Is Turbulence Necessary for Lift on a Wing?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter person123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fluid Lift Turbulence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the necessity of turbulence for generating lift on an aircraft wing. Participants argue that while vortices form behind the wing due to downwash, turbulence is not strictly required for lift. The Kutta–Joukowski theorem is referenced, indicating that circulation around the wing is essential, but not necessarily turbulent flow. The conversation also touches on the role of Bernoulli's principle and momentum change in explaining lift, suggesting that both concepts contribute to understanding lift generation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kutta–Joukowski theorem
  • Familiarity with Bernoulli's principle
  • Knowledge of airflow dynamics around airfoils
  • Basic principles of lift generation in aerodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Kutta–Joukowski theorem and its implications for lift
  • Explore the relationship between turbulence and lift in various flight conditions
  • Investigate the role of downwash in lift generation
  • Study the effects of laminar versus turbulent flow on aerodynamic performance
USEFUL FOR

Aerodynamics enthusiasts, aerospace engineers, pilots, and anyone interested in the principles of flight and lift generation.

  • #61
Arjan82 said:
@russ_watters, regarding post #48, I've tried to infer your way of viewing lift. Am I correct in my description of your thoughts below?
...
Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. Also, I really dislike the flat plate since the airflow over the top surface is just such a mess. But at least in that pic you can see the stagnation point down under the "chin" and the airflow curving up to meet the airfoil before it even gets to it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Just to be clear, I look at this now strictly from an earth-fixed reference frame, so the foil is moving and the box is standing still.

russ_watters said:
I'm not sure if you mean that literally. A point by definition has zero size. While I guess it is possible that a single molecule is sitting on the leading edge, straddling the stagnation point, I doubt it. Air certainly doesn't pile-up there.

That there is a forward velocity component doesn't mean the air piles-up. Take an air parcel as close to the stagnation point as you can. At this stagnation point a tangent line to the foil is vertical. What you suggest is that if the foil starts moving this air parcel never moves forward but just directly upward (or downward). I find that unlikely since the wall can only push in horizontal direction (ignoring friction) or, because a parcel has a finite size and the tangent point is indeed a point, the wall will move the parcel nearly only forward. Because of continuity the other parcels around it also need to have a forward velocity component albeit somewhat lower.

russ_watters said:
If air molecules get slowed down as they approach the stagnation point, they must be accompanied by air molecules further away (vertically) that speed up, so the average velocity is higher.

So, following the frame of reference of the foil the approaching air 'slows down' as you say. But from the frame of reference of the box, the air was already not moving. Thus the approaching foil 'speeds up' the air in the other direction, forward that is :).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 124 ·
5
Replies
124
Views
15K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
7K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
5K