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

Every essay — page 7

Page 7 of 39, 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 asserted.

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.

8 figures 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.

8 figures 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.

9 figures Two roots walking towards each other, and one of them crosses. The roots of the characteristic quartic in the complex plane as the airspeed is raised from nothing to 105 metres per second — growth rate across, frequency up. At rest the two sit on the imaginary axis at the uncoupled frequencies. As the speed rises, the aerodynamic coupling drags them towards each other in frequency while pushing one left and the other right, and at 80.8 metres per second the right-hand one crosses the axis. Everything about the failure is in this picture: the coalescence, the crossing, and the fact that the flutter frequency is neither of the two the structure started with.

The shake that is not resonance

A steady airstream contains no oscillation at any frequency, so nothing is driving anything. What happens instead is that the aerodynamic forces couple two structural motions that were independent, drag their frequencies together, and turn one damping negative — and the wing takes the energy out of the air itself.

8 figures 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.

8 figures 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.

6 figures 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