Copyright ©1996, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, January 1996

A9618129, AIAA Paper 96-0161

The facts of lift

P. B. S. Lissaman
Southern California, Univ., Los Angeles, CA

AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 34th, Reno, NV, Jan. 15-18, 1996

As an aid to teaching fluid mechanics and understanding dynamic fluid forces, fundamentals of 2D and 3D lift and drag
in an inviscid incompressible fluid are developed, emphasizing simple rigorous derivations, based only on the
momentum equation. Some common beliefs about wings and airfoils are shown to be false or oversimplified. The
standard textbook model, deriving lift from circulation around a circular cylinder, is noted to be unrealistic and
deceptive. Instead, the wing is modeled as a turning vane in a steady flow, and the Joukowsky and Lagally theorems
are derived. An unsteady analysis is developed for lift and drag on finite lifting systems; half the lift occurs in upwash
momentum effects before the flow reaches the airfoil, and both 2D and 3D lift are entirely due to bound vorticity,
according to the same equations. Consequently, the downwash due to the trailing vortex system behind a finite wing
does not contribute to the lift. Effects of flow boundaries, like the wall effect, of multiple bodies, as in multielement
airfoils, and of nonplanar lifting surfaces, like tiplets, are described. It is shown that neither angle of attack, camber,
nor circulation are required for lift. (Author)

Page 1

THE FACTS OF LIFT
P.B.S.Lissaman*
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1191
ABSTRACT
As an aid to teaching fluid mechanics and understanding
dynamic fluid forces, fundamentals of two- and three
dimensional lift and drag in an inviscid, incompressible
fluid are developed, emphasizing simple rigorous
derivations, based only on the momentum equation.
Some common beliefs about wings and airfoils are
shown to be false or over-simplified. The standard
textbook model, deriving lift from circulation around a
circular cylinder is noted to be restrictive, unrealistic and
deceptive. Instead, the wing is modelled as a turning
vane in a steady flow and the Joukowsky and Lagally
theorems derived. An unsteady analysis is developed for
lift and drag on finite lifting systems. It is shown that
half the lift occurs in upwash momentum effects before
the flow reaches the airfoil, and both two- and three
dimensional lift are entirely due to bound vorticity,
according to the same equations; consequently the
downwash due to the trailing vortex system behind a
finite wing does not contribute to the lift. Effects of
flow boundaries, like wall effect, of multiple bodies, as
in multi-element airfoils, and of non-planar lifting
surfaces, like tiplets, are described. It is shown that
neither angle of attack, camber nor circulation are
required for lift
INTRODUCTION; HOW TO GET A REAL
LIFT
This is a light-hearted diatribe, intended to amuse, and,
possibly, to educate, although maybe the points raised
here are self-evident and well-known. They weren't to
me, and so it seemed worthwhile writing them down.
It's a sorry confession, but I never learnt this stuff at
school. I wish someone had told me the Facts of Lift
(and Life) when I was younger, it would have saved me
and everyone I dealt with a lot of trouble, — but, as the
Captain said to the Katzenjammer Kids, "Ve gets old
too soon, und schmart too late." So the following
notes comprise a healthy piece of plagiarism, a painful
plethora of pusillanimously pedantic puns and maybe a
few wise words. The good stuff I owe to my friends,
the mistakes are all mine own. I welcome
correspondence from learned colleagues showing me the
error of my ways and dedicate this note to the happy
band of applied aerodynamicists, those marvellous
fellows who Dream of Flight — members of the valiant
order of TWITTs, who really believe THE WING IS
THE THING". And I remind them to keep on
Copyright ©1995 by P.B.S.Lissaman. Published by the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, with permission
*Adjunct Professor of Aerospace Engineering; Fellow, AIAA
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
AIAA-96-0161
circulating and understanding. It takes time to
understand — as Chaucer (1380 7) put it, rather more
poetically than the Captain, ~ "The Lyf so Short, the
Craft so Long to Lerne".
Dynamic lift is that mystic process which raised us off
the mundane earthy surface, into the skies and thence
into space and the stars. To many people who enjoy
aeronautics because of the romance of flight, lift has a
magic of its own - enhanced, perhaps, because of the
difficulty of explaining it in simple physical terms.
Maybe it was this technical/intellectual difficulty, along
with the delicately tenuous nature of lift in air, that
made aerial flight the last vehicle frontier for
humankind, and probably the most glamorous. Here we
try to express the fundamental mechanisms of lift in a
way which requires only Newton's Law, and in a way
which does not seem to have been used in any
elementary textbook on aeronautics, although Prandtl's
great work, Fundamentals of Hvdro-& Aeromechanics
(translated by Tietjens in 1934) gets dose to it.
We will show how the fundamental features and
magnitude of lift and induced drag can be derived from
the circulation about an airfoil, without the cliched
reference to circulatory flow about a circular cylinder
which is so frequently given in elementary texts and
which, to the author, is a poor choice, not only because
it is so standardized that some books can only talk
about lift in terms of circular cylinders but also because
is is unduly restrictive on theoretical grounds, and quite
unrealistic on applied grounds. Thus the idea of this
note is to illustrate lift in rational fashion, so that the
algebra, behind which so many texts hide, is not used as
a substitute for reason. This may be helpful to
teachers, and to those rare souls who want to work
things out for themselves and don't believe the
professors.
The author has personally dealt with every issue
discussed with here the hard way: that is not on paper,
or in front of a class, but in the unforgiving world of
reality. These comments represent results directly
experienced; from a world of vehicles that flapped, flew,
spun, rolled or floated through real air and water.
Leonardo da Vinci, who according to Giacometti (1930),
was a very observant hydrodynamicist, and LOVED
fluids, put it this way. ~ he said, as reported by Vasari
(1550), "Avoid the teachings of speculators whose
judgments are not confirmed by experience".

LIFT IN THIN SLICES; THE TWO
DIMENSIONAL CASE
Consider a two dimensional lifting airfoil (Fig. 1 )
immersed in a uniform, steady, invistid, homenergetic,
incompressible flow of speed U. The airfoil shown has
didactic merits. First, the shape is that of a real air- or
hydrofoil, second, it illustrates the fact that the upper
surface air goes about the same distance as the lower
surface (exactly, if we take the cambered plate of zero
thickness), third, it demonstrates that angle of attack is
not needed for lift. Indeed, the streamlines very
graphically show the real nature of lift: which is that
the flow is "drawn up" aheadof the airfoil, and swept
down an exactly equal amount behind. The flow is
completely reversible, an important point until you
introduce viscosity. Finally, the concept of the airfoil
as a turning vane is a very valid one.
Fig. 1 Lifting Streamline Pattern
We will use an ineitial reference system, fixed with
respect to the airfoil, with the streamwise coordinate, x,
and velocity perturbation, u, parallel to U, and positive
in the rearwards direction, and the vertical components,
z, w, positive in the downwards direction. We will
show that two- and three-dimensional lift are similar,
are not mathematical stratagems, and are essentially the
same processes.
Consider a pair of vertical planes, of infinite depth, one
ahead of and the other behind the airfoil, at some finite
distance, x = +/- h. We can apply Newton's Law, in
the form of the momentum equation, to establish that
the lift within this control surface will be due only to
Iheihangein vertical momentum of flow entering and
leaving the control area through these two vertical
planes, since, if the verticals are of infinite vertical
extent and the speed disturbance due to the airfoil dies
away like 1/R (where R is the distance from the airfoil),
there will be no contribution to momentum or pressure
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
on top and bottom because of the finite length of the
infinitely distant top and bottom surfaces.
The density is taken as constant since we consider only
an incompressible analysis. The vertical momentum
flux (for unit mass density) on the rear surface is given
by: V = J°°(U+u) w dz. Now, since the perturbations
u,w due to the airfoil are O(1/R), we note that the term
/ u w dz will be O(1/R) and will thus vanish on a
vertical line at a large distance from the airfoil, leaving
only the term U / w dz. This term constitutes the
contribution to momentum of a line integral aft of the
airfoil. An equal upwards component is contributed by
the surface in front Defining Jwdz as the circulation,
F, produces (for unit density) the well known
Joukowski Law:
L = UT.
For the above to be independent of the separation of the
fore and aft control surfaces, x = +/- h, the flow must be
irrotational, implying that the circulation about any
surface enclosing the airfoil is constant.
It is interesting that if one does not take an infinite
vertical plane, but one of finite depth, from +1- J, then
there is an additional contribution due to pressure over
the top and bottom surfaces, however the momentum
contribution on the top and bottom can still be shown
to vanish. Applying the steady Bernoulli equation,
Ap = - 1/2 {V2 - U2}, where V is the local speed, we
get the additional contribution to the lift of /U u dx,
from which / u dx is immediately seen to be the
contribution to circulation of the top and bottom
boundaries. Even if the airfoil contains a source or
sink-like mass addition, defined by a radial velocity
which heaves like 1/R (which implies u = cos 8/R,
w = sin 6/R), this still does not contribute to the
crossflow force of lift. It does contribute source/ sink
drag to the streamwise force.
Assuming diat the lowest order vertical component is
given by w = (T/2 ui) sin 6/r, we see that the vertical
momentum flux, V, on one finite vertical surface is
given by:
V = U (172 Jitf {cos 6/r}r d6/cos9
= U(i723i)[02-8i]
This can be written as:
V = U(r/2jt)8*,
where 9* is the angle subtended by the sector spanning
the boundary in question (Fig. 2), a direct consequence
of the radial symmetry of the vortex. If the boundary
extends to infinity this becomes V = UT/2.
Fig. 2 Control Surface
If this is not the case the contribution of'the lower
surface is readily shown to be
V = U(I72jt)[e4 - 63], or V = U (F/2 n)6#, which is
easily seen to provide V = UT/2 by adding this term to
the finite rear surface. The sum of the term due to the
front vertical surface and the top gives V = UT/2 again,
so that the total is the lift as given by the Joukowski
Law.
For a large rectangular control surface, part of the lift is
attributable to pressure and part to momentum,
depending on the aspect ratio of the surface. For a
square control surface the contributions on the surface
due to momentum and pressure are equal; for a tall, long
vertical surface the contributions are mainly
momentum, while for a streamwise long, flat,
horizontal surface the lift is primarily due to pressure.
This illustrates that it doesn't make much sense to
attribute the lift on an airfoil to either pressure or
momentum effect, unless one takes a control surface on
the actual airfoil surface, when the lift is indisputably
due only to pressure!
LIFT IN THE REAL WORLD OF THREE
DIMENSIONS
For this case we assume Helmholtz Laws about the
continuity of vortices, that the lift distribution is
elliptical and that the vortex wake is moving downwards
stably, at constant spanwise speed, like a flat sheet.
This is restrictive, and not really true, but avoids some
very nasty, and still unsolved, problems about vortex
roll up. We limit ourselves, at this stage, to the linear
case, implying that the system is lightly loaded, so that
L/q b^ is small where L is the total lift, q the dynamic
pressure and b the wingspan.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
There are two intimately connected systems of vorticity:
the spanwise system, consisting of vorticity oriented in
a spanwise direction and the trailing system, consisting
of vorticity oriented parallel to the local flow. For a
lightly loaded wing the trailing system is inclined
downwards at a small downwash angle to the free stream
flow (Fig. 3). We will apply exactly the same
procedure to determine the lift as in the two dimensional
case, that is we take a pair of vertical surfaces, one
ahead of, the other behind, the wing, and compute the
momentum flux through them. The velocity
perturbation will now be due to both the bound and the
trailing vortex system, and it is convenient to
distinguish the the induced flow contributions by the
suffices b and t. In practise this distinction is rather
meaningless since the bound and trailing system are
mutually linked, but we do this for purposes of
mathematical integration.
Fig. 3 Vorticity of Finite Wing
The vertical momentum flux, V, through a vertical
surface behind the wing is :
V=jT(U+u)wdzdy
which can now be written:
V = Ujf°(wt+wb) dzdy
where the integral extends to infinity in the horizontal
(spanwise) and vertical directions.
THE TRAILING SYSTEM FAILS TO
SUPPORT US
The contribution of the trailing system is considered
first This is is improper at every finite vortex and,
unless the net vorticity is zero, also at infinity.
However the Principal Value of the surface integral is
zero. This is readily seen as follows. Consider the line
integral, V*(z), taken first in the horizontal direction
and given by:
 V*(z)= U/°wtdy.
V*(z) = UTb/2jt r.
Consider a horizontal traverse across the plane above
any vortex element. Obviously there is as much going
down on one side as there is going up on the other, so
the net contribution to the integral is zero, on every
horizontal line, and for every vortex element. We can
integrate this vertically now, noting that the sum of
nothing gives nothing too!
So we get for the downwash component due to the
trailing vorticity interated over the plane:

V= Ujf wtdzdy = 0.

This is an interesting proposition, which seems a little

heretical in the light of the frequently quoted statement
that the downwash between the tips of a wing represents
the momentum which makes up its lift There is zero
net momentum due to any system of trailing vorticity.
Vortices cannot create a net momentum — it's just the
way they are! Unfortunately, although there is no
momentum, there is plenty of energy in such a system,
which we shall account for later.
The belief that this downwash in the wake is what
causes the lift is incorrect Prandtl noted that the wake
downwash did not account for the lift about seventy five
years ago! So if there is to be lift, it better be due to the
bound system, and it surely is!
THE BOUND SYSTEM TO THE RESCUE
To calculate the contribution of the bound system we
use only the simplest of integrals, so that it is apparent
that we are not concealing any factors of one half, or
have not neglected unsteady terms. Consider the
induced field of a vortex of constant strength, F, and
finite length, b (Rg. 4). This is given as :
wb = (T/4ji r) {sin <)>i- sin fa}.
The horizontal integration gives:
V*(z)= U/°wbdy
Fig. 4 Induced Field of Line Vortex
It is interesting to note that the average induced flow per
unit length of the vortex is I72nr. This result indicates
that the old 2-D rule that r/2rtr is the induced flow per
unit length of vorticity can be directly extended to the 3-
Dcase.
It is worth noting that we didn't have to go through the
above integrals to establish the result. It can be shown
the best way — by logic, quite independently of algebra.
All that is required is the assumption that the integral in
a spanwise direction (parallel to the vortex) of the
induced flow of a finite line vortex is finite. If so, it
will be a linear function of the length of the vortex.
Then the average, per unit length of the vortex, is now
independent of the vortex length and a function only of
the radial distance from the line vortex. If this is
extended to form a two dimensional vortex then we
must get the same result per unit of length as that for
the average of a vortex of finite length!
We now proceed to integrate in the vertical, z, plane,
and of course obtain an exactly similar result to the 2-D
one we got before, indicating that the vertical
momentum flux through an infinite vertical plane
behind the bound vortex is given by:

V*(z) = U/° (T/4re r){sin<j»i- sin V = UTb/2.

Noting that sin^i - y/li, and/(y/li)dy = lathis
provides, between the limits, Ij, \2 '•
V*(z)=U(T/4jtr){li-l2}
which, on inserting the spanwise limits of integration,
as lj, \2 approach infinity, becomes:
As expected we will find an identical term for the
momentum flux through a vertical surface ahead of the
wing, so we get that the lift, L, is given by:
L= UTb.
The important point here is that the lift is created by an
upwards induced flow ahead of the wing and a

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

downwards induced flow behind it, with the wing
serving as some sort of vane to change the direction of
flow. The lifting flow is induced only by the bound
vorricitv. It is important to observe that exactly half
the effect is experienced before the flow gets to the
wing, just as for a 2-D airfoil and as for an actuator disc
(propeller or windmill). This, of course, must be the
case because the influence of a bound vortex is felt
equally upstream and downstream.
It is very obvious that the above argument can be
extended for a bound vortex of spanwise varying
strength, T(y ), so that the general expression for lift
will be the integral across the span given by:
L=UJT(y)dy
WHAT A DRAG!
If we take the 2-D case and apply the same reasoning of
integrating momentum to mass flux and pressure, p, on
the vertical surfaces, we get that the horizontal
contribution, H, due to the rear surface is:
H = A(U+u) (U+u) + p} dz
Bernoulli's equation reduces this to:
H = /°{Uu + u2/2 - w2/2} dz.
The last two quadratic terms vanish on a distant plane
by virtue of their order of magnitude, and incidentally,
on a finite distanced plane as well, because of the
symmetry. The remaining term is of exactly the same
nature as the circulation induced term handled in the lift
case. If the body is closed, then u is of order 1/R?, and
we get the famous result that puzzled Jean le Rond
D'Alembert between 1744 and 1768. According to John
Anderson's marvellous book, Fundamentals of
Aerodvnami cs (1984), Jean said: " It seems to me on
the contrary that this theory, dealt with and studied with
profound attention gives, at least in most cases,
resistance absolutely zero: a singular paradox which I
leave to geometricians to explain." Vive D'Alembert!
He's the guy Who gave US streamlining
So much for that D'Alembert's Paradox is valid in two
or thee dimensions, as long as the body doesn't trail any
vortitity. And don't be shocked, it holds true in
compressible flows too, in the absence of
discontinuities!
If there is mass generated by the body, say at a rate of
M volume per unit time, then we get the dual of
Joukowskt's result, a source thrust, T given by:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
T = UM.
Of course, if there is flow removed from the system, as
in the case of an inlet, we get a corresponding sink drag.
The combined result of lift and drag for a general body,
called Lagally's Theorem, is very elegant and useful and
applies to 3- and 2-D flows This is shown below:
L = UF: T = UM.
Lagally is very useful for complex flows, where it can
readily be shown that the same results apply, providing
that the local speed and direction of flow and force at
each singularity is used. This shows, for example, that
for a number of bodies in a uniform steady flow it is
very easy to get lift (a force normal to the free stream
flow) without circulation. As an illustration, a
symmetrical body of finite thickness at zero inclination
in the presence of a wall parallel to the flow will
experience a potential force towards the wall. The rule
is that sometimes you need circulation for lift, and
sometimes you don't!
Now if there is a trailing system, then the perturbations
due to it are large in the rear plane, usually called the
Trefftz Plane. In fact, the vertical flow induced by the
trailing system is infinite outboard of the wing tip.
Thus, for the 3-D case, we need to add to our pressure
integral the terms due to the trailing vorticity giving the
Trefftz Plane integral:
H = JJ°°{- vt 2/2 - wt 2/2} dzdy
These terms do not appear on the forward control
surface, since there are no trailing vortices there.
Consequently, there is always a lower pressure on the
rear surface due to the high speeds of the circulatory
flow developed by the vortex system, especially near the
wing wake. This gives rise directly to the induced drag.
This can be evaluated by a direct integration of the
pressure in this vicinity: it dies away rapidly far from
the wing wake, and, although infinite at places near the
wake tips, is integrable in a regular sense.
In the real world, these infinities near the tips do not
exist, being thoroughly suppressed by viscosity, and
compressible effects. People who fool around with
doing things at the wingtips to reduce induced drag, and
they are an innocent and trusting bunch of enthusiasts,
are dealing with this issue. It can be done, and doesn't
defy any laws of nature, but it's a tough way to do
battle with induced drag. It does seem to illustrate one
of Murphy's Laws: that anything done to improve a bad
scene usually makes itworsei
The author confesses to being one of that hapless band
of induced drag worriers myself. In the Dark Ages,
1968, to be precise, Jerry Lundry and I published a
paper about using the engine pylon surfaces of the DC-
8 to alleviate the induced drag! In those simple days
there were no elegant potential flow codes, and we used
the Schwartz-Kristoffel theorem to find the nine
complex constants of the mapping by iteration. When
we finally got something that looked a little like the
wing of a DC-8 from the rear, we found that, even with
the most optimal cambering, the pylons couldn't give
more than a few percent improvement in the induced
drag. The reason we chose pylons, and not winglets,
was because they were already there, and we simply
couldn't imagine that anyone would dream of sticking
extra surfaces out in the breeze just for induced drag
mitigation. Much later the author, working with John
Letcher, was again concerned with this issue, in the
form of the winged keel of Stars and Stripes, which
won the America's Cup in 1987. We still don't know
what those tiplets did for induced drag, but believe me,
they had a lot of volume, and were a fine way of getting
mass down low and doing good things for the roll
stiffness! No argument about gravity!
There is an elegant way of calculating the integral of the
pressure perturbation due to the trailing system. The
idea is to write the flow due to this system as a 2-D
potential $(y,z), which has a discontinuity along the
wake itself. We then write the kinetic energy (or the
pressure perturbation) integral as;
H = f°{- vt 2/2 - wt 2/2} dzdy
= -1/2 A$z2 + *y2} dzdy.
Gauss's Theorem reduces this to a line integral taken
along the wake. The term H was defined as positive for
a thrust, so that the drag, D, is given by - H. If the
wake is a straight horizontal line parallel to the wing (it
never is!) this becomes the integral along the wing
span:
D=l/2/<f>]<!> z dy
where the jump in potential across the wake is shown
as <&], and the downwash, w, on the wake is given by
<E>z. If the wake is curved with arc distance s and
normal n this can be written as:
D = 1/2 /*(y)] <Dn ds
with the usual notation.
It is noted that <J>(y)] can be seen to be the circulation
at the station y, and 1/2 Oz the downwash angle at the
wing, which is half that far downstream. This is the
basis of the simple model of induced drag, namely that
it is given by the lift at a station multiplied by the
inclination of the oncoming stream at that station.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The idea of using the 2-D potential, 4>(y, z) in the
downstream wake introduces another powerful way of
regarding lift and drag; and also a deceptive and
paradoxical approach which seems to give the correct
result, but for the wrong reason.
A MOST INGENIOUS PARADOX
Say we consider the vertical momentum flux through
the vertical plane behind the wing, which is given by:
V= +wb)dzdy.
Let us consider the trailing vortex contribution only.
This has already been shown to be zero, but we will
calculate it according to this representation, providing:
Vt = Ujfwt dzdy
Now wt = <E>Z, so we expect the integral J wt dz to
equal <£(y, z ), which it does in some respect, The
trouble is that the potential is discontinuous across the
wake. Interestingly, the vertical speed is continuous
there, but the spanwise flow is discontinuous,
representing the different surface speeds on the vortex
wake; towards the tip on the top and the other way
underneath. If we then integrate vertically from +
infinity to the line z = 0, being the horizontal axis of
the wing, we find that outside the wing 3>(y, o) = 0,
while on the wing there is this discontinuity, which we
can take as <£(y, o) = <E>(y)] . Thus we get, or seem to
get;
Vt = Ujf°w t dzdy = U/*(y)]dy.
This looks very like the lift, it transforms like the lift,
it behaves like the lift and it has lift-like dimensions.
It is incorrectly claimed to be the lift in some texts
which, for obvious reasons, will not be referenced. The
only problem is that the integral we think we
calculated, allegedly the vertical momentum due to the
trailing system, does not exist in this form. If it did we
would end up with twice as much as the actual lift,
since we still must add Vjj = UJ]00 wfo dzdy which we
know is finite and unconditionally convergent and an
honest-to-God integral and gives for the lift the result
we have already unambiguously calculated, namely
L = UJT(y)dy. We can show that the bound vorticity
on a wing at station y, F(y), is identical to the total
jump in potential from the tip to that station. This is
most readily noted ¥y deforming a line integral (Fig. 5J
and remembering that the circulation must be conserved!
This curious paradox is resolved below.

«9
Fig. 5 Vorticity and Wake Potential
The approach here, which is the most general attack on
lift, is to change the frame of reference and adopt an
unsteady procedure. Take the frame of reference as
inertially fixed in a basically still fluid with the wing as
moving through it at speed U. This wing makes a lot
of energy, but no net downwash momentum. Consider
the difference in the situation after the wing has moved
some distance in unit time. We see (Fig. 6) that an
extra strip of trailing vorticity has been produced. Now,
while the momentum is undefined, the impulse is not,
as explained by Horace Lamb in 1879 in his
monumental tome, Hydrodynamics.
Fig. 6 Wing in Unsteady Flow
The impulse, I, in a streamwise strip of wake of unit
streamwise length can be shown to be given by I = j"
4>(y)] dy. Observing that the rate of increase of vertical
impulse is given by U I, we immediately obtain that
the lift is given by:
L =U/*(y)]dy.
So this recovers the cqrrect result for lift obtained
Again, this is nothing more than Newton's Law, but
applied in a very global fashion. What this says is that
to experience lift in an unbounded flow you have to
generate trailing vorticity.
The spurious method previously detailed gives:
L = 2Uf*(y)]dy.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Next, we view the unsteady case from the point of view
of energy. This integral of the kinetic energy can
readily be shown to exist for the lifting system, but is
complicated to calculate. Fortunately, We dofl't have to
do this. All that is necessary is to take the same point
of view as before, and to calculate the rate of increase of
energy per unit time as the trailing system extends.
Now thfe energy pet unit length, E, of the vortex wake
can be shown to be:
E = 1/2 + fcy2} dzdy
which integrates to:
E-112 ds
The rate of increase of the energy in the system per unit
time is given by UE, while the rate of doing Work of
the wing by moving against the drag, D, in this frame
of reference is DU. Consequently the drag of the Wing
is given by:
D =1/2 J<I>(y j] *n ds*
&ARD CORE LIFT; THE KQN-LINEAR
CASE
For a highly loaded wing the trailing system will be
swept downwards at a large angle (Fig. 7). The induced
flow due to the trailing system is now sufficiently tilted
that it has a component directed in opposition to the
free stream flow at the wing, thus reducing the lift.
Fig. 7 Highly Loaded Wing
Assume the induced flow in the wing plane is normal to
the inclination, $, of the trailing system at infinity and
half the magnitude it has at infinity and that all the
bound vorticity is concentrated in the wing plane as a
lifting fine. Then the lift, L, and drag, D, are given by
L= {U-sin dy
 D= cos p [l/2]<Dn/4>(y )] dy
while the kinematic condition of wake steadiness is:
Usin p = 4>n
In the above, the potential is defined in the Trefftz
Plane, which is normal to the wake at infinity, thus
inclined at p to the vertical, and <f>n is used for the
velocity parallel to this plane to distinguish it from our
previous usage of 4>z which was nearly in the z
(vertical) direction for the linear case. On this basis we
can maximize the above relationship for lift, using only
the fact that <E>n ~ f&(y) dy, which provides the
interesting general result that at ma-simnm lift:
sin p = (2/3) 547 0
while the ratio of lift to induced drag, L/Q, is given
by:
L/Di = 23/2 = 2.83
If we now insert the results for elliptical loading and its
associated downwash, namely
{jib 2/4}<$n = /<E>(y)] dy, we get the maximum lift,
* °f any planar wing to be given by:
- {^b 2/4} (2/3) 3/2 U2
The nominal maximum lift coefficient, CL , based on
free stream dynamic pressure is given in terms of the
aspect ratio, A, by:
3
CL = {n/2} (2/3) /2 A = 0.86 A.
Actually, the functional effective lift coefficient on the
wing would need to be two times higher, since the
induced counterflow due to the downswept trailing
system will reduce the effective local flow at the wing
to (1/2) 1/2 of its free stream speed.
The above result, thanks to the stagger theorem, is not
restricted to high aspect ratio wings, but should also be
correct for slender wings.
It now becomes interesting to study the forces from the
global point of view of the momentum equation. It is
clear that, having fully defined the internal flow by the
vorticity distribution in the Trefftz Plane, we can chose
a control volume and exactly compute the force on any
body inside it using only conditions on the boundaries,
the only singularity in this case being the trailing
vorticity sticking through the Trefftz Plane. Any
inertia! control volume fixed with respect to the wing
will do. We select two infinite near vertical surfaces
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
ahead of and behind the wing, inclined at the angle of
the flow in the Trefftz Plane (Fig. 8).
Usinp
Fig. 8 Trefftz Plane Control Volume
There is a low pressure contribution on the Trefftz
Plane which produces a drag-like force, D*, amounting
to [1/2] O n /*(y )] dy parallel to the far wake
vorticity, while the bound vorticity will couple with the
speed parallel to the far wake to produce upwash and
downwash momentum on the forward and rear plane to
give a lift like term, L*. parallel to the Trefftz Plane
and of magnitude LI = U cospJ"<I>(y)] dy. Finally
we must consider the crossflow term, U sin p. This is
found to couple with the bound vorticity to provide an
overpressure on the Trefftz Plane and a corresponding
suction on the forward control surface, yielding a net
thrust like force, L2, directed normal to the Trefftz
Plane and of magnitude, L-2 = U sin PJ 4>(y )] dy.
These three forces can be resolved into a convenient and
vivid formulation for the exact nonlinear force on a
wing system of any aspect ratio wing, which is given
by the sum of two non-orthogonal forces, L*, and D*,
expressed by:
L* = U J <fr(y )] dy , normal to the free stream
D*= [1/2] <l>n/*(y)] dy, parallel to the wake vorticity
Of course this recovers the result originally derived by
less rigorous arguments, for a rigid, lifting line model.
There is yet another, positively Olympian, approach to
the force determination. This is to take a truly Grand
View of the situation, and to treat it as a wing moving
at constant speed in a still fluid. The problem is now
unsteady, and generation of wake vorticity occurs over a
length of Ucosp per unit time. In coordinates oriented
with the Trefftz Plane this generates a rate of increase of
impulse rate of I * and of kinetic energy E expressed by:
I * = Ucos p/$(y)] dy
E*= Ucos p [l/2]<J>n; <D(y )] dy.
Thus one immediately obtains by using Lamb's results
for the rate of change of impulse the force normal to the
vortex wake, L**, and while the rate of work done by
the wing to create E* is given by UD, the force parallel
to the speed. These two identities give:
L**= Ucos P/*(y)] dy
D= cos p [l/2]4>n/$(y)] dy
which are the correct results — exact, nonlinear!
To develop the above result we have assumed, to all
intents and purposes, there is some total impulse due to
the whole system, including all the mess around the
wing and at the starting vortex; and after a unit time the
stuff at the front and back remains the same and all one
has added is that little slice, Ucosp thick, of the Trefftz
Plane-like flow having the rate of change of impulse
calculated above and providing the force of L** normal
to the wake. But L** is NOT the entire force on the
system, there is also the component parallel to the wake
given by D*. Thus the rate of change of impulse as
calculated by the above procedure does not give the total
force and thus can't be ALL the impulse, which is a
vector quantity.
We have stumbled upon the Cisotti Paradox (1924),
which states that it is a puzzlement that a flat plate
subject only to pressure forces can experience a net force
not parallel to the plate. As noted by Garret Birkhoff ,
in his interesting and profound book Hydro-dynamics: a
study in logic, fact and similitude(1950). this is a
singular point paradox, which is immediately resolved
for wings of finite leading edge radius, and is called the
nose thrust phenomenon. What is happening in the
lifting wing case is that the whole linear extent of the
wake is increasing as time passes, and while impulse
normal to the wake surface is certainly added, there is
also some change in impulse parallel to the wake which
must be related to flow around the leading edge of the
wing. The remarkable thing is that computing the
change in energy simply by calculating the amount
added in the strip by which die wake extends provides
the integral sufficient to calculate the streamwise force
on the wing and hence the force parallel to the wake!
We should be so Lucky! !
Still-an-all, we might as well quit while we're ahead,
and comment that if one does know the wake structure
in the Trefftz Plane, and has some estimate of its
inclination, one can make an excellent and accurate shot
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
at the the non-linear result using some old, familiar and
beloved integrals from the linearized world!
THE STAGGER THEOREM AND OTHER
MONKEY BUSINESS
The Stagger Theorem, derived by Max Munk in his
terrifying dissertation Isopcrimetrische Probleme aus der
Theorie des Fluges (1918), is much beloved by
engineers because its name says exactly what it's about,
it's easy to apply and usually works. The general idea
is that one may move bound vorticity, or wing
elements, as much as one wants in the streamwise
direction without affecting the lift and drag of the
system, providing one keeps the same circulation
distribution on an element as it is moved. If one views
events from the Trefftz Plane the theorem becomes self
evident, since in that plane one doesn't know how the
bound vorticity is arranged in a streamwise sense
anyhow. While the induced drag of the system is
unchanged by stagger, the individual drag of
components is profoundly affected.
It is interesting to apply this to a pair of lifting systems
with collinear bound vorticity. Consider two birds
gliding line abreast. We can readily demonstrate that
each experiences the beneficial upwash of the other's
trailing system, and, in fact, helps the other by exactly
the same amount, even if the span or lift of the two
systems differ. Thus a swallow flying abreast with an
eagle will experience just the same absolute forward
thrust in Newtons as does the eagle due to the swallow.
Now if one of the birds falls back in a streamwise
direction, then it experiences a stronger upwash due to
the flow outside the trailing system of the other, and
thus experiences a larger induced drag saving. The
forward system has a correspondingly reduced saving.
In a long line of birds flying abreast, those in the
middle experience favorable upwash from both sides and
have an easier time than the tip members. But if the tip
members fall back, they will reduce their relative flight
power requirements and will thus rather naturally select
a Vee formation which has eqiripartition of induced drag,
and quite substantial savings. Wieselsberger, another
Gottingener, wrote a paper on this topic in 1919, and
years later Carl Shollenberger and the author revisited it
with the help of the IBM 360, which was considered hot
stuff in 1966. Thanks to Mr. Watson's admirable
calculating engine we were able to do the tiresome sums
which Wieselsberger had more sense than to attack by
hand. It turns out that for a reasonable tip spacing a
Vee formation can provide more than 56% range
increase, which seems sufficiently large that one
assumes that even a fowl of Limited Brain, like a
Canada Goose might have noticed, or, at least, that
those that didn't are now pate and down jackets! An
interesting consequence of our work was the fact that for
a linear Vee, the lead bird, at the apex, had a somewhat
easier time than all the rest of the flock. We received a
number of queries from ornithologists, and other
considerate, decent folk, who asked why the strongest
and most senior bird should take the easiest job! Carl
loved responding that maybe geese were like people!!
WORLD WITH WALLS; BOUNDED FLOWS
Thus far we have discussed wings in an infinite flow, as
though such a world existed, although for most
aerodynamic systems infinity is quite close, seldom
more than five characteristic lengths in any direction.
Useful insight is gained by considering the effect of
different boundaries. The first, ubiquitous boundary is
the ground plane, which can be nicely modelled by an
image system. Lagally's Theorem here shows us that a
sink will experience a sucking force towards- the wall, as
might be expected. The surprise is that a source also
experiences a force towards the wall. Pressure
perturbations go like speed squared! So the wall
pressure is the same for source or sink, and it too, is
sucked towards its image! And so are all bodies of
finite thickness in uniform flow in wall effect One is
so attracted to one's own image!
The image system of a wing in ground effect shows that
the airfoil is really in a curved flow, moving upwards
near the center of the chord. In this case the circulation
effect will augment the lift (defined as force away from
the wall), while the thickness effect attenuates it. One
can design a body with no lift in ground effect by
bending it upwards in the middle, like a banana or a
dachshund. This is how John Letcher, with the help of
the admirable VS-AERO code, designed the shape of the
Sunraycer so that it would have no lift, a useful
attribute in alight, fast vehicle.
Attempts to identify lift components of flow
perturbations in bounded flows require care. In wind
tunnels, for example, all the cross stream forces are
represented by pressure perturbations on the boundaries -
- there can't be any downwash, that's what the walls are
to prevent! Interestingly, all aircraft operating on any
planet (that covers most cases of interest!) operate in
ground effect in the sense that their wake is long
compared to their height from the ground plane, and so
produce no net downwash momentum in an infinitely
large volume. It's a good thing we've already shown
that downwash is not required for lift!
VORTEX GYRATIONS: THE ROLL-UP
PROBLEM
The Trefftz Plane provides an excellent concept for
10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
computing the global features of a wing. There is,
however, one small problem, and it's not insignificant1
The whole thing is really a figment of the grand
imagination of Doktor Trefftz - it doesn't really exist!
Perhaps the vorticity slides off the trailing edge of the
wing in an organized and definite pattern initially, but
as soon as it moves downstream this sheet starts to
distort. Very, very bad things start to happen
What happens in sordid Real Life is that usually the
shed vorticity has not been carefully arranged so that it
creates a uniform downwash on itself, so that it
produces a non-uniform flow in the wake. So, vortices
being what they are, some go down faster than others,
and then the little devils start inducing lateral flows on
their neighbors, and the neighborhood goes to hell.
Even in the singular case of elliptic loading, so beloved
by the professors, which does produce uniform
downwash, any small perturbation will start the
instability. Then, before you know it, that rigid
Teutonic world of the Trefftz Plane with everything in
Ordnung, has been reduced to a twisting, contorting dish
of spaghetti, with the only redeeming grace that you
can't break any of the strands and they swill around in
the sauce, following die flow. Leonardo knew a good
vortex when he saw one, consider the marvelously
rendered cartoon from the Windsor Codex (fig. 9).
Fig.9 Da Vinci Sketches of Wake Flow
According to Vasari, he spent a lot of time observing
the Arno from the Ponte Vecchio. He must have, to
have seen all that with his naked eye (it was an
excellent one for other unclad subjects, look at his
Leda!). Yogi Berra has remarked, "You can observe a
lot, just by looking around". Leonardo must have
looked around a lot harder than Jean D'Alembert did at
the Seine. If he'd seen that separation aft of the piers,
Jean might have had more insight into his zero drag
results. He might have recognized that most real flows
knew where they'd come from and where they were
going.

Anyhow with all that twisted air in a vortex wake one
would certainly expect odd things to occur. They
definitely do here! And one might well despair of the
sort of intelligent approximate mathematical analysis
that was good enough for von Karman. This area is a
fertile field for computational fluid mechanicers. The
idea is that the field equations are really quite simple --
all you have to do is follow the trajectory of every
vortex with infinite precision. It is rather frightening to
attack the free vortex problem numerically. But I
suppose some one has to do it!
So we must consider a set of two dimensional vortices,
all milling around, responding to the induction of the
others — like, well, like a herd, a most charming
collective noun invented by flan Kroo. If we write
them in the form appropriate to discrete vortices, each
of strength Fj at location zj, the motion is defined by
the speed, Vj , of each vortex i. Sure, the speed's
singular, but here we can use the principal value. So
this is given by:
This herd of vortices does its thing subject to three
global constraints:
2 Fi = A 2 Fi zi = B
ZFj Fj In ( Zi . zj ) = C.
The constant A represents conservation of vorticity, B
conservation of lift and C, conservation of energy.
These are physical invariants that we should expect as
the consequence of any rational wing theory. We may
well ask why the two dimensional unsteady model also
respects this. After all it doesn't know it's supposed to
be the backside of a wing! The first two results come
directly from the kinematics of two dimensional
vortices, the third reflects the fact that the vortex is
force free thus no work is done in the course of its
motion so the kinetic energy of the flow is conserved.
Unfortunately the contribution to C is singular at each
vortex. Actually that's not too odd, since a finite vortex
does have an unbounded kinetic energy and creates
infinite induced drag.
Why do we need to know this for actual wings? Well
there are two reasons ~ at the wing itself we need to
know the induced flows to define the proper kinematic
boundary condition to get the lift pressure distribution;
and far downstream from the wing, where we need to
know what's going on for the sake of some other
innocent airplane flying into this mess of vorticity.
I don't know what anyone has done recently about the
roll-up problem as it affects the flow at the wing. This
would seem to be the important place, because one can't
11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
compute anything unless one has the correct spanwise
lift distribution to start with. If that is OK then one
has at least a few invariants to give some control on the
global features of the rolled-up downstream flow, and
one may hope that if the wiggly bits occur at least a
few spans, say six, from the wing itself, that only the
first few moments of the vortex distribudon will affect
the induced flow at the wing, so that one might have a
passable model of the induction of the far wake and add
it to the near wake induction to calculate the lift
distribution. But enough of this conjecture; nobody
knows what happens here, even with our massive CFD
power. As noted, it is a Bad Scene.
THE STAGNATION POINT AT THE REAR
END
Mercifully, we have come to the limit of my knowledge
of the subject of incompressible lift, actually, we are
somewhat beyond that point! The chapter heading seems
like a good end; en fin, if we all designed bodies to nave
stagnation points at the back, then D'Alembert would
rest happy, and we would have no drag. Presumably
that would be a Good Thing generally, except for
parachutists!
This paper is some kind of a homage to Leonardo. One
wishes we could end with one of bis renderings of the
female head. Unfortunately, our reproduction facilities
can't do his graphics justice, so well conclude with a
touching quote from that lover of all fluids and all
things human:
" Observe, with the approach of evening,
in stormy weather, hou> much grace and,
sweetness are to be seen on the faces of
men and women in the streets".
as reported by Vasari in 1550.
REFERENCES
Anderson, John, D., Fundamentals of Aerodynamics.
McGraw-ffill,N.Y., 1984
Birkhoff, Garrett, Hydrodynamics Prinr^ton Univ.
Press, N.J., 1950
Chaucer, Geoffrey, The Parlement of Foules. 1380 ?
Giacometti, R., Aerodynamics of Leonardo da Vinci, J.
Roy. Ae. Soc., DC, 1930
Lamb, Horace, A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory
of the Morion of Fluids. CUP., 1879
Munk, MM., Isoperimetrische Probleme aus der
Theorie des Fluges, Gottingen Dissertation, 1918
Prandtl, L and Tietjens, O.G.. Fundamentals of Hvdro-
and Aerodynamics Dover Publications, 1934
Vasari, Giorgio, Lives of the Painters. Sculptors and
Architects. 1550