Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Lift (force)
View on Wikipedia

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]
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]
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]
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.

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
- Conservation of momentum, which is a consequence of Newton's laws of motion, especially Newton's second law (which relates the net force on an element of air to its rate of momentum change) and third law.
- Conservation of mass, including the assumption that the airfoil's surface is impermeable for the air flowing around, and
- Conservation of energy, which says that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
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.
Navier–Stokes (NS) equations
[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.

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]
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]

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.

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]
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]
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]
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]- ^ a b "What is Lift?". Glenn Research Center | NASA. NASA Glenn Research Center. Archived from the original on February 9, 2023. Retrieved February 9, 2023.
- ^ Kulfan (2010)
- ^ Clancy, L. J., Aerodynamics, Section 14.6
- ^ a b c d e f g Doug McLean Aerodynamic Lift, Part 2: A comprehensive Physical Explanation The Physics teacher, November, 2018
- ^ Doug McLean Aerodynamic Lift, Part 1: The Science The Physics teacher, November, 2018
- ^ a b "There are many theories of how lift is generated. Unfortunately, many of the theories found in encyclopedias, on web sites, and even in some textbooks are incorrect, causing unnecessary confusion for students." NASA "Incorrect lift theory #1". August 16, 2000. Archived from the original on April 27, 2014. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
- ^ "Most of the texts present the Bernoulli formula without derivation, but also with very little explanation. When applied to the lift of an airfoil, the explanation and diagrams are almost always wrong. At least for an introductory course, lift on an airfoil should be explained simply in terms of Newton's Third Law, with the thrust up being equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the air downwards." Cliff Swartz et al. Quibbles, Misunderstandings, and Egregious Mistakes – Survey of High-School Physics Texts The Physics Teacher Vol. 37, May 1999 p. 300 [1] Archived August 25, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Arvel Gentry Proceedings of the Third AIAA Symposium on the Aero/Hydronautics of Sailing 1971. "The Aerodynamics of Sail Interaction" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 7, 2011. Retrieved July 12, 2011.
One explanation of how a wing . . gives lift is that as a result of the shape of the airfoil, the air flows faster over the top than it does over the bottom because it has farther to travel. Of course, with our thin-airfoil sails, the distance along the top is the same as along the bottom so this explanation of lift fails.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ "An explanation frequently given is that the path along the upper side of the aerofoil is longer and the air thus has to be faster. This explanation is wrong." A comparison of explanations of the aerodynamic lifting force Klaus Weltner, Am. J. Phys. Vol.55 January 1, 1987
- ^ "The lift on the body is simple...it's the reaction of the solid body to the turning of a moving fluid...Now why does the fluid turn the way that it does? That's where the complexity enters in because we are dealing with a fluid. ...The cause for the flow turning is the simultaneous conservation of mass, momentum (both linear and angular), and energy by the fluid. And it's confusing for a fluid because the mass can move and redistribute itself (unlike a solid), but can only do so in ways that conserve momentum (mass times velocity) and energy (mass times velocity squared)... A change in velocity in one direction can cause a change in velocity in a perpendicular direction in a fluid, which doesn't occur in solid mechanics... So exactly describing how the flow turns is a complex problem; too complex for most people to visualize. So we make up simplified "models". And when we simplify, we leave something out. So the model is flawed. Most of the arguments about lift generation come down to people finding the flaws in the various models, and so the arguments are usually very legitimate." Tom Benson of NASA's Glenn Research Center in an interview with AlphaTrainer.Com "Archived copy – Tom Benson Interview". Archived from the original on April 27, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
- ^ Clancy, L. J., Aerodynamics, Section 5.2
- ^ McLean, Doug (2012). Understanding Aerodynamics: Arguing from the Real Physics. John Wiley & Sons. p. 281. ISBN 978-1119967514.
Another argument that is often made, as in several successive versions of the Wikipedia article "Aerodynamic Lift," is that lift can always be explained either in terms of pressure or in terms of momentum and that the two explanations are somehow "equivalent." This "either/or" approach also misses the mark.
- ^ "Both approaches are equally valid and equally correct, a concept that is central to the conclusion of this article." Charles N. Eastlake An Aerodynamicist's View of Lift, Bernoulli, and Newton The Physics Teacher Vol. 40, March 2002 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 11, 2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ Ison, David, "Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift?", Plane & Pilot, archived from the original on September 24, 2015, retrieved January 14, 2011
- ^ "...the effect of the wing is to give the air stream a downward velocity component. The reaction force of the deflected air mass must then act on the wing to give it an equal and opposite upward component." In: Halliday, David; Resnick, Robert, Fundamentals of Physics 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, p. 378
- ^ Anderson and Eberhardt (2001)
- ^ a b Langewiesche (1944)
- ^ "When air flows over and under an airfoil inclined at a small angle to its direction, the air is turned from its course. Now, when a body is moving in a uniform speed in a straight line, it requires force to alter either its direction or speed. Therefore, the sails exert a force on the wind and, since action and reaction are equal and opposite, the wind exerts a force on the sails." In: Morwood, John, Sailing Aerodynamics, Adlard Coles Limited, p. 17
- ^ a. "Lift from Flow Turning". NASA Glenn Research Center. May 27, 2000. Archived from the original on July 5, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
Lift is a force generated by turning a moving fluid... If the body is shaped, moved, or inclined in such a way as to produce a net deflection or turning of the flow, the local velocity is changed in magnitude, direction, or both. Changing the velocity creates a net force on the body.
b. Vassilis Spathopoulos. "Flight Physics for Beginners: Simple Examples of Applying Newton's Laws The Physics Teacher Vol. 49, September 2011 p. 373". Archived from the original on June 18, 2013. Retrieved June 29, 2021.Essentially, due to the presence of the wing (its shape and inclination to the incoming flow, the so-called angle of attack), the flow is given a downward deflection. It is Newton's third law at work here, with the flow then exerting a reaction force on the wing in an upward direction, thus generating lift.
c. Langewiesche. Stick and Rudder, p. 6.The main fact of all heavier-than-air flight is this: the wing keeps the airplane up by pushing the air down.
- ^
a. Chris Waltham. "Flight without Bernoulli" (PDF). The Physics Teacher Vol. 36 Nov. 1998. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 28, 2011. Retrieved August 4, 2011.
Birds and aircraft fly because they are constantly pushing air downwards: L = Δp/Δt where L= lift force, and Δp/Δt is the rate at which downward momentum is imparted to the airflow.
b. Clancy, L. J. Aerodynamics. Pitman 1975, p. 76.This lift force has its reaction in the downward momentum which is imparted to the air as it flows over the wing. Thus the lift of the wing is equal to the rate of transport of downward momentum of this air.
c. Smith, Norman F. (1972). "Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics". The Physics Teacher. 10 (8): 451. Bibcode:1972PhTea..10..451S. doi:10.1119/1.2352317....if the air is to produce an upward force on the wing, the wing must produce a downward force on the air. Because under these circumstances air cannot sustain a force, it is deflected, or accelerated, downward. Newton's second law gives us the means for quantifying the lift force: Flift = m∆v/∆t = ∆(mv)/∆t. The lift force is equal to the time rate of change of momentum of the air.
- ^ "...when one considers the downwash produced by a lifting airfoil, the upper surface contributes more flow turning than the lower surface." Incorrect Theory #2 Glenn Research Center NASA https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/foilw2/ Archived February 9, 2023, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ " This happens to some extent on both the upper and lower surface of the airfoil, but it is much more pronounced on the forward portion of the upper surface, so the upper surface gets the credit for being the primary lift producer. " Charles N. Eastlake An Aerodynamicist's View of Lift, Bernoulli, and Newton The Physics Teacher Vol. 40, March 2002 PDF Archived April 11, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "The pressure reaches its minimum value around 5 to 15% chord after the leading edge. As a result, about half of the lift is generated in the first 1/4 chord region of the airfoil. Looking at all three angles of attack, we observe a similar pressure change after the leading edge. Additionally, in all three cases, the upper surface contributes more lift than the lower surface. As a result, it is critical to maintain a clean and rigid surface on the top of the wing. This is why most airplanes are cleared of any objects on the top of the wing." Airfoil Behavior: Pressure Distribution over a Clark Y-14 Wing David Guo, College of Engineering, Technology, and Aeronautics (CETA), Southern New Hampshire University https://www.jove.com/v/10453/airfoil-behavior-pressure-distribution-over-a-clark-y-14-wing Archived August 5, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "There's always a tremendous amount of focus on the upper portion of the wing, but the lower surface also contributes to lift." Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift? David Ison Plane & Pilot Feb 2016
- ^ Auerbach, David (2000), "Why Aircraft Fly", Eur. J. Phys., 21 (4): 289, Bibcode:2000EJPh...21..289A, doi:10.1088/0143-0807/21/4/302, S2CID 250821727
- ^ Denker, JS, Fallacious Model of Lift Production, archived from the original on March 2, 2009, retrieved August 18, 2008
- ^ Wille, R.; Fernholz, H. (1965), "Report on the first European Mechanics Colloquium, on the Coanda effect", J. Fluid Mech., 23 (4): 801, Bibcode:1965JFM....23..801W, doi:10.1017/S0022112065001702, S2CID 121981660
- ^ Anderson, David; Eberhart, Scott (1999), How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift, archived from the original on January 26, 2016, retrieved June 4, 2008
- ^ Raskin, Jef (1994), Coanda Effect: Understanding Why Wings Work, archived from the original on September 28, 2007
- ^ Auerbach (2000)
- ^ Denker (1996)
- ^ Wille and Fernholz(1965)
- ^ White, Frank M. (2002), Fluid Mechanics (5th ed.), McGraw Hill
- ^ McLean, D. (2012), Section 7.3.2
- ^ McLean, D. (2012), Section 7.3.1.7
- ^ Burge, Cyril Gordon (1936). Encyclopædia of aviation. London: Pitman. p. 441. "… the fact that the air passing over the hump on the top of the wing has to speed up more than that flowing beneath the wing, in order to arrive at the trailing edge in the same time."
- ^ Illman, Paul (2000). The Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0071345191. When air flows along the upper wing surface, it travels a greater distance in the same period of time as the airflow along the lower wing surface."
- ^ Dingle, Lloyd; Tooley, Michael H. (2005). Aircraft engineering principles. Boston: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. p. 548. ISBN 0-7506-5015-X. The air travelling over the cambered top surface of the aerofoil shown in Figure 7.6, which is split as it passes around the aerofoil, will speed up, because it must reach the trailing edge of the aerofoil at the same time as the air that flows underneath the section."
- ^ "The airfoil of the airplane wing, according to the textbook explanation that is more or less standard in the United States, has a special shape with more curvature on top than on the bottom; consequently, the air must travel farther over the top surface than over the bottom surface. Because the air must make the trip over the top and bottom surfaces in the same elapsed time ..., the velocity over the top surface will be greater than over the bottom. According to Bernoulli's theorem, this velocity difference produces a pressure difference which is lift." Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics Norman F. Smith The Physics Teacher November 1972 Volume 10, Issue 8, p. 451 [2] [permanent dead link]
- ^ Craig G.M. (1997), Stop Abusing Bernoulli
- ^ "Unfortunately, this explanation [fails] on three counts. First, an airfoil need not have more curvature on its top than on its bottom. Airplanes can and do fly with perfectly symmetrical airfoils; that is with airfoils that have the same curvature top and bottom. Second, even if a humped-up (cambered) shape is used, the claim that the air must traverse the curved top surface in the same time as it does the flat bottom surface...is fictional. We can quote no physical law that tells us this. Third—and this is the most serious—the common textbook explanation, and the diagrams that accompany it, describe a force on the wing with no net disturbance to the airstream. This constitutes a violation of Newton's third law." Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics Norman F. Smith The Physics Teacher November 1972 Volume 10, Issue 8, p. 451 "Browse - the Physics Teacher". Archived from the original on March 17, 2012. Retrieved August 4, 2011.
- ^
Anderson, David (2001), Understanding Flight, New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 15, ISBN 978-0-07-136377-8,
The first thing that is wrong is that the principle of equal transit times is not true for a wing with lift.
- ^ Anderson, John (2005). Introduction to Flight. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. p. 355. ISBN 978-0072825695.
It is then assumed that these two elements must meet up at the trailing edge, and because the running distance over the top surface of the airfoil is longer than that over the bottom surface, the element over the top surface must move faster. This is simply not true
- ^ "Cambridge scientist debunks flying myth - Telegraph". Archived from the original on June 30, 2012. Retrieved June 10, 2012. Cambridge scientist debunks flying myth UK Telegraph 24 January 2012
- ^ Flow Visualization. National Committee for Fluid Mechanics Films/Educational Development Center. Archived from the original on October 21, 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2009. A visualization of the typical retarded flow over the lower surface of the wing and the accelerated flow over the upper surface starts at 5:29 in the video.
- ^ "...do you remember hearing that troubling business about the particles moving over the curved top surface having to go faster than the particles that went underneath, because they have a longer path to travel but must still get there at the same time? This is simply not true. It does not happen." Charles N. Eastlake An Aerodynamicist's View of Lift, Bernoulli, and Newton The Physics Teacher Vol. 40, March 2002 PDF Archived April 11, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "The actual velocity over the top of an airfoil is much faster than that predicted by the "Longer Path" theory and particles moving over the top arrive at the trailing edge before particles moving under the airfoil." Glenn Research Center (August 16, 2000). "Incorrect Lift Theory #1". NASA. Archived from the original on April 27, 2014. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
- ^ "As stream tube A flows toward the airfoil, it senses the upper portion of the airfoil as an obstruction, and stream tube A must move out of the way of this obstruction. In so doing, stream tube A is squashed to a smaller cross-sectional area as it flows over the nose of the airfoil. In turn, because of mass continuity (ρ AV = constant), the velocity of the flow in the stream tube must increase in the region where the stream tube is being squashed." J. D. Anderson (2008), Introduction to Flight (6th edition), section 5.19
- ^ "The theory is based on the idea that the airfoil upper surface is shaped to act as a nozzle which accelerates the flow. Such a nozzle configuration is called a Venturi nozzle and it can be analyzed classically. Considering the conservation of mass, the mass flowing past any point in the nozzle is a constant; the mass flow rate of a Venturi nozzle is a constant... For a constant density, decreasing the area increases the velocity." Incorrect Theory #3 Glenn Research Center NASA https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/venturi-theory/ Archived February 9, 2023, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "The problem with the 'Venturi' theory is that it attempts to provide us with the velocity based on an incorrect assumption (the constriction of the flow produces the velocity field). We can calculate a velocity based on this assumption, and use Bernoulli's equation to compute the pressure, and perform the pressure-area calculation and the answer we get does not agree with the lift that we measure for a given airfoil." NASA Glenn Research Center "Incorrect lift theory #3". August 16, 2000. Archived from the original on July 17, 2012. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
- ^ "A concept...uses a symmetrical convergent-divergent channel, like a longitudinal section of a Venturi tube, as the starting point . . when such a device is put in a flow, the static pressure in the tube decreases. When the upper half of the tube is removed, a geometry resembling the airfoil is left, and suction is still maintained on top of it. Of course, this explanation is flawed too, because the geometry change affects the whole flowfield and there is no physics involved in the description." Jaakko Hoffren Quest for an Improved Explanation of Lift Section 4.3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 2001 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 7, 2013. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "This answers the apparent mystery of how a symmetric airfoil can produce lift. ... This is also true of a flat plate at non-zero angle of attack." Charles N. Eastlake An Aerodynamicist's View of Lift, Bernoulli, and Newton "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 11, 2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ "This classic explanation is based on the difference of streaming velocities caused by the airfoil. There remains, however, a question: How does the airfoil cause the difference in streaming velocities? Some books don't give any answer, while others just stress the picture of the streamlines, saying the airfoil reduces the separations of the streamlines at the upper side. They do not say how the airfoil manages to do this. Thus this is not a sufficient answer." Klaus Weltner Bernoulli's Law and Aerodynamic Lifting Force The Physics Teacher February 1990 p. 84. [3] [permanent dead link]
- ^ Doug McLean Understanding Aerodynamics, section 7.3.1.5, Wiley, 2012
- ^ "There is nothing wrong with the Bernoulli principle, or with the statement that the air goes faster over the top of the wing. But, as the above discussion suggests, our understanding is not complete with this explanation. The problem is that we are missing a vital piece when we apply Bernoulli's principle. We can calculate the pressures around the wing if we know the speed of the air over and under the wing, but how do we determine the speed?" How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift David Anderson and Scott Eberhardt "How Airplanes Fly". Archived from the original on January 26, 2016. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
- ^ A uniform pressure surrounding a body does not create a net force. (See buoyancy). Therefore pressure differences are needed to exert a force on a body immersed in a fluid. For example, see: Batchelor, G.K. (1967), An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, pp. 14–15, ISBN 978-0-521-66396-0
- ^ "...if a streamline is curved, there must be a pressure gradient across the streamline..." Babinsky, Holger (November 2003), "How do wings work?", Physics Education, 38 (6): 497, Bibcode:2003PhyEd..38..497B, doi:10.1088/0031-9120/38/6/001, S2CID 1657792
- ^ Thus a distribution of the pressure is created which is given in Euler's equation. The physical reason is the aerofoil which forces the streamline to follow its curved surface. The low pressure at the upper side of the aerofoil is a consequence of the curved surface." A comparison of explanations of the aerodynamic lifting force Klaus Weltner Am. J. Phys. Vol.55 No.January 1, 1987, p. 53 [4] Archived April 28, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "You can argue that the main lift comes from the fact that the wing is angled slightly upward so that air striking the underside of the wing is forced downward. The Newton's 3rd law reaction force upward on the wing provides the lift. Increasing the angle of attack can increase the lift, but it also increases drag so that you have to provide more thrust with the aircraft engines" Hyperphysics Georgia State University Dept. of Physics and Astronomy "Angle of Attack for Airfoil". Archived from the original on October 14, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
- ^ "If we enlarge the angle of attack we enlarge the deflection of the airstream by the airfoil. This results in the enlargement of the vertical component of the velocity of the airstream... we may expect that the lifting force depends linearly on the angle of attack. This dependency is in complete agreement with the results of experiments..." Klaus Weltner A comparison of explanations of the aerodynamic lifting force Am. J. Phys. 55(1), January 1987 p. 52
- ^ "The decrease[d lift] of angles exceeding 25° is plausible. For large angles of attack we get turbulence and thus less deflection downward." Klaus Weltner A comparison of explanations of the aerodynamic lifting force Am. J. Phys. 55(1), January 1987 p. 52
- ^ Clancy (1975), Section 5.2
- ^ Abbott, and von Doenhoff (1958), Section 4.2
- ^ "With an angle of attack of 0°, we can explain why we already have a lifting force. The air stream behind the aerofoil follows the trailing edge. The trailing edge already has a downward direction, if the chord to the middle line of the profile is horizontal." Klaus Weltner A comparison of explanations of the aerodynamic lifting force Am. J. Phys. 55(1), January 1987 p. 52
- ^ "...the important thing about an aerofoil . . is not so much that its upper surface is humped and its lower surface is nearly flat, but simply that it moves through the air at an angle. This also avoids the otherwise difficult paradox that an aircraft can fly upside down!" N. H. Fletcher Mechanics of Flight Physics Education July 1975 [5]
- ^ "It requires adjustment of the angle of attack, but as clearly demonstrated in almost every air show, it can be done." Hyperphysics GSU Dept. of Physics and Astronomy [6] Archived July 8, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ White (1991), Section 1-4
- ^ White (1991), Section 1-2
- ^ a b Anderson (1991), Chapter 17
- ^ a b Abbott and von Doenhoff (1958), Chapter 5
- ^ Schlichting (1979), Chapter XXIV
- ^ Abbott and Doenhoff (1958), Chapter 8
- ^ a b Williamson, C. H. K.; Govardhan, R. (2004), "Vortex-induced vibrations", Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 36: 413–455, Bibcode:2004AnRFM..36..413W, doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.36.050802.122128, S2CID 58937745
- ^ Sumer, B. Mutlu; Fredsøe, Jørgen (2006), Hydrodynamics around cylindrical structures (revised ed.), World Scientific, pp. 6–13, 42–45 & 50–52, ISBN 978-981-270-039-1
- ^ Zdravkovich, M.M. (2003), Flow around circular cylinders, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, pp. 850–855, ISBN 978-0-19-856561-1
- ^ Clancy, L. J., Aerodynamics, Sections 4.5, 4.6
- ^ McLean (2012), Section 7.3.3
- ^ a b Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 1.41
- ^ Jeans (1967), Section 33.
- ^ a b Clancy (1975), Section 4.5
- ^ Milne-Thomson (1966.), Section 5.31
- ^ McLean 2012, Section 7.3.3.7
- ^ McLean (2012), Section 3.5
- ^ McLean 2012, Section 7.3.3.9"
- ^ McLean 2012, Section 7.3.3.9
- ^ McLean, Doug (2012). "7.3.3.12". Understanding Aerodynamics: Arguing from the Real Physics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1119967514. Doug McLean, Common Misconceptions in Aerodynamics on YouTube
- ^ Anderson (2008), Section 5.7
- ^ Anderson, John D. (2004), Introduction to Flight (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill, p. 257, ISBN 978-0-07-282569-5
- ^ Yoon, Joe (December 28, 2003), Mach Number & Similarity Parameters, Aerospaceweb.org, archived from the original on February 24, 2021, retrieved February 11, 2009
- ^ Batchelor (1967), Section 1.2
- ^ Thwaites (1958), Section I.2
- ^ von Mises (1959), Section I.1
- ^ "Analysis of fluid flow is typically presented to engineering students in terms of three fundamental principles: conservation of mass, conservation of momentum, and conservation of energy." Charles N. Eastlake An Aerodynamicist's View of Lift, Bernoulli, and Newton The Physics Teacher Vol. 40, March 2002 "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on April 11, 2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - ^ White (1991), Chapter 1
- ^ Batchelor (1967), Chapter 3
- ^ Aris (1989)
- ^ a b Spalart, Philippe R. (2000) Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Elsevier Science Publishers.
- ^ White (1991), Section 6-2
- ^ Schlichting(1979), Chapter XVIII
- ^ Anderson (1995)
- ^ "...whenever the velocity field is irrotational, it can be expressed as the gradient of a scalar function we call a velocity potential φ: V = ∇φ. The existence of a velocity potential can greatly simplify the analysis of inviscid flows by way of potential-flow theory..." Doug McLean Understanding Aerodynamics: Arguing from the Real Physics p. 26 Wiley "Continuum Fluid Mechanics and the Navier–Stokes Equations". Understanding Aerodynamics. 2012. p. 13. doi:10.1002/9781118454190.ch3. ISBN 9781118454190.
- ^ Elements of Potential Flow California State University Los Angeles "Faculty Web Directory". Archived from the original on November 11, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
- ^ Batchelor(1967), Section 2.7
- ^ Milne-Thomson(1966), Section 3.31
- ^ Clancy (1975), Section 4.8
- ^ Anderson(1991), Section 4.5
- ^ Clancy(1975), Sections 8.1–8
- ^ von Mises (1959), Section VIII.2
- ^ Anderson(1991), Section 3.15
- ^ Prandtl and Tietjens (1934)
- ^ Batchelor (1967), Section 6.7
- ^ Gentry (2006)
- ^ McLean (2012), Section 7.2.1
- ^ Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 12.3
- ^ McLean (2012), Section 8.1.3
- ^ McLean (2012), Section 8.1.1
- ^ Hurt, H. H. (1965) Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, Figure 1.30, NAVWEPS 00-80T-80
- ^ Lanchester (1907)
- ^ Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 10.1
- ^ Clancy (1975), Section 8.9
- ^ Anderson (1991), Section 5.2
- ^ Batchelor (1967), Section 2.4
- ^ Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 9.3
- ^ Durand (1932), Section III.2
- ^ McLean (2012), Section 8.1
- ^ Shapiro (1953), Section 1.5, equation 1.15
- ^ a b c d Lissaman (1996), "Lift in thin slices: the two dimensional case"
- ^ a b c Durand (1932), Sections B.V.6, B.V.7
- ^ a b c Batchelor (1967), Section 6.4, p. 407
- ^ Prandtl and Tietjens (1934), Figure 150
- ^ Lanchester (1907), Sections 5 and 112
References
[edit]- Abbott, I. H.; von Doenhoff, A. E. (1958), Theory of Wing Sections, Dover Publications
- Anderson, D. F.; Eberhardt, S. (2001), Understanding Flight, McGraw-Hill
- Anderson, J. D. (1991), Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill
- Anderson, J. D. (1995), Computational Fluid Dynamics, The Basics With Applications, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0-07-113210-7
- Anderson, J. D. (1997), A History of Aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press
- Anderson, J. D. (2004), Introduction to Flight (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill, pp. 352–361, §5.19, ISBN 978-0-07-282569-5
- Anderson, J. D. (2008), Introduction to Flight, 6th edition, McGraw Hill
- Aris, R. (1989), Vectors, Tensors, and the basic Equations of Fluid Mechanics, Dover Publications
- Auerbach, D. (2000), "Why Aircraft Fly", Eur. J. Phys., 21 (4): 289–296, Bibcode:2000EJPh...21..289A, doi:10.1088/0143-0807/21/4/302, S2CID 250821727
- Babinsky, H. (2003), "How do wings work?", Phys. Educ., 38 (6): 497, Bibcode:2003PhyEd..38..497B, doi:10.1088/0031-9120/38/6/001, S2CID 1657792
- Batchelor, G. K. (1967), An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press
- Clancy, L. J. (1975), Aerodynamics, Longman Scientific and Technical
- Craig, G. M. (1997), Stop Abusing Bernoulli, Anderson, Indiana: Regenerative Press
- Durand, W. F., ed. (1932), Aerodynamic Theory, vol. 1, Dover Publications
- Eastlake, C. N. (2002), "An Aerodynamicist's View of Lift, Bernoulli, and Newton", The Physics Teacher, 40 (3): 166–173, Bibcode:2002PhTea..40..166E, doi:10.1119/1.1466553, S2CID 121425815
- Jeans, J. (1967), An Introduction to the Kinetic theory of Gasses, Cambridge University Press
- Kulfan, B. M. (2010), Paleoaerodynamic Explorations Part I: Evolution of Biological and Technical Flight, AIAA 2010-154
- Lanchester, F. W. (1907), Aerodynamics, A. Constable and Co.
- Langewiesche, W. (1944), Stick and Rudder – An Explanation of the Art of Flying, McGraw-Hill
- Lissaman, P. B. S. (1996), The facts of lift, AIAA 1996-161
- Marchai, C. A. (1985), Sailing Theory and Practice, Putnam
- McBeath, S. (2006), Competition Car Aerodynamics, Sparkford, Haynes
- McLean, D. (2012), Understanding Aerodynamics – Arguing from the Real Physics, Wiley
- Milne-Thomson, L. M. (1966), Theoretical Aerodynamics, 4th ed., Dover Publications
- Prandtl, L.; Tietjens, O. G. (1934), Applied Hydro- and Aeromechanics, Dover Publications
- Raskin, J. (1994), Coanda Effect: Understanding Why Wings Work, archived from the original on September 28, 2007
- Schlichting, H. (1979), Boundary-Layer Theory, Seventh Ed., McGraw-Hill
- Shapiro, A. H. (1953), The Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Compressible Fluid Flow, Ronald Press Co., Bibcode:1953dtcf.book.....S
- Smith, N. F. (1972), "Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics", The Physics Teacher, 10 (8): 451, Bibcode:1972PhTea..10..451S, doi:10.1119/1.2352317
- Spalart, Philippe R. (2000), "Strategies for turbulence modeling and simulations", International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 21 (3): 252, Bibcode:2000IJHFF..21..252S, doi:10.1016/S0142-727X(00)00007-2
- Sumer, B.; Mutlu; Fredsøe, Jørgen (2006), Hydrodynamics around cylindrical structures (revised ed.)
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Thwaites, B., ed. (1958), Incompressible Aerodynamics, Dover Publications
- Tritton, D. J. (1980), Physical Fluid Dynamics, Van Nostrand Reinhold
- Van Dyke, M. (1969), "Higher-Order Boundary-Layer Theory", Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 1 (1): 265–292, Bibcode:1969AnRFM...1..265D, doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.01.010169.001405
- von Mises, R. (1959), Theory of Flight, Dover Publications
- Waltham, C. (1998), "Flight without Bernoulli", The Physics Teacher, 36 (8): 457–462, Bibcode:1998PhTea..36..457W, doi:10.1119/1.879927
- Weltner, K. (1987), "A comparison of explanations of the aerodynamic lifting force", Am. J. Phys., 55 (1): 53, Bibcode:1987AmJPh..55...50W, doi:10.1119/1.14960
- White, F. M. (1991), Viscous Fluid Flow, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill
- Wille, R.; Fernholz, H. (1965), "Report on the first European Mechanics Colloquium, on the Coanda effect", J. Fluid Mech., 23 (4): 801–819, Bibcode:1965JFM....23..801W, doi:10.1017/s0022112065001702, S2CID 121981660
- Williamson, C. H. K.; Govardhan, R (2004), "Vortex-induced vibrations", Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 36: 413–455, Bibcode:2004AnRFM..36..413W, doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.36.050802.122128, S2CID 58937745
- Zdravkovich, M. M. (2003), Flow around circular cylinders 2, Oxford University Press, pp. 850–855, ISBN 978-0-19-856561-1
Further reading
[edit]- Introduction to Flight, John D. Anderson, Jr., McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-299071-6 – Dr. Anderson is Curator of Aerodynamics at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air & Space Museum and Professor Emeritus at the University of Maryland.
- Understanding Flight, by David Anderson and Scott Eberhardt, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-136377-7 – A physicist and an aeronautical engineer explain flight in non-technical terms and specifically address the equal-transit-time myth. They attribute airfoil circulation to the Coanda effect, which is controversial.
- Aerodynamics, Clancy, L. J. (1975), Section 4.8, Pitman Publishing Limited, London ISBN 0-273-01120-0.
- Aerodynamics, Aeronautics, and Flight Mechanics, McCormick, Barnes W., (1979), Chapter 3, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York ISBN 0-471-03032-5.
- Fundamentals of Flight, Richard S. Shevell, Prentice-Hall International Editions, ISBN 0-13-332917-8 – This is a text for a one-semester undergraduate course in mechanical or aeronautical engineering. Its sections on theory of flight are understandable with a passing knowledge of calculus and physics.
- Craig, Paul P. (1957). "Observation of Perfect Potential Flow in Superfluid". Physical Review. 108 (5): 1109–1112. Bibcode:1957PhRv..108.1109C. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.1109. – Experiments under superfluidity conditions, resulting in the vanishing of lift in inviscid flow since the Kutta condition is no longer satisfied.
- "Aerodynamics at the Particle Level", Charles A. Crummer (2005, revised 2012) – A treatment of aerodynamics emphasizing the particle nature of air, as opposed to the fluid approximation commonly used. arXiv:nlin/0507032
- "Flight without Bernoulli" Chris Waltham Vol. 36, Nov. 1998 The Physics Teacher – using a physical model based on Newton's second law, the author presents a rigorous fluid dynamical treatment of flight. [7] Archived September 28, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
- Bernoulli, Newton, and Dynamic Lift Norman F. Smith School Science and Mathematics vol 73 Part I: Bernoulli, Newton, and Dynamic Lift Part II* Archived December 17, 2012, at archive.today Part II Bernoulli, Newton, and Dynamic Lift Part I* Archived December 14, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
External links
[edit]- Discussion of the apparent "conflict" between the various explanations of lift Archived July 25, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
- NASA tutorial, with animation, describing lift Archived March 9, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- NASA FoilSim II 1.5 beta. Lift simulator
- Explanation of Lift with animation of fluid flow around an airfoil Archived June 13, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
- A treatment of why and how wings generate lift that focuses on pressure Archived December 19, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
- Physics of Flight – reviewed Archived March 9, 2021, at the Wayback Machine. Online paper by Prof. Dr. Klaus Weltner
- How do Wings Work? Holger Babinsky
- Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift? Archived September 24, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Plane and Pilot magazine
- One Minute Physics How Does a Wing actually work? Archived May 20, 2021, at the Wayback Machine (YouTube video)
- How wings really work, University of Cambridge Archived June 14, 2021, at the Wayback Machine Holger Babinsky (referred by "One Minute Physics How Does a Wing actually work?" YouTube video)
- From Summit to Seafloor – Lifted Weight as a Function of Altitude and Depth by Rolf Steinegger
- Joukowski Transform Interactive WebApp Archived October 19, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
- How Planes Fly Archived June 11, 2021, at the Wayback Machine YouTube video presentation by Krzysztof Fidkowski, associate professor of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan
Lift (force)
View on GrokipediaOverview
Definition and Fundamental Concept
Lift is defined as the component of the total aerodynamic force acting on an object that is perpendicular to the direction of the oncoming fluid flow, known as the freestream velocity vector. This force primarily acts upward on the wings of an aircraft, counteracting the downward pull of gravity to enable sustained flight. In aerodynamics, lift is produced by the interaction between a moving fluid—such as air—and a solid body, like an airfoil, and it passes through the center of pressure on that body.[2][9] The total aerodynamic force experienced by an object in a fluid stream can be resolved into two principal components based on their orientation relative to the freestream: lift, which is orthogonal (perpendicular) to the flow direction, and drag, which acts parallel and opposite to the flow. This vector decomposition simplifies analysis in fluid dynamics, 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 thrust from the engines.[10] Lift is quantified as a force, with standard units of newtons (N) in the International System of Units (SI) or pounds-force (lbf) in the imperial system. These units reflect lift's nature as a mechanical force derived from pressure and shear stresses in the surrounding fluid. To illustrate scale, a Boeing 747-400 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.[11][12] Understanding lift requires familiarity with basic fluid dynamics concepts, particularly pressure—the force exerted per unit area by a fluid—and velocity—the speed and direction of fluid motion relative to the object. These elements form the foundation for how fluids interact with solid surfaces to produce net forces, though the precise mechanisms of lift generation depend on flow conditions around the body.[10]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.[13] 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 fluid dynamics principles. In 1738, Daniel Bernoulli published Hydrodynamica, articulating a relationship where an increase in fluid velocity corresponds to a decrease in pressure, laying groundwork for later explanations of lift via pressure differences over curved surfaces.[14] Building on this, Sir George Cayley, in 1804, pioneered the separation of lift from propulsion in fixed-wing designs, constructing and testing a small glider that demonstrated sustained lift through cambered surfaces at an angle to the airflow, marking the first practical recognition of lift as an independent force.[15] The early 20th century brought rigorous mathematical frameworks for lift. In 1902, Martin Kutta introduced the Kutta condition 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.[16] In the 1920s, Theodore von Kármán 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.[17] Post-World War II innovations shifted toward computational tools for lift analysis. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) emerged in the 1970s, with NASA and industry developing numerical methods to simulate high-lift configurations, validating airfoil performance through solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations and reducing reliance on wind tunnel testing alone.[18] 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 aircraft designs.[19] A notable recent milestone is NASA'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.[20]Simplified Physical Explanations
Flow Deflection Using Newton's Laws
One intuitive explanation for the generation of lift on an airfoil relies on the principle of flow deflection, where the airfoil alters the direction of the incoming airflow, imparting a downward component of momentum to the air. As the airfoil moves through the air, it forces the surrounding fluid to curve downward, particularly over the upper surface and trailing edge. This deflection transfers momentum to the air mass in the downward direction. By Newton's third law of motion, the airfoil experiences an equal and opposite reaction force directed upward, which manifests as lift.[21] The magnitude of this lift force arises from the rate at which momentum is changed in the airflow, as described by Newton's second law of motion: force equals the time rate of change of momentum (). In this context, the downward momentum flux imparted to the air—calculated as the product of the mass flow rate through the effective area influenced by the airfoil and the change in the vertical velocity component—directly equals the upward lift on the wing. This momentum-based view emphasizes that lift is fundamentally a reaction to the acceleration of air mass downward, without requiring consideration of pressure variations.[22] Visual representations of this deflection are evident in wind tunnel experiments using smoke or tufts to trace streamlines, which show the airflow curving noticeably downward behind the airfoil, 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 illustration of how the airfoil acts like a deflector, redirecting air to generate the reactive force.[23] 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 (, where is air density, is the reference area, and is the freestream speed) and the approximate downward velocity change (, with the angle of attack). This yields , 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.[24] 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.[4]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 , where is the static pressure, is the fluid density, is the flow velocity, is gravitational acceleration, and is the height above a reference level.[25] In the context of aerodynamic lift, for horizontal flow over an airfoil where height differences are negligible (), this simplifies to , indicating that an increase in velocity corresponds to a decrease in pressure .[25] 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 airfoil, the upper surface is curved, causing the airflow to accelerate to a higher velocity compared to the relatively flatter or symmetric lower surface, where the flow remains closer to the free-stream speed.[26] This velocity increase over the upper surface—often intuitively associated with the longer path length along the cambered contour—results in lower pressure on top according to Bernoulli's equation, while the higher pressure on the lower surface creates the pressure differential responsible for lift.[26] Qualitatively applying the equation, if the free-stream velocity is , the accelerated velocity over the upper surface yields , and similarly for , producing a net force perpendicular to the flow direction.[4] 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.[27] 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 Bernoulli's principle; for instance, on a NACA 0012 symmetric airfoil, pressure coefficients 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 Bernoulli's principle alone and requiring additional considerations of viscous effects addressed in more advanced analyses.[4]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 Bernoulli's principle.[4] 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.[28] This theory is fundamentally flawed because there is no physical requirement for air parcels to take equal times over and under the airfoil; 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 airfoil 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.[29] The path length difference itself is irrelevant without a mechanism enforcing synchronized arrival, rendering the explanation invalid.[28] 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.[4] 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.[28] 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.[29] 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.[4]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.[30] 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.[31] 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.[32] 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.[31] 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.[24] 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 Reynolds numbers typical of aircraft flight.[33] 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.[34] 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.[31] 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.[35] 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.[36][24] 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.[31][33]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 , where denotes static pressure and the integral is taken over the projected surface area normal to the lift direction.[37] 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 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 plots show asymmetric distributions that shift with operating conditions, contributing to the overall lift generation.[38][39] 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 , where , , and are freestream pressure, density, and velocity, respectively; for instance, tests on the NACA 0012 airfoil at low angles of attack reveal near-symmetric profiles that become increasingly divergent at higher angles.[40] 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.[37][41]Angle of Attack and Airfoil Geometry
The angle of attack, denoted as , represents the angle between the airfoil's chord line and the direction of the freestream airflow. For thin airfoils, the lift coefficient increases linearly with up to the onset of stall, following the approximation where 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.[42] This linear dependence stems from the circulation generated around the airfoil, which is proportional to in the thin airfoil approximation developed by Glauert. As 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 , allowing the airfoil to generate positive lift at lower angles compared to symmetric sections.[43] 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.[44] 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 Kutta condition to minimize wake vorticity and optimize lift.[45] These geometric elements interact dynamically with . 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.[46] 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 NASA, 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.[47]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 , arising from the dynamic pressure , where is the fluid density.[48] 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 term dominates the force buildup. Air density also directly influences lift, with lift proportional to 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.[49] 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.[50] These variations are critical for aircraft performance, often quantified in density altitude calculations to predict required takeoff speeds at high-altitude airports.[51] 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.[52] 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.[53] 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 oblique shock 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 transonic regime (Mach 0.8-1.2) presents challenges with mixed subsonic-supersonic pockets and strong shocks, where designs like the area rule— which minimizes wave drag by smoothing the cross-sectional area distribution— help maintain lift efficiency during this transition, as demonstrated in early supersonic aircraft like the F-102.[54]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.[55] 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.[55] 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.[55] Profile drag on an airfoil, also known as parasite drag in two-dimensional contexts, comprises two main components: skin friction drag, arising from shear stresses within the boundary layer due to viscosity, and form drag (or pressure drag), resulting from the integrated pressure differences across the surface, particularly influenced by flow separation.[3] The lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) quantifies aerodynamic efficiency and reaches its peak under optimal conditions, such as low angles of attack where the boundary layer remains attached and drag is minimized relative to lift, enabling extended range and fuel efficiency in aircraft.[56] Stalling occurs when the angle of attack exceeds a critical value, typically around 15° for conventional airfoils, causing the boundary layer to separate extensively, often starting with a separation bubble near the leading edge that grows and disrupts attached flow over much of the upper surface.[57] This separation alters pressure differences across the airfoil, 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.[57] Recovery from stall exhibits hysteresis, 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.[58] 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 boundary layer—or leading-edge slats, which create a high-pressure slot to energize the boundary layer and delay separation by up to 5°, are employed to extend the usable angle of attack range and maintain lift.[59]Lift on Bluff Bodies
Bluff bodies are non-streamlined objects, such as spheres and cylinders, characterized by rounded geometries that promote early flow separation over much of their surface, forming a broad, low-pressure wake that dominates drag production.[60] These shapes exhibit high drag coefficients, typically an order of magnitude greater than those of streamlined airfoils, due to the persistent separated flow region.[61] At zero angle of attack, the upstream and downstream flow symmetry results in balanced pressure distributions, yielding near-zero net lift.[62] 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.[63] For a cylinder in crossflow, vortex shedding produces alternating low-pressure vortices in the wake, leading to fluctuating lift forces, though the cycle-averaged lift remains zero under symmetric conditions.[64] This shedding frequency is characterized by the Strouhal number, 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.[65] The Magnus effect 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.[66] This circulation , proportional to the angular velocity and body radius, generates a lift force , directed perpendicular to the freestream velocity and density .[66] In applications like a spinning baseball, topspin or backspin curves the trajectory by producing downward or upward lift, respectively, altering flight paths in sports.[62] 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.[67] When backspin is applied, these dimples amplify the Magnus effect, enhancing lift to extend carry distance while maintaining stability.[68] Rotating cylinders in crossflow, such as in certain wind engineering tests, similarly leverage this effect for controlled lift generation without relying on airfoil shaping.[69] The underlying circulation in the Magnus effect aligns with principles elaborated in circulation theory.[66]Comprehensive Physical Mechanisms
Surface Pressure and Shear Stress Contributions
The lift force acting on an airfoil arises from the integration of surface forces over its boundary, comprising the normal component due to pressure and the tangential component due to viscous shear stress. The normal pressure contributes the majority of the lift, while the shear stress provides a minor opposing contribution through its component perpendicular to the freestream direction; in typical attached flows, this shear contribution accounts for less than 5% of the total lift magnitude.[70][71] At the local level, the surface stress tensor can be decomposed into isotropic pressure and deviatoric viscous parts, following Euler's stress decomposition, where the normal force per unit area is -p (inward pressure) and the tangential shear stress τ acts parallel to the surface. Adverse pressure gradients, particularly on the upper surface near the trailing edge, decelerate the boundary layer flow, reducing the velocity gradient at the wall and potentially leading to flow separation if the gradient exceeds the boundary layer's momentum capacity. This separation diminishes lift by altering the effective pressure distribution, as validated in boundary layer studies.[72] Experimental measurements of near-wall shear stress often employ hot-wire anemometry to capture velocity profiles close to the surface, enabling estimation of the wall shear stress via τ_w = μ (∂u/∂y)|_wall, where μ is the dynamic viscosity and (∂u/∂y)|_wall is the streamwise velocity gradient normal to the wall. Such techniques have confirmed low shear levels in attached airfoil 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 airfoil surfaces, supporting the observation that viscous effects are confined to a thin boundary layer.[73] The dominance of pressure over shear in generating lift stems from the inviscid core flow producing large-scale pressure differences across the airfoil, while viscous effects are localized within the thin boundary layer (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 engineering purposes, with viscous corrections applied only for drag and stall prediction.[70]Surrounding Flow Field Dynamics
The surrounding flow field around an airfoil or wing extends infinitely, with perturbations to the freestream conditions decaying with distance from the body. In potential flow models, streamlines far upstream are parallel to the freestream direction but begin to curve as they approach the airfoil, converging toward the leading edge due to the stagnation point where velocity is zero.[74] Over the upper surface, streamlines remain closely spaced near the leading edge, reflecting accelerated flow, before diverging behind the trailing edge as the flow rejoins and adjusts to freestream conditions.[74] For finite wings, this far-field behavior includes downwash, where the average downwash angle ε behind the wing 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 vorticity in Prandtl's lifting-line theory.[75] Velocity contours in the flow field reveal significant variations beyond the surface. Peak velocities occur over the upper leading edge, typically reaching about 1.5 times the freestream speed V∞ for moderate angles of attack, due to the favorable pressure gradient and streamline convergence. Induced velocities from trailing vortices are prominent in three-dimensional flows, creating upwash ahead of the wing tips and downwash behind, with magnitudes strongest near the tips and decaying radially as the vortices roll up.[77] These induced components superimpose on the freestream, altering local angles of attack across the span. The pressure field forms a low-pressure envelope above the airfoil, extending outward and downward, while a high-pressure region develops below, pushing fluid outward.[74] Isobars, or lines of constant pressure, closely follow the airfoil contour near the surface but become parallel to the freestream direction at large distances, where perturbations vanish.[37] Visualizations from inviscid potential flow solutions, such as those using conformal mapping or panel methods, depict the flow field extending to infinity, with velocity perturbations decaying as 1/r in two dimensions due to the far-field equivalence to a point vortex for lifting flows.[78] This decay ensures that the influence of the airfoil diminishes rapidly, allowing superposition of multiple bodies in complex configurations.[78]Pressure-Velocity Interactions and Limitations of Simpler Models
In the generation of aerodynamic lift, pressure and velocity fields around an airfoil exhibit a mutual induction process governed by the Euler equations, where changes in velocity induce pressure gradients that, in turn, cause streamline curvature and further alterations in velocity. This reciprocal relationship arises because the acceleration of fluid parcels along curved streamlines requires a centripetal force provided by the pressure gradient, as described by the streamline curvature theorem derived from the Euler equations. For an airfoil, the differing curvatures of streamlines over the upper and lower surfaces—sharper on the upper side—lead to lower pressure above the airfoil, sustaining the velocity differences essential for lift. This iterative coupling ensures that neither pressure nor velocity can be considered primary; instead, they evolve together in a self-consistent manner throughout the flow field.[79][24] Simpler models like Newton's third law applied to flow deflection overlook the role of viscous entrainment in directing airflow around the airfoil. While Newton's approach accounts for momentum change from direct particle impacts, it fails to explain the deflection of non-impacting streamlines far from the surface, which requires viscosity to entrain and accelerate adjacent fluid layers through shear stresses in the boundary layer. Similarly, Bernoulli's principle, which relates velocity increases to pressure decreases along streamlines, assumes pre-existing velocity differences but does not address their origin, particularly the initial establishment of circulation via the starting vortex shed during airfoil acceleration. This vortex, formed from boundary layer vorticity rolling up near the leading edge and released at the trailing edge, creates the initial asymmetry that Bernoulli's equation then describes but cannot initiate without viscous effects.[24][33][80] A unified perspective on lift emphasizes its origin in closed-loop circulation around the airfoil, integrating pressure-velocity interactions without isolating deflection or speed-up as sole mechanisms. This circulation, arising from the bound vorticity on the airfoil surface, produces the net pressure difference through the coherent rotation of fluid elements in a loop enclosing the body, as captured by potential flow theories adjusted for viscous boundary conditions. The starting vortex plays a critical role here, shedding with opposite sense to the trailing-edge vorticity sheet to balance the overall vorticity distribution and enforce the Kutta condition 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 pressure and velocity perturbations into a cohesive lift-generating process.[24][80]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 . The lift , defined as the force component in the vertical (y-) direction perpendicular to the freestream, is given by where is the local static pressure acting normal to the surface, is the y-component of the unit outward normal vector , is the streamwise (x-) component of the wall shear stress vector, and the negative sign accounts for the reaction force on the body.[70] 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.[81] 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: , where subscript and denote lower and upper surfaces, is the chord length, and is the local surface angle.[82] This approach yields the lift per unit span . 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.[70] Numerical evaluation of these integrals commonly employs panel methods, which discretize the body surface into small panels or elements, solving for potential flow to approximate pressure distributions and then summing the local contributions: . These methods, based on inviscid assumptions with viscous corrections for shear, provide efficient predictions for subsonic flows around lifting surfaces.[83] 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.[84] 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 where is the Mach number, to maintain accuracy up to moderate supersonic speeds.[83]Lift Coefficient and Dimensionless Parameters
The lift coefficient, denoted , serves as a dimensionless measure of lift performance, allowing comparison across different geometries, scales, and flow conditions by normalizing the lift force against dynamic pressure and reference area. It is defined mathematically as where is the lift force, is the dynamic pressure with as fluid density and as freestream velocity, and is the reference area, typically the projected wing planform area for aircraft wings.[48] This formulation isolates the aerodynamic efficiency of the shape from environmental factors like speed and density, enabling engineers to predict lift behavior consistently.[85] Characteristic plots of versus angle of attack illustrate the operational range of airfoils and wings, typically showing a linear rise with a slope of approximately per radian for thin subsonic airfoils, followed by a peak and abrupt drop at stall due to flow separation.[86] For conventional subsonic airfoils, the maximum reaches about 1.5 at angles near 15–16 degrees before stalling, beyond which lift diminishes rapidly.[87] Complementary polar diagrams plot against the drag coefficient , revealing performance trade-offs; these curves often form a parabolic shape, with minimum drag occurring at low and increasing drag at higher lift due to induced effects.[88] Such visualizations guide airfoil selection by highlighting lift-to-drag ratios critical for efficiency. Additional dimensionless parameters contextualize in practical designs. The aspect ratio , where is the wing span, modulates induced drag, as higher (e.g., slender wings) distributes lift more uniformly and reduces vortex-induced losses for a given .[89] The Reynolds number , with as a characteristic length (e.g., chord) and as dynamic viscosity, captures viscous scale effects; lower in models promotes earlier laminar-to-turbulent transitions, potentially inflating compared to full-scale flight.[90] In application, facilitates wind tunnel scaling by ensuring similarity in dimensionless groups like and Mach number, allowing subscale tests to extrapolate forces accurately to prototypes despite Reynolds mismatches. Aircraft design targets often specify cruise values around 0.5 for commercial jets, balancing lift requirements with low drag for fuel-efficient steady-level flight at typical altitudes and speeds.[91]Mathematical Foundations
Inviscid Potential Flow and Linearization
In inviscid potential flow theory, the fluid motion is assumed to be irrotational, satisfying ∇ × V = 0, where V is the velocity vector.[92] This condition allows the velocity to be expressed as the gradient of a scalar potential function φ, such that V = ∇φ.[92] For incompressible flow, the continuity equation ∇ · V = 0 further implies that φ satisfies Laplace's equation, ∇²φ = 0.[92] Solutions to this elliptic partial differential equation are obtained subject to boundary conditions, including the no-penetration condition on the airfoil surface (normal velocity component equals zero relative to the surface) and uniformity at infinity (far-field flow approaching freestream).[42] To analyze lift generation on an airfoil, the potential flow is often linearized for small angles of attack α and thin geometries. The total potential φ is decomposed into a uniform freestream component U∞x (where U∞ is the freestream speed) and a perturbation φ', yielding φ = U∞x + φ'.[42] The perturbation satisfies the linearized Laplace equation ∇²φ' = 0, with boundary conditions approximated on the chord line (x-axis) for thin airfoils: the vertical velocity induced by φ' cancels the normal freestream component U∞α sinα ≈ U∞α.[42] In thin airfoil theory, developed by Max Munk under Ludwig Prandtl's guidance, the lift coefficient CL is derived as CL = 2πα for a flat plate, with the factor of 2 arising from the symmetric contributions of upper and lower surfaces.[46] For cambered airfoils, conformal mapping techniques transform the flow field from a simpler geometry to the desired shape while preserving the irrotational nature. The Joukowski transformation, introduced by Nikolai Joukowski, maps a circle in the ζ-plane (with center offset from the origin) to an airfoil-like profile in the z-plane via z = ζ + (a²/ζ), where a is the circle's radius.[93] Uniform flow past the circle, solved analytically using complex potentials, is then mapped to the airfoil, yielding pressure distributions that produce lift proportional to the camber and angle of attack.[93] This method generates families of airfoils with finite thickness and camber, demonstrating how geometric asymmetry contributes to net lift in potential flow.[93] Despite its successes in predicting lift slopes, inviscid potential flow exhibits key limitations relevant to airfoil aerodynamics. Without viscosity, the flow does not adhere to a sharp trailing edge, resulting in infinite velocity at the trailing edge singularity.[94] Additionally, the theory predicts zero drag on any body in steady, incompressible flow—known as d'Alembert's paradox—since pressure forces symmetrize and pressure drag vanishes in the absence of viscosity or separation.[94] These issues highlight the idealization's departure from real viscous flows, where boundary layer effects regularize the trailing edge behavior.[24]Circulation Theory and Kutta-Joukowski Theorem
In the circulation theory of lift, which builds upon the framework of inviscid potential flow, the generation of aerodynamic lift on an airfoil is attributed to the presence of bound circulation around the body. Circulation, denoted as , is defined as the line integral of the velocity field along a closed contour enclosing the airfoil: . This measure quantifies the net rotational flow induced by the airfoil, distinguishing it from irrotational potential flow by incorporating vorticity in a controlled manner.[95] The relationship between this circulation and the resulting lift force is formalized by the Kutta-Joukowski theorem, which states that for a two-dimensional airfoil in a uniform freestream of velocity and fluid density , the lift per unit span is given by . This theorem, independently derived by Martin Kutta in 1902 and Nikolai Joukowski in 1906, provides a direct proportionality between lift and circulation, emphasizing that lift arises perpendicular to the freestream direction.[6][46] To determine the unique value of in potential flow solutions, which otherwise admit multiple circulatory states, the Kutta condition is applied. Proposed by Kutta in his 1902 analysis, this condition stipulates that the flow must leave the sharp trailing edge of the airfoil smoothly, with finite velocity and no stagnation point divergence, effectively fixing the rear stagnation point at the trailing edge. For a thin airfoil at small angle of attack , this yields , where is the chord length, resulting in a theoretical lift curve slope of per radian.[96][46] The Kutta-Joukowski theorem can be derived through conservation of momentum in the far field or via the Blasius theorem in the complex plane, where the complex potential for the flow yields the force components from the residue of . Specifically, the lift is the imaginary part of around a contour enclosing the airfoil, reducing to under steady, incompressible conditions. This complex-variable approach, central to Joukowski's 1906 work, leverages conformal mapping to transform known flows (e.g., around a circle) into airfoil geometries while preserving circulation.[6][97] Physically, the bound circulation is equivalent to a vortex sheet distributed along the airfoil's surface, representing the discontinuity in tangential velocity between the upper and lower flows. This sheet strength varies to satisfy the no-penetration boundary condition while producing the required lift. To establish this steady-state circulation from rest, a starting vortex of opposite sign and equal magnitude is shed downstream from the trailing edge, conserving total circulation in the flow field per Kelvin's circulation theorem. This transient process aligns the bound vorticity with the Kutta condition, after which the starting vortex is convected away, leaving the persistent lift-generating circulation.[95][98]Viscous Flow Models (Navier-Stokes and RANS)
The Navier-Stokes equations provide the fundamental framework for modeling viscous flows around airfoils and wings, capturing the effects of viscosity on lift generation. These equations describe the conservation of momentum in a Newtonian fluid and, for incompressible flows relevant to low-Mach-number aerodynamics (typically Mach < 0.3), take the form where is the velocity vector, is pressure, is constant density, is kinematic viscosity, and represents body forces.[99] This formulation neglects compressibility effects while accounting for viscous diffusion and convective acceleration, enabling computation of pressure distributions that integrate to yield lift.[100] Solving the full three-dimensional, unsteady Navier-Stokes equations for lift remains computationally intensive due to their nonlinear convective terms, which lead to phenomena like turbulence and flow separation without closed-form analytical solutions.[99] No general exact solution exists for arbitrary geometries, necessitating numerical methods such as finite volume or finite element discretizations to approximate velocity and pressure fields around lifting surfaces.[100] These challenges are exacerbated in three dimensions and under unsteady conditions, where vortex shedding and boundary layer transitions demand high-resolution grids to resolve viscous effects accurately.[100] To address turbulence in practical lift predictions, the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach time-averages the equations, introducing Reynolds stresses modeled via eddy viscosity concepts. The resulting RANS equations compute mean flow quantities, with turbulence closure often achieved using models like the k-ε formulation, which solves transport equations for turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate to estimate effective viscosity . This enables efficient simulation of attached and separated flows, where viscous boundary layers near the surface contribute to pressure gradients driving lift.[101] RANS models excel in predicting lift coefficients for airfoils up to stall angles, capturing separation bubbles and post-stall lift drop-off more reliably than inviscid methods, as validated on symmetric profiles like NACA 0015.[101] For instance, the realizable k-ε variant accurately reproduces experimental lift curves by resolving adverse pressure gradients leading to boundary layer detachment.[101] In the 2020s, machine learning techniques have accelerated RANS-based aerodynamic shape optimization by augmenting turbulence closures and reducing computational costs in shape design workflows, achieving drag reductions of up to 25% through data-driven corrections to Reynolds stress predictions in flows with separation.[102] These hybrid approaches train neural networks on high-fidelity datasets to refine model parameters, enabling faster iterations in aerodynamic optimization without sacrificing accuracy in lift forecasting.[103]Three-Dimensional Lift Effects
Spanwise Lift Distribution and Wing Tips
In three-dimensional wings, the lift force does not distribute uniformly along the span due to the influence of trailing vortices, leading to variations that affect overall aerodynamic efficiency. The spanwise lift distribution describes how the local lift coefficient varies from the root to the tip, where is the position along the semi-span. This non-uniformity arises primarily from the downwash induced by the wing's own vortices, which modifies the effective angle of attack locally.[104] Prandtl's lifting-line theory provides the foundational model for predicting this distribution, representing the wing as a bound vortex line along the span with trailing vortices that induce downwash. According to this theory, the ideal spanwise lift distribution for minimizing induced drag is elliptical, where the lift is maximum at the root and tapers smoothly to zero at the wing tips. The mathematical form is given by with denoting the total wing span and the lift coefficient at the root. This elliptical profile achieves the lowest possible induced drag for a given total lift and span, as the uniform downwash it produces avoids wasteful variations in induced velocity across the span. Wings designed to approximate this distribution, such as those with appropriate twist or taper, exhibit higher span efficiency factors close to 1.0.[104][105] At the wing tips, the effects of three-dimensional flow are most pronounced, where the pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces drives spanwise flow outward on the pressure side and inward on the suction side, feeding into strong tip vortices. This results in a downwash that is significantly stronger near the tips—up to several times that at the root—reducing the effective angle of attack more substantially inboard-to-outboard. Consequently, the local lift near the tips is significantly less than the value expected from two-dimensional airfoil theory at the same geometric angle of attack, contributing to an overall reduction in wing efficiency for non-ideal distributions. Rectangular or untwisted wings often exhibit higher lift near the tips initially, but this leads to earlier tip stall and increased induced drag compared to elliptical plans.[106][77] To mitigate these tip losses, winglets—upward- or downward-curved extensions at the wing tips—have been developed to weaken the tip vortices by redirecting spanwise flow and effectively lengthening the span. These devices reduce the strength of the trailing vortex system, lowering induced drag by redirecting some of the tip flow energy into additional lift generation on the winglet itself. Wind-tunnel studies show that winglets can decrease induced drag by approximately 20% while increasing the lift-to-drag ratio by about 9%, equivalent to boosting the effective aspect ratio by 10-20% without extending the physical span. This enhancement is particularly beneficial for transport aircraft, where fuel savings of several percent over long ranges are realized.[107] Experimental measurement of spanwise lift distribution typically involves surface pressure taps arrayed along the chord at multiple spanwise stations to integrate local normal forces, but flow visualization techniques provide qualitative insights into the underlying spanwise flows. Tuft grids, consisting of lightweight yarn attached to the wing surface, reveal spanwise flow directions and separation patterns, particularly near the tips where crossflow is strongest. For quantitative velocity field data, particle image velocimetry (PIV) is employed to map the wake vorticity and downwash, from which the spanwise circulation—and thus lift distribution—can be inferred via integration along streamwise planes. These methods confirm the elliptical ideal in controlled tests and guide design adjustments for real-world deviations.[108][109]Horseshoe Vortex System
In Prandtl's lifting-line theory, the horseshoe vortex system models the three-dimensional vortical flow responsible for lift on a finite wing by representing the wing as a lifting line along its span. The core of the model consists of a bound vortex filament colocated with the quarter-chord line of the wing, where the circulation strength Γ varies spanwise to produce the desired lift distribution. To comply with Helmholtz's second theorem, which requires that the total circulation along any closed vortex filament remains constant, any spanwise variation in the bound vortex strength is compensated by shedding trailing vortex sheets perpendicular to the freestream from the wing surface. These trailing sheets connect the ends of adjacent bound vortex elements, forming a continuous series of infinitesimal horseshoe vortices that span the wing length, with the bound segment along the wing and the trailing legs extending downstream indefinitely.[104] The trailing vortex sheets induce a downward velocity, known as downwash, on the wing, which modifies the effective angle of attack and accounts for the reduction in lift compared to two-dimensional theory. Using the Biot-Savart law, the downwash at a point on the lifting line is computed as the velocity component normal to the freestream induced by the trailing vorticity: where is the spanwise vorticity gradient, is the semi-span, and the integral arises from the infinite trailing legs of the horseshoe system. For an elliptical lift distribution, which corresponds to an elliptical variation in , the induced downwash is uniform across the span, minimizing induced drag. This uniform downwash equals .[75] Downstream of the wing, the distributed trailing vortex sheet undergoes roll-up due to mutual induction and self-induction among the vortex filaments, concentrating the vorticity into a pair of counter-rotating tip vortices. This roll-up process begins near the trailing edge and typically completes within a few span lengths, forming tip vortices with a core radius typically on the order of 1-2% of the wing span, depending on the initial sheet thickness and Reynolds number.[110][111] The bound circulation along the span serves as the starting point for this system, linking directly to the two-dimensional circulation from airfoil theory via the Kutta-Joukowski theorem.[110] The horseshoe vortex model provides accurate predictions for wings with moderate to high aspect ratios, typically AR > 5, where three-dimensional effects are dominated by spanwise flow and tip losses rather than viscous boundary layer interactions. For low-aspect-ratio wings (AR < 5), such as delta or highly swept configurations, the assumptions of slender theory break down, and extensions like vortex lattice methods discretize the horseshoe system into panels across the wing surface for improved fidelity.[75]Far-Field Lift Manifestations
Integrated Momentum and Force Balances
The application of the momentum theorem to a control volume enclosing a lifting wing in steady flow demonstrates that the lift force arises from the net vertical momentum imparted to the surrounding air. According to the linear momentum equation for a fixed control volume, the net force in the vertical direction equals the flux of vertical momentum through the control surface, given by where is the fluid density, is the velocity vector, is the outward-pointing unit normal to the control surface , and is the vertical component of velocity (taken positive upward).[112] This integral captures the rate at which downward momentum leaves the volume, producing an equal and opposite upward reaction force on the wing. In practice, contributions from the front, top, bottom, and side surfaces are negligible far from the wing, leaving the dominant term from the rear surface in the wake region, where downwash (positive downward) deflects the flow vertically. Approximating the streamwise velocity as the freestream value on this surface, the lift simplifies to with the integral over the wake cross-section, equivalent to the total downward momentum flux due to downwash.[77] In the far field, as the control surface expands asymptotically downstream and outward, the velocity perturbations decay according to potential flow solutions for the vortex wake. The downwash and associated momentum flux stem from velocities induced by the horseshoe vortex system trailing from the wingtips and spanwise bound vorticity. This far-field representation yields a total lift that precisely matches the prediction from the Kutta-Joukowski theorem, , where is the spanwise circulation distribution and is the wing span; the theorem integrates the local lift contributions while conserving the overall momentum balance enforced by Helmholtz's vortex theorems.[113] An associated energy consideration in steady level flight links the lift—balancing the aircraft weight—to the power expended by the propulsion system against total drag. The induced drag component, arising from the downwash, requires power , which equals the rate at which kinetic energy is imparted to the flow via the downwash, over the wake; for optimal elliptical loading, this simplifies to , where is the uniform average downwash, confirming the energy cost of generating lift matches the induced power dissipation without net change in the aircraft's gravitational potential energy.[114] For inviscid flow, the momentum balance proof follows directly from the Euler equations integrated over the control volume: the net surface pressure force plus the momentum flux term equals zero in steady state, absent body forces. Far downstream, perturbations in pressure diminish rapidly (), making the pressure integral over the large surface vanish, so the momentum flux alone determines the aerodynamic force. Viscous effects, captured by surface stress integrals in the full Navier-Stokes momentum equation, become negligible in the far field where Reynolds stresses decay, validating the inviscid approximation for global lift balances while local boundary layers remain essential near the wing.[113]Ground Overpressure and Induced Effects
The lift generated by an aircraft's wings produces a downwash of air that imparts downward momentum to the atmosphere, resulting in an increased static pressure on the ground beneath the aircraft to balance the upward force on the plane. This ground overpressure arises from the compression of air in the wake as the downwash interacts with the surface, with the total integrated pressure increase equaling the aircraft's lift according to far-field momentum conservation. For low-altitude flight, the effect is more pronounced because the downwash has less distance to dissipate, leading to the average pressure rise equal to the lift divided by the effective ground area influenced by the wake, which scales inversely with the square of the flight height.[115][116] This overpressure is particularly relevant in airport operations, where it can influence runway surface conditions and safety margins for smaller aircraft following larger ones. In close proximity to the ground, the same downwash interaction induces a reciprocal effect on the aircraft known as ground effect, where the surface acts as a boundary that reduces the effective downwash velocity through the formation of image vortices beneath the wing. This reduction in downwash angle increases the lift by 10-40% for typical transport aircraft when the height is less than half the wing span, while also decreasing induced drag by up to 50%, allowing for improved performance during takeoff and landing. The higher pressure cushion formed under the wing enhances the pressure differential without significantly altering the low-pressure region above it.[117][106] Measurements of ground overpressure are typically obtained using sensitive barometers or pressure sensors deployed on the surface during controlled aircraft flyovers, capturing transient peaks as the downwash passes overhead and correlating them with flight parameters like speed and altitude. Recent 2020s studies on drones and electric vertical takeoff and landing (eVTOL) vehicles have extended these measurements to urban air mobility applications, quantifying downwash-induced ground pressures to assess impacts on vertiports, such as particle entrainment and structural loads. For instance, FAA surveys of prototype eVTOL downwash in 2024, involving full-scale measurements on three prototypes using ultrasonic anemometers under visual meteorological conditions, recorded peak velocities up to approximately 45 m/s (100 mph) near the ground, implying dynamic pressure rises on the order of thousands of pascals that necessitate design mitigations for safe operations.[118][119]References
- https://www.grc.[nasa](/page/NASA).gov/WWW/k-12/FoilSim/Manual/fsim0006.htm
