Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2. Generation of Lift
The generation of an aerodynamic force was covered in the Fundamental Concepts notes, Section 1.1. It may be recalled that the overall force may be attributed to two natural phenomena (Fig 2.1): the variable static pressure distribution, acting perpendicular to the surface. the variable shear stress distribution, acting tangential to the surface.
Fig 2.1 Static pressure & shear stress distributions around subsonic aerofoil It is clear that, as far as lift is concerned, the shear stress is secondary and contributes mainly to the drag force. The lift force itself is primarily due to the pressure distribution imbalance over the upper and lower surfaces. In particular, the production of a lower net pressure across the surface relative to the lower surface will produce an upwards lift force. It is therefore often convenient to only deal with the pressure forces when discussing the physical origin of the lift force. This will form the basis of all the following reasoning on the subject.
Fig 2.3 Leading & trailing edge stagnation point formation This means that the respective distances from SLE to STE are different with respect to whether the flow travels over the upper or lower surface. In particular, if cambered or inclined, the upper surface distance is greater than the lower surface distance. OK so far - but this is where the explanation goes wrong. Teachers now often state that the flow must take the same time to get from SLE to STE over both surfaces, meaning that the mean velocity over the top surface must be greater than over the lower surface. This is then linked with Bernoulli's theorem to explain where the pressure difference comes from and hence - LIFT! However, there is no reason why the time taken should be the same. Indeed, experiments and numerical simulations show that this is patently not the case and that the time taken to move over the top surface is actually a lot less than that taken to travel over the lower surface! This is shown in Fig 2.4 for a fluid element C which leaves the trailing edge a long time before element D moving over the lower surface. This is where the simplistic theory is flawed.
Fig 2.4 Time taken for flow to pass over upper & lower surfaces
Fig 2.5 Streamtubes A & B passing over upper & lower surfaces Either Euler's (dp = - VdV) or Bernoulli's (p + V2 = constant) theorems may now be applied to show that pA must be less than pB. This results in the pressure distribution shown in Fig 2.6. It can be seen that the majority of lift is due to the low pressure (suction) acting over the upper surface, particularly over the front 20% to 30%, where the flow accelerations are at their most severe. Another popular misconception is thus disproved, that it is the high pressure on the lower surface produces most of the lift. In fact, in the case shown, the pressure on the lower surface is below that of the ambient value, its just that the pressure on the upper surface is even lower than this its the pressure difference which is important.
Fig 2.7 Downward deflection of airflow (downwash) This explanation is certainly better than the standard but it could be argued that this is the effect of lift rather than the cause of it. There is no doubt that air is deflected downwards, and indeed that a considerable amount of air movement is required in order to provide the requisite amount of wing lift. It could, however, be the pressure distribution which is pushing the wing up and that this is really the action which is taking place. The reaction to this would then be for the wing to push the air down, with a sufficient momentum change to balance out the lift produced. This would mean that the original argument is probably the "wrong way around"!
6 ds = incremental length
Fig 3.1 Definition of circulation If we now consider the case of a lifting aerofoil, the velocity vector distribution over the section may be represented by Fig 3.3a. If the freestream velocity vectors are subtracted we are left with the distribution shown in Fig 3.3b, where the circulatory components can clearly be seen.
Fig 3.3a & 3.3b 2-D velocity vectors & minus freestream velocity vectors
Fig 3.4 Equivalent flowfield This means that the case shown in Fig 3.4 is equivalent to that shown in Fig 3.3, i.e. that the flowfield may be represented by the superposition of the freestream vectors and a set of
7 circulatory vectors. This leads to the higher airspeeds experienced over the upper surface (where the circulatory components are moving in the same direction as the freestream) and the lower airspeeds over the lower surface (where they move in opposite directions). This, of course, is exactly what happens in reality, as discussed earlier. The difference in airspeeds then leads to the pressure difference (from Bernoulli) leading to lift.
Fig 4.1 Movement of LE stagnation point due to camber or angle of attack change The net effects are that the lift varies with camber and angle of attack as shown in Fig 4.2.
Fig 4.2 Lift curves for subsonic cambered & symmetrical aerofoil sections
4.1 Stall
The relationship with angle of attack is virtually linear until the stall angle is approached. The stall angle is defined as the angle at which the CL curve peaks, i.e. when CL,max occurs. Beyond this, there is a dramatic loss of lift until it becomes reasonably constant at much higher angles of attack. For the symmetrical section, the curve passes through the origin, i.e. there is zero-lift at zero-, as would be expected. The effect of camber is to vertically raise the curve so that there is a certain amount of lift present even at zero-. There is also a slight reduction in the stall angle.
Fig 4.4 Pressure variations with angle of attack The following should be noted: Negative (nose-down) pitching moment at zero-lift (negative a). Positive lift at a = 0o. Highest pressure at LE stagnation point, lowest pressure at crest on upper surface. Peak suction pressure on upper surface strengthens and moves forwards with increasing a. - Most lift from near LE on upper surface due to suction.
10
Fig 4.6 Centre of Pressure Movement with Angle of Attack f or Ca mbered Section
Fig 4.7 Resolution into Lift & Drag, Normal Force & Axial Force Components It is a relatively straightforward process to calculate a wing's normal force by measuring the static pressure distribution around it (Fig 4.8).
11
Fig 4.8 Static Pressure Tappings used to Measure Wing Normal Force The measured static pressures are then converted into pressure coefficient values, using: Cp = (p - p) / ( V2 ) (4.4) Cp is thus the ratio of the gauge static pressure to the freestream dynamic pressure. In conditions where p > p, Cp is positive. Conversely, where p < p, Cp is negative. Negative Cp values should therefore be expected on the upper surface of a lift-producing wing. By plotting local values of Cp against distance/chord (x/c), as shown in Fig 2, it is possible to determine a value for the overall normal force for the given set of conditions. This is done by simply calculating the enclosed area of the plot, giving a value for the normal force coefficient (CN). This may then be translated into a value for the normal force itself by making use of the standard aerodynamic force definition: N = V2 S CN (4.5)
Fig 4.9 Pressure Coefficient Plot and Resultant Wing Normal Force