Hubbry Logo
Lift (force)Lift (force)Main
Open search
Lift (force)
Community hub
Lift (force)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Lift (force)
Lift (force)
from Wikipedia

The 1902 Wright Glider shows its lift by pulling up

When a fluid flows around an object, the fluid exerts a force on the object. Lift is the component of this force that is perpendicular to the oncoming flow direction.[1] It contrasts with the drag force, which is the component of the force parallel to the flow direction. Lift conventionally acts in an upward direction in order to counter the force of gravity, but it may act in any direction perpendicular to the flow.

If the surrounding fluid is air, the force is called an aerodynamic force. In water or any other liquid, it is called a hydrodynamic force.

Dynamic lift is distinguished from other kinds of lift in fluids. Aerostatic lift or buoyancy, in which an internal fluid is lighter than the surrounding fluid, does not require movement and is used by balloons, blimps, dirigibles, boats, and submarines. Planing lift, in which only the lower portion of the body is immersed in a liquid flow, is used by motorboats, surfboards, windsurfers, sailboats, and water-skis.

Overview

[edit]
Lift is defined as the component of the aerodynamic force that is perpendicular to the flow direction, and drag is the component that is parallel to the flow direction.

A fluid flowing around the surface of a solid object applies a force on it. It does not matter whether the object is moving through a stationary fluid (e.g. an aircraft flying through the air) or whether the object is stationary and the fluid is moving (e.g. a wing in a wind tunnel) or whether both are moving (e.g. a sailboat using the wind to move forward). Lift is the component of this force that is perpendicular to the oncoming flow direction.[1] Lift is always accompanied by a drag force, which is the component of the surface force parallel to the flow direction.

Lift is mostly associated with the wings of fixed-wing aircraft, although it is more widely generated by many other streamlined bodies such as propellers, kites, helicopter rotors, racing car wings, maritime sails, wind turbines, and by sailboat keels, ship's rudders, and hydrofoils in water. Lift is also used by flying and gliding animals, especially by birds, bats, and insects, and even in the plant world by the seeds of certain trees.[2] While the common meaning of the word "lift" assumes that lift opposes weight, lift can be in any direction with respect to gravity, since it is defined with respect to the direction of flow rather than to the direction of gravity. When an aircraft is cruising in straight and level flight, the lift opposes gravity. However, when an aircraft is climbing, descending, or banking in a turn the lift is tilted with respect to the vertical.[3] Lift may also act as downforce on the wing of a fixed-wing aircraft at the top of an aerobatic loop, and on the horizontal stabiliser of an aircraft. Lift may also be largely horizontal, for instance on a sailing ship.

The lift discussed in this article is mainly in relation to airfoils; marine hydrofoils and propellers share the same physical principles and work in the same way, despite differences between air and water such as density, compressibility, and viscosity.

The flow around a lifting airfoil is a fluid mechanics phenomenon that can be understood on essentially two levels: There are mathematical theories, which are based on established laws of physics and represent the flow accurately, but which require solving equations. And there are physical explanations without math, which are less rigorous.[4] Correctly explaining lift in these qualitative terms is difficult because the cause-and-effect relationships involved are subtle.[5] A comprehensive explanation that captures all of the essential aspects is necessarily complex. There are also many simplified explanations, but all leave significant parts of the phenomenon unexplained, while some also have elements that are simply incorrect.[4][6][7][8][9][10]

Simplified physical explanations of lift on an airfoil

[edit]
A cross-section of a wing defines an airfoil shape.

An airfoil is a streamlined shape that is capable of generating significantly more lift than drag.[11] A flat plate can generate lift, but not as much as a streamlined airfoil, and with somewhat higher drag. Most simplified explanations follow one of two basic approaches, based either on Newton's laws of motion or on Bernoulli's principle.[4][12][13][14]

Explanation based on flow deflection and Newton's laws

[edit]
When a wing generates lift, it deflects air downward, and to do this it must exert a downward force on the air. Newton's third law requires that the air must exert an equal upward force on the wing.

An airfoil generates lift by exerting a downward force on the air as it flows past. According to Newton's third law, the air must exert an equal and opposite (upward) force on the airfoil, which is lift.[15][16][17][18]

As the airflow approaches the airfoil it is curving upward, but as it passes the airfoil it changes direction and follows a path that is curved downward. According to Newton's second law, this change in flow direction requires a downward force applied to the air by the airfoil. Then Newton's third law requires the air to exert an upward force on the airfoil; thus a reaction force, lift, is generated opposite to the directional change. In the case of an airplane wing, the wing exerts a downward force on the air and the air exerts an upward force on the wing.[19][20] The downward turning of the flow is not produced solely by the lower surface of the airfoil, and the air flow above the airfoil accounts for much of the downward-turning action.[21][22][23][24]

This explanation is correct but it is incomplete. It does not explain how the airfoil can impart downward turning to a much deeper swath of the flow than it actually touches. Furthermore, it does not mention that the lift force is exerted by pressure differences, and does not explain how those pressure differences are sustained.[4]

Controversy regarding the Coandă effect

[edit]

Some versions of the flow-deflection explanation of lift cite the Coandă effect as the reason the flow is able to follow the convex upper surface of the airfoil. The conventional definition in the aerodynamics field is that the Coandă effect refers to the tendency of a fluid jet to stay attached to an adjacent surface that curves away from the flow, and the resultant entrainment of ambient air into the flow.[25][26][27]

More broadly, some consider the effect to include the tendency of any fluid boundary layer to adhere to a curved surface, not just the boundary layer accompanying a fluid jet. It is in this broader sense that the Coandă effect is used by some popular references to explain why airflow remains attached to the top side of an airfoil.[28][29] This is a controversial use of the term "Coandă effect"; the flow following the upper surface simply reflects an absence of boundary-layer separation, thus it is not an example of the Coandă effect.[30][31][32][33] Regardless of whether this broader definition of the "Coandă effect" is applicable, calling it the "Coandă effect" does not provide an explanation, it just gives the phenomenon a name.[34]

The ability of a fluid flow to follow a curved path is not dependent on shear forces, viscosity of the fluid, or the presence of a boundary layer. Air flowing around an airfoil, adhering to both upper and lower surfaces, and generating lift, is accepted as a phenomenon in inviscid flow.[35]

Explanations based on an increase in flow speed and Bernoulli's principle

[edit]

There are two common versions of this explanation, one based on "equal transit time", and one based on "obstruction" of the airflow.

An illustration of the incorrect equal transit-time explanation of aerofoil lift. [6]

False explanation based on equal transit-time

[edit]

The "equal transit time" explanation starts by arguing that the flow over the upper surface is faster than the flow over the lower surface because the path length over the upper surface is longer and must be traversed in equal transit time.[36][37][38] Bernoulli's principle states that under certain conditions increased flow speed is associated with reduced pressure. It is concluded that the reduced pressure over the upper surface results in upward lift.[39]

While it is true that the flow speeds up, a serious flaw in this explanation is that it does not correctly explain what causes the flow to speed up.[4] The longer-path-length explanation is incorrect. No difference in path length is needed, and even when there is a difference, it is typically much too small to explain the observed speed difference.[40] This is because the assumption of equal transit time is wrong when applied to a body generating lift. There is no physical principle that requires equal transit time in all situations and experimental results confirm that for a body generating lift the transit times are not equal.[41][42][43][44][45][46] In fact, the air moving past the top of an airfoil generating lift moves much faster than equal transit time predicts.[47] The much higher flow speed over the upper surface can be clearly seen in this animated flow visualization.

Obstruction of the airflow

[edit]
Streamlines and streamtubes around an airfoil generating lift. The flow is two-dimensional and the airfoil has infinite span. Note the narrower streamtubes above and the wider streamtubes below.

Like the equal transit time explanation, the "obstruction" or "streamtube pinching" explanation argues that the flow over the upper surface is faster than the flow over the lower surface, but gives a different reason for the difference in speed. It argues that the curved upper surface acts as more of an obstacle to the flow, forcing the streamlines to pinch closer together, making the streamtubes narrower. When streamtubes become narrower, conservation of mass requires that flow speed must increase.[48] Reduced upper-surface pressure and upward lift follow from the higher speed by Bernoulli's principle, just as in the equal transit time explanation. Sometimes an analogy is made to a venturi nozzle, claiming the upper surface of the wing acts like a venturi nozzle to constrict the flow.[49]

One serious flaw in the obstruction explanation is that it does not explain how streamtube pinching comes about, or why it is greater over the upper surface than the lower surface. For conventional wings that are flat on the bottom and curved on top this makes some intuitive sense, but it does not explain how flat plates, symmetric airfoils, sailboat sails, or conventional airfoils flying upside down can generate lift, and attempts to calculate lift based on the amount of constriction or obstruction do not predict experimental results.[50][51][52][53] Another flaw is that conservation of mass is not a satisfying physical reason why the flow would speed up. Effectively explaining the acceleration of an object requires identifying the force that accelerates it.[54]

Issues common to both versions of the Bernoulli-based explanation

[edit]

A serious flaw common to all the Bernoulli-based explanations is that they imply that a speed difference can arise from causes other than a pressure difference, and that the speed difference then leads to a pressure difference, by Bernoulli's principle. This implied one-way causation is a misconception. The real relationship between pressure and flow speed is a mutual interaction.[4] As explained below under a more comprehensive physical explanation, producing a lift force requires maintaining pressure differences in both the vertical and horizontal directions. The Bernoulli-only explanations do not explain how the pressure differences in the vertical direction are sustained. That is, they leave out the flow-deflection part of the interaction.[4]

Although the two simple Bernoulli-based explanations above are incorrect, there is nothing incorrect about Bernoulli's principle or the fact that the air goes faster on the top of the wing, and Bernoulli's principle can be used correctly as part of a more complicated explanation of lift.[55]

Basic attributes of lift

[edit]

Lift is a result of pressure differences and depends on angle of attack, airfoil shape, air density, and airspeed.

Pressure differences

[edit]

Pressure is the normal force per unit area exerted by the air on itself and on surfaces that it touches. The lift force is transmitted through the pressure, which acts perpendicular to the surface of the airfoil. Thus, the net force manifests itself as pressure differences. The direction of the net force implies that the average pressure on the upper surface of the airfoil is lower than the average pressure on the underside.[56]

These pressure differences arise in conjunction with the curved airflow. When a fluid follows a curved path, there is a pressure gradient perpendicular to the flow direction with higher pressure on the outside of the curve and lower pressure on the inside.[57] This direct relationship between curved streamlines and pressure differences, sometimes called the streamline curvature theorem, was derived from Newton's second law by Leonhard Euler in 1754:

The left side of this equation represents the pressure difference perpendicular to the fluid flow. On the right side of the equation, ρ is the density, v is the velocity, and R is the radius of curvature. This formula shows that higher velocities and tighter curvatures create larger pressure differentials and that for straight flow (R → ∞), the pressure difference is zero.[58]

Angle of attack

[edit]
Angle of attack of an airfoil

The angle of attack is the angle between the chord line of an airfoil and the oncoming airflow. A symmetrical airfoil generates zero lift at zero angle of attack. But as the angle of attack increases, the air is deflected through a larger angle and the vertical component of the airstream velocity increases, resulting in more lift. For small angles, a symmetrical airfoil generates a lift force roughly proportional to the angle of attack.[59][60]

As the angle of attack increases, the lift reaches a maximum at some angle; increasing the angle of attack beyond this critical angle of attack causes the upper-surface flow to separate from the wing; there is less deflection downward so the airfoil generates less lift. The airfoil is said to be stalled.[61]

Airfoil shape

[edit]
An airfoil with camber compared to a symmetrical airfoil

The maximum lift force that can be generated by an airfoil at a given airspeed depends on the shape of the airfoil, especially the amount of camber (curvature such that the upper surface is more convex than the lower surface, as illustrated at right). Increasing the camber generally increases the maximum lift at a given airspeed.[62][63]

Cambered airfoils generate lift at zero angle of attack. When the chord line is horizontal, the trailing edge has a downward direction and since the air follows the trailing edge it is deflected downward.[64] When a cambered airfoil is upside down, the angle of attack can be adjusted so that the lift force is upward. This explains how a plane can fly upside down.[65][66]

Flow conditions

[edit]

The ambient flow conditions which affect lift include the fluid density, viscosity and speed of flow. Density is affected by temperature, and by the medium's acoustic velocity – i.e. by compressibility effects.

Air speed and density

[edit]

Lift is proportional to the density of the air and approximately proportional to the square of the flow speed. Lift also depends on the size of the wing, being generally proportional to the wing's area projected in the lift direction. In calculations it is convenient to quantify lift in terms of a lift coefficient based on these factors.

Boundary layer and profile drag

[edit]

No matter how smooth the surface of an airfoil seems, any surface is rough on the scale of air molecules. Air molecules flying into the surface bounce off the rough surface in random directions relative to their original velocities. The result is that when the air is viewed as a continuous material, it is seen to be unable to slide along the surface, and the air's velocity relative to the airfoil decreases to nearly zero at the surface (i.e., the air molecules "stick" to the surface instead of sliding along it), something known as the no-slip condition.[67] Because the air at the surface has near-zero velocity but the air away from the surface is moving, there is a thin boundary layer in which air close to the surface is subjected to a shearing motion.[68][69] The air's viscosity resists the shearing, giving rise to a shear stress at the airfoil's surface called skin friction drag. Over most of the surface of most airfoils, the boundary layer is naturally turbulent, which increases skin friction drag.[69][70]

Under usual flight conditions, the boundary layer remains attached to both the upper and lower surfaces all the way to the trailing edge, and its effect on the rest of the flow is modest. Compared to the predictions of inviscid flow theory, in which there is no boundary layer, the attached boundary layer reduces the lift by a modest amount and modifies the pressure distribution somewhat, which results in a viscosity-related pressure drag over and above the skin friction drag. The total of the skin friction drag and the viscosity-related pressure drag is usually called the profile drag.[70][71]

Stalling

[edit]
Airflow separating from a wing at a high angle of attack

An airfoil's maximum lift at a given airspeed is limited by boundary-layer separation. As the angle of attack is increased, a point is reached where the boundary layer can no longer remain attached to the upper surface. When the boundary layer separates, it leaves a region of recirculating flow above the upper surface, as illustrated in the flow-visualization photo at right. This is known as the stall, or stalling. At angles of attack above the stall, lift is significantly reduced, though it does not drop to zero. The maximum lift that can be achieved before stall, in terms of the lift coefficient, is generally less than 1.5 for single-element airfoils and can be more than 3.0 for airfoils with high-lift slotted flaps and leading-edge devices deployed.[72]

Bluff bodies

[edit]

The flow around bluff bodies – i.e. without a streamlined shape, or stalling airfoils – may also generate lift, in addition to a strong drag force. This lift may be steady, or it may oscillate due to vortex shedding. Interaction of the object's flexibility with the vortex shedding may enhance the effects of fluctuating lift and cause vortex-induced vibrations.[73] For instance, the flow around a circular cylinder generates a Kármán vortex street: vortices being shed in an alternating fashion from the cylinder's sides. The oscillatory nature of the flow produces a fluctuating lift force on the cylinder, even though the net (mean) force is negligible. The lift force frequency is characterised by the dimensionless Strouhal number, which depends on the Reynolds number of the flow.[74][75]

For a flexible structure, this oscillatory lift force may induce vortex-induced vibrations. Under certain conditions – for instance resonance or strong spanwise correlation of the lift force – the resulting motion of the structure due to the lift fluctuations may be strongly enhanced. Such vibrations may pose problems and threaten collapse in tall man-made structures like industrial chimneys.[73]

In the Magnus effect, a lift force is generated by a spinning cylinder in a freestream. Here the mechanical rotation acts on the boundary layer, causing it to separate at different locations on the two sides of the cylinder. The asymmetric separation changes the effective shape of the cylinder as far as the flow is concerned such that the cylinder acts like a lifting airfoil with circulation in the outer flow.[76]

A more comprehensive physical explanation

[edit]

As described above under "Simplified physical explanations of lift on an airfoil", there are two main popular explanations: one based on downward deflection of the flow (Newton's laws), and one based on pressure differences accompanied by changes in flow speed (Bernoulli's principle). Either of these, by itself, correctly identifies some aspects of the lifting flow but leaves other important aspects of the phenomenon unexplained. A more comprehensive explanation involves both downward deflection and pressure differences (including changes in flow speed associated with the pressure differences), and requires looking at the flow in more detail.[77]

Lift at the airfoil surface

[edit]

The airfoil shape and angle of attack work together so that the airfoil exerts a downward force on the air as it flows past. According to Newton's third law, the air must then exert an equal and opposite (upward) force on the airfoil, which is the lift.[17]

The net force exerted by the air occurs as a pressure difference over the airfoil's surfaces.[78] Pressure in a fluid is always positive in an absolute sense,[79] so that pressure must always be thought of as pushing, and never as pulling. The pressure thus pushes inward on the airfoil everywhere on both the upper and lower surfaces. The flowing air reacts to the presence of the wing by reducing the pressure on the wing's upper surface and increasing the pressure on the lower surface. The pressure on the lower surface pushes up harder than the reduced pressure on the upper surface pushes down, and the net result is upward lift.[78]

The pressure difference which results in lift acts directly on the airfoil surfaces; however, understanding how the pressure difference is produced requires understanding what the flow does over a wider area.

The wider flow around the airfoil

[edit]
Flow around an airfoil: the dots move with the flow. The black dots are on time slices, which split into two – an upper and lower part – at the leading edge. A marked speed difference between the upper-and lower-surface streamlines is shown most clearly in the image animation, with the upper markers arriving at the trailing edge long before the lower ones. Colors of the dots indicate streamlines.

An airfoil affects the speed and direction of the flow over a wide area, producing a pattern called a velocity field. When an airfoil produces lift, the flow ahead of the airfoil is deflected upward, the flow above and below the airfoil is deflected downward leaving the air far behind the airfoil in the same state as the oncoming flow far ahead. The flow above the upper surface is sped up, while the flow below the airfoil is slowed down. Together with the upward deflection of air in front and the downward deflection of the air immediately behind, this establishes a net circulatory component of the flow. The downward deflection and the changes in flow speed are pronounced and extend over a wide area, as can be seen in the flow animation on the right. These differences in the direction and speed of the flow are greatest close to the airfoil and decrease gradually far above and below. All of these features of the velocity field also appear in theoretical models for lifting flows.[80][81]

The pressure is also affected over a wide area, in a pattern of non-uniform pressure called a pressure field. When an airfoil produces lift, there is a diffuse region of low pressure above the airfoil, and usually a diffuse region of high pressure below, as illustrated by the isobars (curves of constant pressure) in the drawing. The pressure difference that acts on the surface is just part of this pressure field.[82]

Mutual interaction of pressure differences and changes in flow velocity

[edit]
Pressure field around an airfoil. The lines are isobars of equal pressure along their length. The arrows show the pressure differential from high (red) to low (blue) and hence also the net force which causes the air to accelerate in that direction.

The non-uniform pressure exerts forces on the air in the direction from higher pressure to lower pressure. The direction of the force is different at different locations around the airfoil, as indicated by the block arrows in the pressure field around an airfoil figure. Air above the airfoil is pushed toward the center of the low-pressure region, and air below the airfoil is pushed outward from the center of the high-pressure region.

According to Newton's second law, a force causes air to accelerate in the direction of the force. Thus the vertical arrows in the accompanying pressure field diagram indicate that air above and below the airfoil is accelerated, or turned downward, and that the non-uniform pressure is thus the cause of the downward deflection of the flow visible in the flow animation. To produce this downward turning, the airfoil must have a positive angle of attack or have sufficient positive camber. Note that the downward turning of the flow over the upper surface is the result of the air being pushed downward by higher pressure above it than below it. Some explanations that refer to the "Coandă effect" suggest that viscosity plays a key role in the downward turning, but this is false. (see above under "Controversy regarding the Coandă effect").

The arrows ahead of the airfoil indicate that the flow ahead of the airfoil is deflected upward, and the arrows behind the airfoil indicate that the flow behind is deflected upward again, after being deflected downward over the airfoil. These deflections are also visible in the flow animation.

The arrows ahead of the airfoil and behind also indicate that air passing through the low-pressure region above the airfoil is sped up as it enters, and slowed back down as it leaves. Air passing through the high-pressure region below the airfoil is slowed down as it enters and then sped back up as it leaves. Thus the non-uniform pressure is also the cause of the changes in flow speed visible in the flow animation. The changes in flow speed are consistent with Bernoulli's principle, which states that in a steady flow without viscosity, lower pressure means higher speed, and higher pressure means lower speed.

Thus changes in flow direction and speed are directly caused by the non-uniform pressure. But this cause-and-effect relationship is not just one-way; it works in both directions simultaneously. The air's motion is affected by the pressure differences, but the existence of the pressure differences depends on the air's motion. The relationship is thus a mutual, or reciprocal, interaction: Air flow changes speed or direction in response to pressure differences, and the pressure differences are sustained by the air's resistance to changing speed or direction.[83] A pressure difference can exist only if something is there for it to push against. In aerodynamic flow, the pressure difference pushes against the air's inertia, as the air is accelerated by the pressure difference.[84] This is why the air's mass is part of the calculation, and why lift depends on air density.

Sustaining the pressure difference that exerts the lift force on the airfoil surfaces requires sustaining a pattern of non-uniform pressure in a wide area around the airfoil. This requires maintaining pressure differences in both the vertical and horizontal directions, and thus requires both downward turning of the flow and changes in flow speed according to Bernoulli's principle. The pressure differences and the changes in flow direction and speed sustain each other in a mutual interaction. The pressure differences follow naturally from Newton's second law and from the fact that flow along the surface follows the predominantly downward-sloping contours of the airfoil. And the fact that the air has mass is crucial to the interaction.[85]

How simpler explanations fall short

[edit]

Producing a lift force requires both downward turning of the flow and changes in flow speed consistent with Bernoulli's principle. Each of the simplified explanations given above in Simplified physical explanations of lift on an airfoil falls short by trying to explain lift in terms of only one or the other, thus explaining only part of the phenomenon and leaving other parts unexplained.[86]

Quantifying lift

[edit]

Pressure integration

[edit]

When the pressure distribution on the airfoil surface is known, determining the total lift requires adding up the contributions to the pressure force from local elements of the surface, each with its own local value of pressure. The total lift is thus the integral of the pressure, in the direction perpendicular to the farfield flow, over the airfoil surface.[87]

where:

  • S is the projected (planform) area of the airfoil, measured normal to the mean airflow;
  • n is the normal unit vector pointing into the wing;
  • k is the vertical unit vector, normal to the freestream direction.

The above lift equation neglects the skin friction forces, which are small compared to the pressure forces.

By using the streamwise vector i parallel to the freestream in place of k in the integral, we obtain an expression for the pressure drag Dp (which includes the pressure portion of the profile drag and, if the wing is three-dimensional, the induced drag). If we use the spanwise vector j, we obtain the side force Y.

The validity of this integration generally requires the airfoil shape to be a closed curve that is piecewise smooth.

Lift coefficient

[edit]

Lift depends on the size of the wing, being approximately proportional to the wing area. It is often convenient to quantify the lift of a given airfoil by its lift coefficient , which defines its overall lift in terms of a unit area of the wing.

If the value of for a wing at a specified angle of attack is given, then the lift produced for specific flow conditions can be determined:[88]

where

  • is the lift force
  • is the air density
  • is the velocity or true airspeed
  • is the planform (projected) wing area
  • is the lift coefficient at the desired angle of attack, Mach number, and Reynolds number[89]

Mathematical theories of lift

[edit]

Mathematical theories of lift are based on continuum fluid mechanics, assuming that air flows as a continuous fluid.[90][91][92] Lift is generated in accordance with the fundamental principles of physics, the most relevant being the following three principles:[93]

Because an airfoil affects the flow in a wide area around it, the conservation laws of mechanics are embodied in the form of partial differential equations combined with a set of boundary condition requirements which the flow has to satisfy at the airfoil surface and far away from the airfoil.[94]

To predict lift requires solving the equations for a particular airfoil shape and flow condition, which generally requires calculations that are so voluminous that they are practical only on a computer, through the methods of computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Determining the net aerodynamic force from a CFD solution requires "adding up" (integrating) the forces due to pressure and shear determined by the CFD over every surface element of the airfoil as described under "pressure integration".

The Navier–Stokes equations (NS) provide the potentially most accurate theory of lift, but in practice, capturing the effects of turbulence in the boundary layer on the airfoil surface requires sacrificing some accuracy, and requires use of the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations (RANS). Simpler but less accurate theories have also been developed.

[edit]

These equations represent conservation of mass, Newton's second law (conservation of momentum), conservation of energy, the Newtonian law for the action of viscosity, the Fourier heat conduction law, an equation of state relating density, temperature, and pressure, and formulas for the viscosity and thermal conductivity of the fluid.[95][96]

In principle, the NS equations, combined with boundary conditions of no through-flow and no slip at the airfoil surface, could be used to predict lift with high accuracy in any situation in ordinary atmospheric flight. However, airflows in practical situations always involve turbulence in the boundary layer next to the airfoil surface, at least over the aft portion of the airfoil. Predicting lift by solving the NS equations in their raw form would require the calculations to resolve the details of the turbulence, down to the smallest eddy. This is not yet possible, even on the most powerful computer.[97] So in principle the NS equations provide a complete and very accurate theory of lift, but practical prediction of lift requires that the effects of turbulence be modeled in the RANS equations rather than computed directly.

Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations

[edit]

These are the NS equations with the turbulence motions averaged over time, and the effects of the turbulence on the time-averaged flow represented by turbulence modeling (an additional set of equations based on a combination of dimensional analysis and empirical information on how turbulence affects a boundary layer in a time-averaged average sense).[98][99] A RANS solution consists of the time-averaged velocity vector, pressure, density, and temperature defined at a dense grid of points surrounding the airfoil.

The amount of computation required is a minuscule fraction (billionths)[97] of what would be required to resolve all of the turbulence motions in a raw NS calculation, and with large computers available it is now practical to carry out RANS calculations for complete airplanes in three dimensions. Because turbulence models are not perfect, the accuracy of RANS calculations is imperfect, but it is adequate for practical aircraft design. Lift predicted by RANS is usually within a few percent of the actual lift.

Inviscid-flow equations (Euler or potential)

[edit]

The Euler equations are the NS equations without the viscosity, heat conduction, and turbulence effects.[100] As with a RANS solution, an Euler solution consists of the velocity vector, pressure, density, and temperature defined at a dense grid of points surrounding the airfoil. While the Euler equations are simpler than the NS equations, they do not lend themselves to exact analytic solutions.

Further simplification is available through potential flow theory, which reduces the number of unknowns to be determined, and makes analytic solutions possible in some cases, as described below.

Either Euler or potential-flow calculations predict the pressure distribution on the airfoil surfaces roughly correctly for angles of attack below stall, where they might miss the total lift by as much as 10–20%. At angles of attack above stall, inviscid calculations do not predict that stall has happened, and as a result they grossly overestimate the lift.

In potential-flow theory, the flow is assumed to be irrotational, i.e. that small fluid parcels have no net rate of rotation. Mathematically, this is expressed by the statement that the curl of the velocity vector field is everywhere equal to zero. Irrotational flows have the convenient property that the velocity can be expressed as the gradient of a scalar function called a potential. A flow represented in this way is called potential flow.[101][102][103][104]

In potential-flow theory, the flow is assumed to be incompressible. Incompressible potential-flow theory has the advantage that the equation (Laplace's equation) to be solved for the potential is linear, which allows solutions to be constructed by superposition of other known solutions. The incompressible-potential-flow equation can also be solved by conformal mapping, a method based on the theory of functions of a complex variable. In the early 20th century, before computers were available, conformal mapping was used to generate solutions to the incompressible potential-flow equation for a class of idealized airfoil shapes, providing some of the first practical theoretical predictions of the pressure distribution on a lifting airfoil.

A solution of the potential equation directly determines only the velocity field. The pressure field is deduced from the velocity field through Bernoulli's equation.

Comparison of a non-lifting flow pattern around an airfoil; and a lifting flow pattern consistent with the Kutta condition in which the flow leaves the trailing edge smoothly

Applying potential-flow theory to a lifting flow requires special treatment and an additional assumption. The problem arises because lift on an airfoil in inviscid flow requires circulation in the flow around the airfoil (See "Circulation and the Kutta–Joukowski theorem" below), but a single potential function that is continuous throughout the domain around the airfoil cannot represent a flow with nonzero circulation. The solution to this problem is to introduce a branch cut, a curve or line from some point on the airfoil surface out to infinite distance, and to allow a jump in the value of the potential across the cut. The jump in the potential imposes circulation in the flow equal to the potential jump and thus allows nonzero circulation to be represented. However, the potential jump is a free parameter that is not determined by the potential equation or the other boundary conditions, and the solution is thus indeterminate. A potential-flow solution exists for any value of the circulation and any value of the lift. One way to resolve this indeterminacy is to impose the Kutta condition,[105][106] which is that, of all the possible solutions, the physically reasonable solution is the one in which the flow leaves the trailing edge smoothly. The streamline sketches illustrate one flow pattern with zero lift, in which the flow goes around the trailing edge and leaves the upper surface ahead of the trailing edge, and another flow pattern with positive lift, in which the flow leaves smoothly at the trailing edge in accordance with the Kutta condition.

Linearized potential flow

[edit]

This is potential-flow theory with the further assumptions that the airfoil is very thin and the angle of attack is small.[107] The linearized theory predicts the general character of the airfoil pressure distribution and how it is influenced by airfoil shape and angle of attack, but is not accurate enough for design work. For a 2D airfoil, such calculations can be done in a fraction of a second in a spreadsheet on a PC.

Circulation and the Kutta–Joukowski theorem

[edit]
Circulation component of the flow around an airfoil

When an airfoil generates lift, several components of the overall velocity field contribute to a net circulation of air around it: the upward flow ahead of the airfoil, the accelerated flow above, the decelerated flow below, and the downward flow behind.

The circulation can be understood as the total amount of "spinning" (or vorticity) of an inviscid fluid around the airfoil.

The Kutta–Joukowski theorem relates the lift per unit width of span of a two-dimensional airfoil to this circulation component of the flow.[80][108][109] It is a key element in an explanation of lift that follows the development of the flow around an airfoil as the airfoil starts its motion from rest and a starting vortex is formed and left behind, leading to the formation of circulation around the airfoil.[110][111][112] Lift is then inferred from the Kutta-Joukowski theorem. This explanation is largely mathematical, and its general progression is based on logical inference, not physical cause-and-effect.[113]

The Kutta–Joukowski model does not predict how much circulation or lift a two-dimensional airfoil produces. Calculating the lift per unit span using Kutta–Joukowski requires a known value for the circulation. In particular, if the Kutta condition is met, in which the rear stagnation point moves to the airfoil trailing edge and attaches there for the duration of flight, the lift can be calculated theoretically through the conformal mapping method.

The lift generated by a conventional airfoil is dictated by both its design and the flight conditions, such as forward velocity, angle of attack and air density. Lift can be increased by artificially increasing the circulation, for example by boundary-layer blowing or the use of blown flaps. In the Flettner rotor the entire airfoil is circular and spins about a spanwise axis to create the circulation.

Three-dimensional flow

[edit]
Cross-section of an airplane wing-body combination showing the isobars of the three-dimensional lifting flow
Cross-section of an airplane wing-body combination showing velocity vectors of the three-dimensional lifting flow

The flow around a three-dimensional wing involves significant additional issues, especially relating to the wing tips. For a wing of low aspect ratio, such as a typical delta wing, two-dimensional theories may provide a poor model and three-dimensional flow effects can dominate.[114] Even for wings of high aspect ratio, the three-dimensional effects associated with finite span can affect the whole span, not just close to the tips.

Wing tips and spanwise distribution

[edit]

The vertical pressure gradient at the wing tips causes air to flow sideways, out from under the wing then up and back over the upper surface. This reduces the pressure gradient at the wing tip, therefore also reducing lift. The lift tends to decrease in the spanwise direction from root to tip, and the pressure distributions around the airfoil sections change accordingly in the spanwise direction. Pressure distributions in planes perpendicular to the flight direction tend to look like the illustration at right.[115] This spanwise-varying pressure distribution is sustained by a mutual interaction with the velocity field. Flow below the wing is accelerated outboard, flow outboard of the tips is accelerated upward, and flow above the wing is accelerated inboard, which results in the flow pattern illustrated at right.[116]

There is more downward turning of the flow than there would be in a two-dimensional flow with the same airfoil shape and sectional lift, and a higher sectional angle of attack is required to achieve the same lift compared to a two-dimensional flow.[117] The wing is effectively flying in a downdraft of its own making, as if the freestream flow were tilted downward, with the result that the total aerodynamic force vector is tilted backward slightly compared to what it would be in two dimensions. The additional backward component of the force vector is called lift-induced drag.

Euler computation of a tip vortex rolling up from the trailed vorticity sheet

The difference in the spanwise component of velocity above and below the wing (between being in the inboard direction above and in the outboard direction below) persists at the trailing edge and into the wake downstream. After the flow leaves the trailing edge, this difference in velocity takes place across a relatively thin shear layer called a vortex sheet.

Horseshoe vortex system

[edit]
Planview of a wing showing the horseshoe vortex system

The wingtip flow leaving the wing creates a tip vortex. As the main vortex sheet passes downstream from the trailing edge, it rolls up at its outer edges, merging with the tip vortices. The combination of the wingtip vortices and the vortex sheets feeding them is called the vortex wake.

In addition to the vorticity in the trailing vortex wake there is vorticity in the wing's boundary layer, called 'bound vorticity', which connects the trailing sheets from the two sides of the wing into a vortex system in the general form of a horseshoe. The horseshoe form of the vortex system was recognized by the British aeronautical pioneer Lanchester in 1907.[118]

Given the distribution of bound vorticity and the vorticity in the wake, the Biot–Savart law (a vector-calculus relation) can be used to calculate the velocity perturbation anywhere in the field, caused by the lift on the wing. Approximate theories for the lift distribution and lift-induced drag of three-dimensional wings are based on such analysis applied to the wing's horseshoe vortex system.[119][120] In these theories, the bound vorticity is usually idealized and assumed to reside at the camber surface inside the wing.

Because the velocity is deduced from the vorticity in such theories, some authors describe the situation to imply that the vorticity is the cause of the velocity perturbations, using terms such as "the velocity induced by the vortex", for example.[121] But attributing mechanical cause-and-effect between the vorticity and the velocity in this way is not consistent with the physics.[122][123][124] The velocity perturbations in the flow around a wing are in fact produced by the pressure field.[125]

Manifestations of lift in the farfield

[edit]

Integrated force/momentum balance in lifting flows

[edit]
Control volumes of different shapes that have been used in analyzing the momentum balance in the 2D flow around a lifting airfoil. The airfoil is assumed to exert a downward force −L' per unit span on the air, and the proportions in which that force is manifested as momentum fluxes and pressure differences at the outer boundary are indicated for each different shape of control volume.

The flow around a lifting airfoil must satisfy Newton's second law regarding conservation of momentum, both locally at every point in the flow field, and in an integrated sense over any extended region of the flow. For an extended region, Newton's second law takes the form of the momentum theorem for a control volume, where a control volume can be any region of the flow chosen for analysis. The momentum theorem states that the integrated force exerted at the boundaries of the control volume (a surface integral), is equal to the integrated time rate of change (material derivative) of the momentum of fluid parcels passing through the interior of the control volume. For a steady flow, this can be expressed in the form of the net surface integral of the flux of momentum through the boundary.[126]

The lifting flow around a 2D airfoil is usually analyzed in a control volume that completely surrounds the airfoil, so that the inner boundary of the control volume is the airfoil surface, where the downward force per unit span is exerted on the fluid by the airfoil. The outer boundary is usually either a large circle or a large rectangle. At this outer boundary distant from the airfoil, the velocity and pressure are well represented by the velocity and pressure associated with a uniform flow plus a vortex, and viscous stress is negligible, so that the only force that must be integrated over the outer boundary is the pressure.[127][128][129] The free-stream velocity is usually assumed to be horizontal, with lift vertically upward, so that the vertical momentum is the component of interest.

For the free-air case (no ground plane), the force exerted by the airfoil on the fluid is manifested partly as momentum fluxes and partly as pressure differences at the outer boundary, in proportions that depend on the shape of the outer boundary, as shown in the diagram at right. For a flat horizontal rectangle that is much longer than it is tall, the fluxes of vertical momentum through the front and back are negligible, and the lift is accounted for entirely by the integrated pressure differences on the top and bottom.[127] For a square or circle, the momentum fluxes and pressure differences account for half the lift each.[127][128][129] For a vertical rectangle that is much taller than it is wide, the unbalanced pressure forces on the top and bottom are negligible, and lift is accounted for entirely by momentum fluxes, with a flux of upward momentum that enters the control volume through the front accounting for half the lift, and a flux of downward momentum that exits the control volume through the back accounting for the other half.[127]

The results of all of the control-volume analyses described above are consistent with the Kutta–Joukowski theorem described above. Both the tall rectangle and circle control volumes have been used in derivations of the theorem.[128][129]

Lift reacted by overpressure on the ground under an airplane

[edit]
Illustration of the distribution of higher-than-ambient pressure on the ground under an airplane in subsonic flight

An airfoil produces a pressure field in the surrounding air, as explained under "The wider flow around the airfoil" above. The pressure differences associated with this field die off gradually, becoming very small at large distances, but never disappearing altogether. Below the airplane, the pressure field persists as a positive pressure disturbance that reaches the ground, forming a pattern of slightly-higher-than-ambient pressure on the ground, as shown on the right.[130] Although the pressure differences are very small far below the airplane, they are spread over a wide area and add up to a substantial force. For steady, level flight, the integrated force due to the pressure differences is equal to the total aerodynamic lift of the airplane and to the airplane's weight. According to Newton's third law, this pressure force exerted on the ground by the air is matched by an equal-and-opposite upward force exerted on the air by the ground, which offsets all of the downward force exerted on the air by the airplane. The net force due to the lift, acting on the atmosphere as a whole, is therefore zero, and thus there is no integrated accumulation of vertical momentum in the atmosphere, as was noted by Lanchester early in the development of modern aerodynamics.[131]

See also

[edit]

Footnotes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia
from Grokipedia
Lift is the acting perpendicular to the direction of flow over a , such as an , that enables objects like to counteract and achieve sustained flight. This force arises from the interaction between the moving body and the surrounding (typically air), requiring relative motion and contact between the solid surface and the particles. In , is one of the four fundamental forces acting on an , opposing weight and acting through the center of on the . The generation of lift can be understood through complementary physical principles. According to , faster airflow over the curved upper surface of a wing creates lower above it compared to the flatter lower surface, resulting in a net upward force due to the pressure differential. Complementing this, Newton's third law explains lift as the reaction to the wing's deflection of air downward, imparting to the airflow and producing an equal and opposite upward force on the wing. A more complete description integrates these via the circulation theory, where a bound vortex around the induces rotational flow, combining pressure differences and momentum changes to quantify lift accurately. These mechanisms are not mutually exclusive; both and approaches yield equivalent results when integrated over the surface. The magnitude of lift is determined by the equation L=12ρV2SCLL = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 S C_L, where ρ\rho is the , VV is the , SS is the reference area (e.g., area), and CLC_L is the dimensionless that depends on factors like shape, , and surface conditions. Lift increases with velocity squared, air , and area, but the coefficient CLC_L peaks at an optimal before stalling occurs due to separation. In practical applications, lift principles underpin not only but also rotary-wing vehicles like helicopters, sails in , and biological flight in birds and , making it a cornerstone of and .

Overview

Definition and Fundamental Concept

Lift is defined as the component of the total acting on an object that is perpendicular to the direction of the oncoming flow, known as the freestream vector. This force primarily acts upward on the wings of an , counteracting the downward pull of to enable sustained flight. In , lift is produced by the interaction between a moving —such as air—and a , like an , and it passes through the center of pressure on that body. The total experienced by an object in a stream can be resolved into two principal components based on their orientation relative to the : lift, which is orthogonal () to the flow direction, and drag, which acts parallel and opposite to the flow. This vector decomposition simplifies analysis in , allowing engineers to isolate the effects of each force on vehicle performance. For instance, in steady, level flight, the lift vector must balance the aircraft's weight, while drag is opposed by from the engines. Lift is quantified as a force, with standard units of newtons (N) in the (SI) or pounds-force (lbf) in the imperial system. These units reflect lift's nature as a mechanical derived from and shear stresses in the surrounding fluid. To illustrate scale, a during cruise, when supporting a typical operating weight of approximately 285,000 kg after fuel burn, generates about 2.8 MN of lift to maintain altitude. Understanding lift requires familiarity with basic concepts, particularly —the force exerted per unit area by a —and —the speed and direction of motion relative to the object. These elements form the foundation for how interact with surfaces to produce net forces, though the precise mechanisms of lift generation depend on flow conditions around the body.

Historical Development and Key Milestones

The concept of lift as a distinct aerodynamic force traces its roots to the Renaissance, where early thinkers drew inspiration from observations of bird flight. In the late 15th century, Leonardo da Vinci produced over 500 sketches and 35,000 words on flying machines, the nature of air, and avian mechanics, including designs that conceptualized wings as inclined planes to produce upward thrust against gravity. These ideas represented an initial qualitative grasp of lift generation through angled surfaces interacting with air, though da Vinci's work remained largely empirical and untested. Advancements accelerated in the 18th and 19th centuries with foundational principles. In 1738, published Hydrodynamica, articulating a relationship where an increase in fluid corresponds to a decrease in , laying groundwork for later explanations of lift via differences over curved surfaces. Building on this, Sir , in 1804, pioneered the separation of lift from in fixed-wing designs, constructing and testing a small glider that demonstrated sustained lift through cambered surfaces at an angle to the , marking the first practical recognition of lift as an independent . The early 20th century brought rigorous mathematical frameworks for lift. In 1902, introduced the in his analysis of flow over two-dimensional profiles, specifying that airflow leaves the sharp trailing edge of an airfoil smoothly, enabling finite circulation and thus lift prediction. Complementing this, Ludwig Prandtl's 1904 boundary layer theory explained how viscous effects confine drag and flow separation to a thin layer near the surface, resolving paradoxes in inviscid models and allowing accurate lift calculations for real airfoils. In the 1920s, advanced vortex models, particularly through extensions of his earlier vortex street theory, to describe unsteady wake dynamics and trailing vortices that influence lift distribution behind lifting surfaces. Post-World War II innovations shifted toward computational tools for lift analysis. (CFD) emerged in the 1970s, with and industry developing numerical methods to simulate high-lift configurations, validating airfoil performance through solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations and reducing reliance on testing alone. In the 2020s, optimization of high-lift devices, such as morphing trailing edges, has advanced sustainable aviation by enhancing lift-to-drag ratios and reducing fuel consumption in next-generation designs. A notable recent milestone is 's X-59 QueSST program, with ground tests in the 2020s and its first flight on October 28, 2025, validating computational models of low-boom lift distributions that minimize sonic thumps while maintaining efficient supersonic lift.

Simplified Physical Explanations

Flow Deflection Using Newton's Laws

One intuitive explanation for the generation of lift on an relies on the principle of flow deflection, where the alters the direction of the incoming airflow, imparting a downward component of to the air. As the moves through the air, it forces the surrounding fluid to curve downward, particularly over the upper surface and trailing edge. This deflection transfers to the air mass in the downward direction. By Newton's third law of motion, the experiences an equal and opposite reaction force directed upward, which manifests as lift. The magnitude of this lift force arises from the rate at which is changed in the , as described by Newton's second law of motion: equals the time rate of change of (F=Δp/ΔtF = \Delta p / \Delta t). In this context, the downward flux imparted to the air—calculated as the product of the through the effective area influenced by the and the change in the vertical component—directly equals the upward lift on the . This -based view emphasizes that lift is fundamentally a reaction to the acceleration of downward, without requiring consideration of variations. Visual representations of this deflection are evident in wind tunnel experiments using smoke or tufts to trace streamlines, which show the curving noticeably downward behind the , especially as the angle of attack increases. A representative example is a flat plate inclined at an angle to the oncoming flow; here, the downward deflection of air is directly proportional to the plate's inclination angle, producing measurable lift that scales with the degree of turning. These observations provide a tangible of how the acts like a deflector, redirecting air to generate the reactive force. A simplified quantitative estimate of lift from this momentum deflection can be derived by considering the mass flow rate of air affected by the airfoil (ρAV\rho A V, where ρ\rho is air density, AA is the reference area, and VV is the freestream speed) and the approximate downward velocity change (VsinαV \sin \alpha, with α\alpha the angle of attack). This yields L12ρAV2sin2αL \approx \frac{1}{2} \rho A V^2 \sin^2 \alpha, illustrating that lift grows with the square of the speed and the square of the sine of the deflection angle, offering a basic scaling for preliminary analysis. This flow deflection perspective using Newton's laws serves as an accessible entry point for understanding lift, particularly because it aligns closely with empirical evidence from smoke visualizations in wind tunnels, where the downward turning of streamlines is readily observable and correlates with measured lift forces.

Velocity Increase and Bernoulli's Principle

Bernoulli's principle states that for an incompressible, inviscid fluid flow along a streamline, the total mechanical energy remains constant, expressed by the equation P+12ρV2+ρgh=constantP + \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 + \rho g h = \text{constant}, where PP is the static pressure, ρ\rho is the fluid density, VV is the flow velocity, gg is gravitational acceleration, and hh is the height above a reference level. In the context of aerodynamic lift, for horizontal flow over an airfoil where height differences are negligible (Δh0\Delta h \approx 0), this simplifies to P+12ρV2=constantP + \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2 = \text{constant}, indicating that an increase in velocity VV corresponds to a decrease in pressure PP. This principle provides an intuitive explanation for lift by linking variations in airflow speed around an airfoil to pressure differences that generate a net upward force. For a typical cambered , the upper surface is curved, causing the to accelerate to a higher compared to the relatively flatter or symmetric lower surface, where the flow remains closer to the free-stream speed. This increase over the upper surface—often intuitively associated with the longer path length along the cambered contour—results in lower on top according to Bernoulli's equation, while the higher on the lower surface creates the pressure differential responsible for lift. Qualitatively applying the equation, if the free-stream is VV_\infty, the accelerated over the upper surface Vupper>VV_\text{upper} > V_\infty yields Pupper<PP_\text{upper} < P_\infty, and similarly Plower>PP_\text{lower} > P_\infty for Vlower<VV_\text{lower} < V_\infty, producing a net force perpendicular to the flow direction. Experimental validation of this pressure distribution comes from wind tunnel tests using pressure taps—small orifices drilled into the airfoil surface connected to manometers or transducers—which measure static pressures at multiple points along the chord line. These measurements consistently show suction (negative pressure relative to free-stream) on the upper surface and compression (positive pressure) on the lower surface for airfoils at positive angles of attack, confirming the velocity-induced pressure differences predicted by ; for instance, on a NACA 0012 symmetric airfoil, pressure coefficients CpC_p drop below -1 on the upper surface at moderate angles, indicating significant lift generation. However, this explanation assumes the flow adheres to the airfoil's curvature without separation, a detail not accounted for by alone and requiring additional considerations of viscous effects addressed in more advanced analyses.

Common Misconceptions and Limitations

Equal Transit-Time Fallacy

The equal transit-time fallacy, also known as the equal transit theory, posits that lift on an airfoil arises because the path over the upper surface of the wing is longer than the path along the lower surface, requiring the air molecules above to travel faster to reunite with those below at the trailing edge in the same amount of time, thereby reducing pressure above the wing according to . This misconception assumes that air parcels separating at the leading edge must reconvene simultaneously at the trailing edge, with the increased speed over the longer upper path explaining the pressure differential responsible for lift. This theory is fundamentally flawed because there is no physical requirement for air parcels to take equal times over and under the ; in reality, wind tunnel visualizations using smoke trails demonstrate that air over the upper surface reaches the trailing edge before the air below, indicating faster transit above without any imposed equal-time constraint. Furthermore, the assumption of equal transit times lacks justification from fluid dynamics principles, and calculations based on this theory predict airspeeds and lift forces significantly lower than those observed in experiments—for instance, the predicted velocity over the top of a typical is only about 3-5% higher than below, whereas measurements show much larger differences, often with upper surface velocities up to 50% or more above the freestream velocity. The path length difference itself is irrelevant without a mechanism enforcing synchronized arrival, rendering the explanation invalid. The fallacy leads to erroneous predictions, such as zero lift for symmetric airfoils at zero angle of attack (which is correct but trivial), but it fails to account for lift generation in cambered airfoils at zero angle or symmetric airfoils at non-zero angles, where path lengths may not differ in the assumed manner yet lift occurs due to circulation. Historically, the equal transit-time idea did not appear in early aeronautics texts but emerged from a misinterpretation of a 1926 paper by Ludwig Prandtl and Albert Betz, which discussed streamlines but did not imply equal transit times; it gained traction in the 1950s through simplified illustrations in popular textbooks and educational films, persisting in aviation training materials into the late 20th century despite contradictory evidence from wind tunnel tests dating back to the 1920s and 1930s. Corrections began appearing in the 1990s, with NASA educational resources explicitly debunking the myth in the early 2000s, followed by AIAA-endorsed publications emphasizing circulation and pressure distribution as the true mechanisms. In accurate explanations, the acceleration of air over the upper surface results from the airfoil's camber and angle of attack inducing circulation, not from any transit-time matching.

Coandă Effect and Airflow Obstruction Debates

The Coandă effect refers to the tendency of a fluid jet to remain attached to a nearby curved surface, driven by pressure gradients that create entrainment of surrounding fluid, leading to deflection along the contour. In the context of airfoil lift, this effect has been debated as a potential mechanism for maintaining airflow attachment over the curved upper surface of a wing, thereby enabling downward deflection and upward reaction force per Newton's third law. Proponents argue that it "glues" the airflow to the wing, preventing premature separation and contributing significantly to lift generation, particularly in simplified explanations of flow turning. However, critics, including analyses from the 2000s and 2010s, contend that the Coandă effect plays only a secondary role in standard airfoil lift, as the primary driver of flow curvature and attachment is the pressure gradient established across the wing, not viscous entrainment typical of jets. For instance, fluid dynamic studies emphasize that inviscid potential flow theory adequately explains streamline curvature without invoking the Coandă effect, which is more relevant to augmented lift systems like circulation control airfoils rather than conventional wings. Misattributing lift primarily to this effect overlooks that flow attachment occurs due to favorable pressure gradients, and the effect's viscous components are negligible at high typical of aircraft flight. A related debate concerns the notion of airflow obstruction, where the wing is viewed as blocking the oncoming airflow, compelling it to accelerate over the upper surface and decelerate below, thus generating lift via pressure differences. This idea holds partial validity in explaining the initial pressure rise on the lower surface due to stagnation, but it fails as a primary cause of lift because it neglects the asymmetric circulation around the airfoil that sustains the velocity differential. Obstruction alone cannot account for the net upward force without considering the full flow field dynamics. Evidence from high-speed imaging reveals that flow separation can occur over airfoils even under conditions where the Coandă effect might be expected to maintain attachment, such as at high angles of attack, demonstrating that adhesion is not guaranteed and separation is governed more by adverse pressure gradients than surface-following tendencies. Recent computational fluid dynamics (CFD) studies from the 2020s further minimize the Coandă effect's direct contribution to baseline lift, showing through simulations that pressure-driven circulation dominates flow behavior, with the effect appearing only in specialized jet-augmented configurations rather than standard airfoils at cruise conditions. Ultimately, while both the Coandă effect and airflow obstruction influence local flow patterns, they are not fundamental to lift generation; the circulation theory, formalized in the Kutta-Joukowski theorem, provides a more comprehensive explanation by quantifying lift as proportional to circulation strength and freestream velocity, independent of these secondary phenomena.

Basic Attributes Influencing Lift

Pressure Distribution and Differences

Lift arises primarily from spatial variations in static pressure across the surfaces of an airfoil, with higher pressure on the lower surface and lower pressure on the upper surface creating a net upward force. This pressure difference can be expressed mathematically as the lift force L=(PlowerPupper)dAL = \int (P_{\text{lower}} - P_{\text{upper}}) \, dA, where PP denotes static pressure and the integral is taken over the projected surface area normal to the lift direction. The characteristic pressure distribution around an airfoil features a prominent suction peak on the upper surface near the leading edge, where static pressure drops significantly below the freestream value, often reaching pressure coefficients CpC_p as low as -1.5 or more depending on the angle of attack. On the lower surface, pressure remains closer to or above the freestream level, with gradual recovery toward the trailing edge to minimize adverse pressure gradients. These patterns are evident in experimental data for airfoils like the NACA 4412, where CpC_p plots show asymmetric distributions that shift with operating conditions, contributing to the overall lift generation. Pressure distributions are measured in wind tunnel experiments using pressure belts or arrays of taps embedded along the airfoil chord, connected to manometers or electronic transducers to record local static pressures at multiple points. These measurements yield Cp=PP12ρV2C_p = \frac{P - P_{\infty}}{ \frac{1}{2} \rho V_{\infty}^2 }, where PP_{\infty}, ρ\rho, and VV_{\infty} are freestream pressure, density, and velocity, respectively; for instance, tests on the NACA 0012 airfoil at low angles of attack reveal near-symmetric CpC_p profiles that become increasingly divergent at higher angles. Although fluid viscosity plays a crucial role in establishing the no-slip condition at the airfoil surface, which enables the development of these pressure gradients through boundary layer formation, the direct contribution of viscous shear stresses to the total lift is minimal, typically less than 1% of the force. Shear stresses act tangentially and largely cancel in the vertical direction, leaving pressure differences as the dominant mechanism.

Angle of Attack and Airfoil Geometry

The angle of attack, denoted as α\alpha, represents the angle between the airfoil's chord line and the direction of the freestream airflow. For thin airfoils, the lift coefficient CLC_L increases linearly with α\alpha up to the onset of stall, following the approximation CL2παC_L \approx 2\pi \alpha where α\alpha is in radians; this relation arises from potential flow theory, which models the airfoil as a vortex sheet satisfying the Kutta condition at the trailing edge. This linear dependence stems from the circulation generated around the airfoil, which is proportional to α\alpha in the thin airfoil approximation developed by Glauert. As α\alpha rises, the effective camber increases, enhancing the pressure differential across the airfoil surfaces and thus amplifying lift until flow separation begins. Airfoil geometry profoundly influences lift magnitude and distribution through features such as camber, thickness, and edge shapes. Camber, the curvature of the mean line relative to the chord, elevates the lift coefficient at zero angle of attack by shifting the zero-lift angle to a negative value; for instance, positive camber induces circulation that produces upward lift even at α=0\alpha = 0^\circ, allowing the airfoil to generate positive lift at lower angles compared to symmetric sections. Thickness, expressed as the maximum thickness-to-chord ratio, generally permits higher maximum lift coefficients in thicker airfoils by supporting greater adverse pressure gradients without premature separation, though excessive thickness can increase drag and limit performance at high speeds. Leading- and trailing-edge geometries further modulate flow attachment: a larger leading-edge radius promotes smoother acceleration of flow over the upper surface, delaying stall by reducing peak suction pressures, while sharp trailing edges enforce the to minimize wake vorticity and optimize lift. These geometric elements interact dynamically with α\alpha. At higher angles of attack, the stagnation point—where freestream velocity reduces to zero—shifts from the leading edge toward the lower surface, intensifying suction on the upper surface and thereby boosting lift through greater curvature in the streamlines. This shift exemplifies the interplay between angle and shape, as cambered or thicker profiles accentuate the effect, contributing to the linear lift rise until boundary layer separation leads to stalling. Representative examples illustrate these principles. The Clark Y airfoil, featuring moderate camber of approximately 3.4% at 25% chord and 11.7% thickness, exemplifies a design suited for general aviation, providing a zero-lift angle of about -3° and a gentle stall progression for reliable low-speed performance. In contrast, supercritical airfoils, pioneered by , incorporate a flattened upper surface and aft-loaded camber to maintain high lift in transonic regimes; these geometries delay shock-induced separation, achieving maximum lift coefficients comparable to subsonic sections while mitigating drag rise.

Flow Conditions, Speed, and Density

The magnitude of lift generated by an airfoil or wing is fundamentally dependent on the speed of the oncoming flow, as expressed through the dynamic pressure term in the lift equation. Specifically, lift is proportional to the square of the velocity VV, arising from the dynamic pressure q=12ρV2q = \frac{1}{2} \rho V^2, where ρ\rho is the fluid density. This quadratic relationship means that doubling the speed quadruples the lift for a given configuration, assuming other factors like angle of attack remain constant; for instance, commercial aircraft typically achieve sufficient lift for takeoff at speeds around 150-180 knots, where the V2V^2 term dominates the force buildup. Air density ρ\rho also directly influences lift, with lift proportional to ρ\rho in the standard equation. Density decreases with altitude due to lower atmospheric pressure, reducing lift generation; for example, at 3000 meters, air density is approximately 0.909 kg/m³ compared to 1.225 kg/m³ at sea level, resulting in about 26% less lift for the same speed and configuration. Temperature further modulates density, as warmer air expands and becomes less dense— a 10°C increase can reduce density by roughly 3-4% under standard conditions—while humidity has a smaller but notable effect, since moist air is less dense than dry air of the same temperature and pressure due to the lower molecular weight of water vapor. These variations are critical for aircraft performance, often quantified in density altitude calculations to predict required takeoff speeds at high-altitude airports. At higher speeds approaching or exceeding the local speed of sound, compressibility effects become significant, altering lift through changes in air density and the formation of shock waves. Compressibility influences begin around Mach 0.3, where local flow acceleration over the airfoil can reach sonic speeds, but the critical Mach number— the freestream Mach at which the minimum pressure on the surface first reaches sonic conditions—typically ranges from 0.6 to 0.8 for conventional airfoils. Beyond this, shock waves form, leading to a rapid drop in lift coefficient; experimental data show maximum lift increasing up to Mach 0.3, then decreasing sharply to Mach 0.55 before stabilizing at higher values, with shocks causing flow separation and reduced effective circulation. Flow regime transitions from subsonic to supersonic further modify lift characteristics. In subsonic flow (Mach < 0.8), lift relies primarily on viscous circulation and pressure differences around the airfoil, scaling smoothly with dynamic pressure. In contrast, supersonic flow (Mach > 1.2) generates lift through waves and expansion fans on the surfaces, resulting in lower lift coefficients for equivalent angles of attack compared to subsonic conditions, as the flow cannot adjust upstream of the body. The regime (Mach 0.8-1.2) presents challenges with mixed subsonic-supersonic pockets and strong shocks, where designs like the — which minimizes by smoothing the cross-sectional area distribution— help maintain lift efficiency during this transition, as demonstrated in early like the F-102.

Boundary Layer, Drag, and Stalling

The boundary layer is a thin region of fluid adjacent to an airfoil surface where viscous effects dominate, causing the flow velocity to vary from zero at the no-slip condition on the surface to the free-stream velocity farther away. This layer, first theoretically described by Ludwig Prandtl in the early 1900s, plays a critical role in sustaining lift by maintaining attached flow over the airfoil, as its behavior influences the pressure distribution that generates lift. Within the boundary layer, flow can transition from laminar to turbulent states depending on factors like Reynolds number, with turbulent layers generally exhibiting delayed separation due to enhanced momentum transfer, thereby supporting higher lift at moderate angles of attack. Profile drag on an , also known as parasite drag in two-dimensional contexts, comprises two main components: , arising from shear stresses within the due to , and form drag (or drag), resulting from the integrated differences across the surface, particularly influenced by . The (L/D) quantifies aerodynamic efficiency and reaches its peak under optimal conditions, such as low angles of attack where the remains attached and drag is minimized relative to lift, enabling extended range and in . Stalling occurs when the angle of attack exceeds a critical value, typically around 15° for conventional , causing the to separate extensively, often starting with a separation bubble near the that grows and disrupts attached flow over much of the upper surface. This separation alters pressure differences across the , leading to a sharp reduction in lift—often by 60-80% from the maximum value—and a simultaneous surge in drag as unsteady wake formation dominates. Recovery from stall exhibits , where the lift curve during decreasing angle of attack lags behind the increasing-angle path due to persistent separation effects, requiring a greater reduction in angle to reattach the flow. To mitigate stalling, devices such as vortex generators—small vanes that induce streamwise vortices to mix high-momentum free-stream air into the low-energy —or leading-edge slats, which create a high-pressure slot to energize the and delay separation by up to 5°, are employed to extend the usable range and maintain lift.

Lift on Bluff Bodies

Bluff bodies are non-streamlined objects, such as spheres and cylinders, characterized by rounded geometries that promote early over much of their surface, forming a broad, low-pressure wake that dominates drag production. These shapes exhibit high drag coefficients, typically an greater than those of streamlined airfoils, due to the persistent separated flow region. At zero , the upstream and downstream flow symmetry results in balanced pressure distributions, yielding near-zero net lift. In contrast to airfoils, which generate lift through sustained attached flow and circulation, bluff bodies lack coherent attached boundary layers, with lift—if present—arising from unsteady wake dynamics rather than steady pressure gradients. For a in crossflow, produces alternating low-pressure vortices in the wake, leading to fluctuating lift forces, though the cycle-averaged lift remains zero under symmetric conditions. This shedding frequency is characterized by the , approximately 0.2 for circular cylinders across Reynolds numbers from 300 to 10^5, reflecting the dimensionless ratio of inertial to convective forces in the wake. The provides a mechanism for net lift on rotating bluff bodies, where spin distorts the wake symmetry by accelerating flow on one side and decelerating it on the other, forming asymmetric vortices that induce circulation. This circulation Γ\Gamma, proportional to the and body radius, generates a lift force L=ρVΓL = \rho V \Gamma, directed perpendicular to the freestream velocity VV and density ρ\rho. In applications like a spinning , or backspin curves the trajectory by producing downward or upward lift, respectively, altering flight paths in sports. Dimpled surfaces on golf balls exemplify practical modifications to bluff body aerodynamics: the dimples trigger early transition to a turbulent boundary layer, delaying separation and reducing drag by up to 50% compared to smooth spheres at typical flight speeds. When backspin is applied, these dimples amplify the Magnus effect, enhancing lift to extend carry distance while maintaining stability. Rotating cylinders in crossflow, such as in certain wind engineering tests, similarly leverage this effect for controlled lift generation without relying on airfoil shaping. The underlying circulation in the Magnus effect aligns with principles elaborated in circulation theory.

Comprehensive Physical Mechanisms

Surface Pressure and Shear Stress Contributions

The lift force acting on an arises from the integration of surface forces over its boundary, comprising the normal component due to and the tangential component due to viscous . The normal contributes the majority of the lift, while the provides a minor opposing contribution through its component perpendicular to the direction; in typical flows, this shear contribution accounts for less than 5% of the total lift magnitude. At the local level, the surface stress tensor can be decomposed into isotropic and deviatoric viscous parts, following Euler's stress decomposition, where the normal force per unit area is -p (inward ) and the tangential τ acts parallel to the surface. Adverse gradients, particularly on the upper surface near the trailing edge, decelerate the flow, reducing the velocity gradient at the wall and potentially leading to if the gradient exceeds the boundary layer's momentum capacity. This separation diminishes lift by altering the effective distribution, as validated in studies. Experimental measurements of near-wall often employ hot-wire anemometry to capture profiles close to the surface, enabling estimation of the wall shear stress via τ_w = μ (∂u/∂y)|_wall, where μ is the dynamic and (∂u/∂y)|_wall is the streamwise gradient normal to the wall. Such techniques have confirmed low shear levels in attached flows at moderate Reynolds numbers, with typical values on the order of 0.1-1 Pa for subsonic conditions. Hot-film sensors, an extension of anemometry, provide direct skin friction data on surfaces, supporting the observation that viscous effects are confined to a thin . The dominance of over shear in generating lift stems from the inviscid core flow producing large-scale pressure differences across the , while viscous effects are localized within the thin (typically δ/c ≈ 0.01-0.05 chord fraction), limiting shear's integrated impact. This separation of scales allows simplified inviscid models to predict lift accurately for purposes, with viscous corrections applied only for drag and prediction.

Surrounding Flow Field Dynamics

The surrounding flow field around an or extends infinitely, with perturbations to the conditions decaying with distance from the body. In models, streamlines far upstream are parallel to the freestream direction but begin to curve as they approach the , converging toward the due to the where velocity is zero. Over the upper surface, streamlines remain closely spaced near the , reflecting accelerated flow, before diverging behind the trailing edge as the flow rejoins and adjusts to conditions. For finite , this far-field behavior includes , where the average downwash angle ε behind the approximates CL / (π AR), with CL as the lift coefficient and AR as the aspect ratio, arising from the collective influence of bound and trailing in Prandtl's . Velocity contours in the flow field reveal significant variations beyond the surface. Peak velocities occur over the upper , typically reaching about 1.5 times the speed V∞ for moderate angles of attack, due to the favorable and streamline convergence. Induced velocities from trailing vortices are prominent in three-dimensional flows, creating upwash ahead of the wing tips and behind, with magnitudes strongest near the tips and decaying radially as the vortices roll up. These induced components superimpose on the , altering local angles of attack across the span. The field forms a low-pressure above the , extending outward and downward, while a high-pressure region develops below, pushing fluid outward. Isobars, or lines of constant , closely follow the contour near the surface but become parallel to the direction at large distances, where perturbations vanish. Visualizations from inviscid solutions, such as those using conformal mapping or panel methods, depict the flow field extending to , with perturbations decaying as 1/r in two dimensions due to the far-field equivalence to a point vortex for lifting flows. This decay ensures that the influence of the diminishes rapidly, allowing superposition of multiple bodies in complex configurations.

Pressure-Velocity Interactions and Limitations of Simpler Models

In the generation of aerodynamic lift, and fields around an exhibit a mutual induction process governed by the Euler equations, where changes in induce gradients that, in turn, cause streamline and further alterations in . This reciprocal relationship arises because the of parcels along curved streamlines requires a provided by the , as described by the streamline derived from the Euler equations. For an , the differing curvatures of streamlines over the upper and lower surfaces—sharper on the upper side—lead to lower above the airfoil, sustaining the differences essential for lift. This iterative coupling ensures that neither nor can be considered primary; instead, they evolve together in a self-consistent manner throughout the flow field. Simpler models like Newton's third law applied to flow deflection overlook the role of viscous entrainment in directing around the . While Newton's approach accounts for change from direct particle impacts, it fails to explain the deflection of non-impacting streamlines far from the surface, which requires to entrain and accelerate adjacent fluid layers through shear stresses in the . Similarly, , which relates increases to decreases along streamlines, assumes pre-existing differences but does not address their origin, particularly the initial establishment of circulation via the starting vortex shed during acceleration. This vortex, formed from rolling up near the and released at the trailing edge, creates the initial asymmetry that Bernoulli's equation then describes but cannot initiate without viscous effects. A unified perspective on lift emphasizes its origin in closed-loop circulation around the , integrating pressure-velocity interactions without isolating deflection or speed-up as sole mechanisms. This circulation, arising from the bound on the airfoil surface, produces the net difference through the coherent of fluid elements in a loop enclosing the body, as captured by theories adjusted for viscous boundary conditions. The starting vortex plays a critical role here, shedding with opposite sense to the trailing-edge sheet to balance the overall distribution and enforce the at the trailing edge, thereby stabilizing the circulatory flow responsible for sustained lift. This view resolves the incompleteness of simpler models by highlighting the global, viscous-mediated dynamics that couple local and perturbations into a cohesive lift-generating process.

Quantifying Lift

Integration of Pressure Over Surfaces

The total lift force generated on a body immersed in a fluid flow is obtained by integrating the contributions from surface pressure and shear stress over the entire wetted surface SS. The lift LL, defined as the force component in the vertical (y-) direction perpendicular to the freestream, is given by L=S(pnyτx)dS,L = -\int_S \left( p \, n_y - \tau_x \right) \, dS, where pp is the local static pressure acting normal to the surface, nyn_y is the y-component of the unit outward normal vector n\mathbf{n}, τx\tau_x is the streamwise (x-) component of the wall shear stress vector, and the negative sign accounts for the reaction force on the body. This formulation captures the net vertical force, with pressure typically dominating the lift while shear provides a smaller correction, particularly on inclined surface elements where the tangential shear has a vertical component. For practical computations on airfoils or wings, the surface is often treated as an open contour in two dimensions (upper and lower surfaces separately) rather than a fully closed volume, simplifying the integration to line integrals along the chord: L=c(plpu)cosθdxc(τlτu)sinθdxL' = \int_{c} (p_l - p_u) \cos\theta \, dx - \int_{c} (\tau_l - \tau_u) \sin\theta \, dx, where subscript ll and uu denote lower and upper surfaces, cc is the chord length, and θ\theta is the local surface angle. This approach yields the lift per unit span LL'. To validate such surface integrations, a control volume enclosing the body can be used, applying the momentum theorem to equate the net force to far-field momentum flux changes, ensuring consistency between surface stresses and overall flow deflection. Numerical evaluation of these integrals commonly employs panel methods, which discretize the body surface into small panels or elements, solving for to approximate distributions and then summing the local contributions: Li(piny,iτx,i)ΔSiL \approx \sum_i (p_i n_{y,i} - \tau_{x,i}) \Delta S_i. These methods, based on inviscid assumptions with viscous for shear, provide efficient predictions for subsonic flows around lifting surfaces. Approximations in the integration can introduce errors; for instance, neglecting the shear stress term underestimates lift by less than 5% for typical airfoil conditions at moderate Reynolds numbers, as shear primarily affects drag. Additionally, for compressible flows, the pressures must incorporate corrections such as the Prandtl-Glauert transformation to account for density variations, scaling the incompressible pressures by 1/1M21 / \sqrt{1 - M^2}
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.