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

The thread: Taught wrongly, everywhere

Some of the most repeated explanations in physics education are in this subject, and they are false. Stating them fairly and then testing them is more useful than ignoring them.

124 essays carry this thread — page 1 of 14.

Two parcels released together do not arrive together. The most repeated explanation of lift says that air parting at the leading edge must meet again at the trailing edge, so the longer upper path forces a higher speed. Released into the solved field, the upper parcel arrives long before the lower one — the premise is simply false, and the real speed difference is larger than it would require. What is taught wrongly

The story about air meeting up again

The most repeated explanation of lift says that air parting at the nose must rejoin at the tail, so the longer upper path forces a higher speed. The premise is false, and the speed it predicts is wrong by a factor of twenty.

 A Joukowski aerofoil at 6°. A cambered aerofoil in a uniform stream. The circulation is not chosen: it is whatever value makes the flow leave the sharp trailing edge smoothly, and that single condition fixes the lift. Circulation and lift

What actually holds a wing up

Not the shape, and not the story about air meeting up again behind. A wing lifts because there is circulation round it, and the sharp trailing edge is what decides how much.

 The hypotheses Bernoulli's equation needs. The equation is correct and its hypotheses are strict. Most misuse is not a wrong formula but a right formula carried across a streamline, through a machine, or into a region where viscosity dominates. What is taught wrongly

Where Bernoulli's equation applies

The equation is right. Its hypotheses are strict, and almost all misuse is a correct formula carried somewhere it does not hold — across streamlines, through a fan, or into the one layer where friction is the whole story.

 Two drag laws, one derived and one fitted. Flat-plate drag coefficient against Reynolds number, laminar and turbulent, on log axes. The laminar curve is Blasius' similarity solution, solved by shooting; the turbulent one is the 1/7-power correlation, which was fitted to experiment and is drawn dashed-in-kind to keep the difference visible. Their slopes differ — −1/2 against −1/5 — so the gap between them widens rather than staying put. Transition and turbulence

The number that is not a number

Transition Reynolds numbers are quoted to three figures and vary by two decades. That is not sloppiness in the measurement — it is the honest report of a quantity that depends on the laboratory as much as on the fluid, and knowing which part is which decides what may be designed on it.

 A control volume round an aerofoil. A rectangle drawn in the fluid around a lifting section. The arrows on the right-hand face show the downward velocity of the air leaving it, drawn to scale. Adding the momentum carried through all four faces to the pressure acting on them gives the force on whatever is inside, without the calculation ever going near the surface. What is taught wrongly

Air must be pushed down, and the usual sum is wrong

The momentum explanation of lift is the one physicists reach for, and it is right — a wing does hold itself up by throwing air downwards. The version usually given then does the accounting badly, and the face of the control volume it keeps turns out to carry the least of it.

 The energy is all there the whole way: enthalpy spent to buy speed. At each Mach number, the fraction of the stagnation enthalpy still held as heat and the fraction converted into directed motion. The two always sum to the total, which is the compressible replacement for Bernoulli's equation — an energy statement rather than a pressure one. At Mach 2 more than four fifths of the heat has become speed. Compressible flow

Energy instead of pressure

Bernoulli's equation is a statement that pressure and speed trade against each other at fixed density. Take the fixed density away and the trade is between heat and speed instead — and what survives is not a pressure at all.

 Ideal flow past a cylinder with circulation -3.4. A uniform stream past a circular cylinder in a fluid with no viscosity. The solution is exact and closed-form: streamlines part at a stagnation point, run round the surface and close up perfectly behind, and the pressure recovers to exactly what it was in front. Circulation and lift

Lift with no wing at all

A spinning cylinder has no camber, no aerofoil section and no trailing edge, and it lifts exactly as hard as its circulation says it should. Which settles what lift is caused by.

 Ideal flow past a cylinder. A uniform stream past a circular cylinder in a fluid with no viscosity. The solution is exact and closed-form: streamlines part at a stagnation point, run round the surface and close up perfectly behind, and the pressure recovers to exactly what it was in front. Ideal flow

Fast means low pressure

The trade between speed and pressure is the most useful relation in the subject and the most misused. Where it comes from, what it costs, and why the pressure over a wing is negative almost everywhere.

 A duct does the opposite thing above Mach one. The four cases of dA/A = (Ma² − 1) dV/V. Below the speed of sound a narrowing duct accelerates the flow, which is what continuity leads anyone to expect. Above it the sign of the bracket flips, and a narrowing duct decelerates: density is falling faster than the speed is rising, so the stream tube needs more room rather than less. Compressible flow

The duct that works backwards

Squeeze a pipe and the flow speeds up. Everyone knows this, it follows from continuity, and above the speed of sound it is false — a narrowing duct decelerates a supersonic stream, because the density is falling faster than the speed is rising.

All themes