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

Bumblebee — the series

2 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. One calculation is about the animal; the other is about how fast it happens to be going. The mean lift coefficient required of each animal's wings, computed two ways, on a log scale. Treating the wings as fixed and flying them at the animal's forward speed gives answers spanning a factor of 29 — from 0.88 to 26 — because the number is governed by a speed that has nothing to do with how the animal makes its lift. Doing the flapping arithmetic gives answers spanning a factor of 1.90. And in a hover the fixed-wing calculation has no answer at all: there is no dynamic pressure, and no coefficient however large will do. That is the version of the famous claim that is actually true, and it is a statement about the calculation rather than about the bee.

    The bee that cannot fly

    The claim has a traceable origin and the calculation behind it was a real calculation done with the wrong velocity. Doing it with the right one gives a number an aerofoil might plausibly produce — and still leaves a gap, and the gap is what took another sixty years to close.

    part 1 · misconceptions
  2. Where four insects have to turn round. Wagner's function — the fraction of its eventual circulation a wing has built after a stated distance of travel — with the half-stroke of each of four insects marked on it. Every one of them reverses while the curve is still climbing, so no insect wing ever reaches the circulation a steady calculation assigns it.

    A calculation with no memory in it

    The bee calculation is famous for using the wrong velocity. Done with the right one it still falls short, and the reason is structural: a quasi-steady sum is a statement about a wing that has always been going, and an insect's wing travels between two and five chord lengths before it turns round.

    part 2 · misconceptions

All series