the distance. Birds fly in a V because the tips are the part worth overlapping, and the spacing that pays is a small fraction of a span rather than any distance a formation could hold by eye.

The lift beside a wing

Fly two aeroplanes with their wingtips touching and the pair costs exactly half what the two cost apart. Not approximately half — the arithmetic is a closed form, because two wings tip to tip are one wing of twice the span, and induced drag goes as the square of it.

circulation · Formation Elliptic loading rolls up to πb/4, and it is π that puts it there. Three loadings on the same span carrying the same lift, with the rolled-up core positions marked below each. The core sits at the centroid of the shed vorticity, which is a quadrature over the loading and needs nothing about the roll-up itself. Elliptic loading gives πb/8 from the centreline, so the pair ends up 0.7854 of the span apart — the number every wake-separation rule is written against, and one of the few places in this subject where π turns up in an answer an engineer uses directly. The bell rolls up to 0.586 and a nearly rectangular loading to 0.978, because it sheds at the tips.

Where the wake ends up

The sheet a wing sheds rolls up into two cores within a few spans, and nobody can compute the roll-up cheaply. Nobody has to: what the cores conserve is fixed before they form, and for an elliptically loaded wing the answer contains π and comes out at 78.5 per cent of the span.

circulation · Tip vortex 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 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 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 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 dragModel limitCirculationThe Trefftz planeOptimisationDownwashLifting lineMunk's stagger theoremNon planar wakeSpan efficiencyBending momentConstraint

All concepts