Induced Drag Airfoil: Proportional to Velocity^2?

AI Thread Summary
Induced drag of an airfoil is often described as inversely proportional to the square of airspeed, yet the formula for induced drag includes velocity squared, leading to confusion. The coefficient of induced drag (CDi) and lift coefficient (CL) do not contain a velocity term, suggesting their relationship with velocity is not straightforward. As airspeed increases, the effective angle of attack decreases, which reduces lift and consequently the induced drag coefficient, but this relationship becomes complex at higher speeds, particularly above Mach 0.3 to 0.4. The discussion highlights that while induced drag decreases with increased speed, parasitic drag increases, complicating the overall drag dynamics. Ultimately, wing design must balance lift and total drag for optimal performance across various speed ranges.
GlynnHeeswijk
Messages
18
Reaction score
1
Induced drag of an airfoil should be inversely proportional to velocity^2 wiki states "Since induced drag is inversely proportional to the square of the airspeed" Ok but [Induced Drag = 0.5 * Density * Velocity2 * Wing Area * Induced Drag Coefficient] which is proportional to the veloicty^2 and not inversely proportional and the term CDi which is CDi = (k*CL2)/ (pi*AR) does not have a velocity term thus how can it be inversely proportional?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Induced drag is normally defined as sin(θ) x lift, where θ = effective angle of attack, or θ = effective angle of deflection of air flow relative to the aircraft, which is what the wiki article diagram shows.

inducedrag.png


As airspeed increased, the angle of diversion decreases, so that sin(θ) x lift decreases with speed^2. This is an approximation that starts to deviate from reality once above mach 0.3->0.4, depending on the aircraft.

The wiki article claims that the source of induce drag and downwash (lift) is related to wingtip vortices:

wiki_Source_of_induced_drag.html

However other web sites point out the somewhat obvious fact that induced drag on an 747 at takeoff and landing (slow speed, high amount of induced drag) would rip the wing tips apart if the source of induced drag was solely due to wingtip vortices or wingtip and trailing edge vortices (some airfoils minimize trailing edge vortices for a given load and speed range).
 
Last edited:
But CDi = (k*CL2)/ (pi*AR) (coefficent of induced drag) doesn't have a velocity term and neither does CL (coefficent of lift) so I don't see why it would change with velocity.
 
GlynnHeeswijk said:
But CDi = (k*CL2)/ (pi*AR) (coefficent of induced drag) doesn't have a velocity term and neither does CL (coefficent of lift) so I don't see why it would change with velocity.
In level flight, the amount of lift generated is constant, so CL and CDi would decrease with speed^2, a reasonable approximation until you reach speeds above mach 0.3 or 0.4, where a much more complex form of mathematical model is requried.
 
Jeff Reid said:
In level flight, the amount of lift generated is constant, so CL and CDi would decrease with speed^2, a reasonable approximation until you reach speeds above mach 0.3 or 0.4, where a much more complex form of mathematical model is requried.

That kinda makes sense as you would lower angle of attack to keep the lift constant as velocity increases thus lowering the lift coefficient which would in turn lower the induced drag coefficient.
 
GlynnHeeswijk said:
That kinda makes sense as you would lower angle of attack to keep the lift constant as velocity increases thus lowering the lift coefficient which would in turn lower the induced drag coefficient.
It lowers the induced drag coefficient, but increases the parasitic drag coefficient. I'm not sure why there is such a focus on separating total drag into induced and parasitic components. In the real world, a wing design is a compromise between lift/(total drag) ratio for a given speed range and cost to manufacture.
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
34
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
226
Back
Top