The collection

Every essay — page 10

Page 10 of 61, continuing through the fields in the same order.

Flows and fields Ideal flow Circulation and lift Viscosity Regimes and numbers Compressible flow Transition and turbulence Fluids at work What is taught wrongly Series Concepts Regimes Refutations Search

Circulation and lift

Where lift actually comes from. The Kutta condition, the Joukowski aerofoil, and lift derived rather than assumed.

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.

7 figures
The mean lift is not the lift at the mean angle. A finite wing's lift curve, with a gust distribution of standard deviation 3° about a mean angle of 10° drawn along the foot. The wing spends its time spread across that distribution, so what it averages is the average of the curve: 0.7951 against the 0.8368 the mean angle promises, a deficit of 5.0 per cent. Nothing has stalled, and no gust has taken the wing past the stall angle: the deficit comes entirely from the curve bending over, and it is there at every angle where the curve is not straight.

The lift at the mean angle

A wing in rough air flies at every angle in turn, so what it averages is the average of its lift curve rather than the lift at its average angle. Where the curve bends over near the stall the two differ by five per cent at three degrees of gust and by fourteen at five, and the drag goes the other way.

7 figures
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.

8 figures
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.

8 figures
Same disc, same solidity, different number of blades, different answer. Thrust and power coefficients for six blade counts at a fixed solidity. They span a factor of 1.101 in thrust, and every one of those rotors is the same actuator disc: same area, same blade area, same tip-speed ratio. The disc theory cannot distinguish them because the blade count is not one of its variables.

A disc that knows no blades

Momentum theory replaces a rotor with a surface across which the pressure jumps, and gets the Betz limit, the induced velocity and the whole energy argument out of it. It has no chord, no section and no number of blades — and at one fixed solidity, two blades and twenty give thrust coefficients ten per cent apart.

8 figures
The loading over the disc in forward flight, at μ = 0.4. Section lift per unit span over the rotor disc, with the flight direction upwards, the advancing side to the right and the reversed-flow region outlined. The loading is not axisymmetric and cannot be: at this advance ratio the advancing blade meets 1.40 times the tip speed and the retreating one 0.60. Every quantity a hover calculation reports as a function of radius is here a function of two variables.

The side that cannot keep up

A hovering rotor is axisymmetric, so one radial distribution of circulation describes the whole disc. Move it forward and the advancing blade meets one and a half times the tip speed while the retreating one meets a half — and lift goes as the square of that. The rotor does not roll over, because the pitch is made a function of azimuth.

8 figures
Deviation: how far the flow leaves from the blade angle, against solidity. The angle between the outlet flow and the blade, for a row of flat plates at 30° stagger meeting a flow at 45°. An open row barely turns the flow at all and the deviation is nearly the whole of the intended turning; a tight row guides it to within a thousandth of a degree of the blade angle. Nothing about the blade changed between the two ends of this curve.

A row is not a set of aerofoils

An isolated aerofoil's incidence is measured from the free stream. A compressor blade's cannot be, because an infinite row of identical blades above and below it has a circulation that is part of its own free stream — and the velocity the theorem uses is a vector mean that exists nowhere in the machine.

8 figures
The trailing-edge speed against circulation, for a sharp edge and a round one. Sampled one grid point off the trailing edge. The sharp edge is singular at every circulation but one: the speed there is about U at the Kutta value and 11.3U half a Kutta circulation away, and it grows without bound as the sample approaches the edge. The round edge has no such point. That is the whole of the Kutta condition's justification, and it needs the corner.

The condition that can be bought

Ideal flow round a closed body has one solution for every circulation, and the Kutta condition picks one. Its justification is entirely the sharp edge: every other circulation puts an infinite velocity there. Take the corner away and nothing chooses — which is not a curiosity, it is what a circulation-control aerofoil is.

8 figures
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.

8 figures
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.

8 figures
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.

8 figures
Wagner's function and Küssner's, from one solver and two inputs. Lift as a fraction of its steady value, against distance travelled in semichords. The step in incidence and the sharp-edged gust are the same unsteady problem with two different right-hand sides, and Jones's exponential fits to both are drawn over the solve. From four semichords on they are nearly the same curve — which is why they get interchanged.

Two answers to one question

Unsteady aerofoil theory collapses a wing's whole history onto one function of one variable, and every quasi-steady gust calculation convolves something with it. There are two such functions, not one: a wing that is pitched changes its boundary condition everywhere at once, and a wing flying into a gust has not met most of the gust yet.

9 figures