Lift (force)

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 is defined to act perpendicular to the flow and therefore can
act in any direction.

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 The 1902 Wright Glider shows its lift by
submarines. Planing lift, in which only the lower portion of pulling up
the body is immersed in a liquid flow, is used by motorboats,
surfboards, windsurfers, sailboats, and water-skis.

Overview
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 Lift is defined as the component of the
oncoming flow direction.[1] Lift is always aerodynamic force that is perpendicular to the
accompanied by a drag force, which is the component flow direction, and drag is the component that is
of the surface force parallel to the flow direction. 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

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 A cross-section of a wing defines an
airfoil shape.
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]

When a wing generates lift, it deflects

Controversy regarding the Coandă effect
air downward, and to do this it must
Some versions of the flow-deflection explanation of lift cite the exert a downward force on the air.
Coandă effect as the reason the flow is able to follow the Newton's third law requires that the air
convex upper surface of the airfoil. The conventional definition must exert an equal upward force on
the wing.
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

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

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
 An illustration of the incorrect equal transit-time explanation of airfoil lift. [6]

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

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 Streamlines and streamtubes around an airfoil
mass requires that flow speed must increase. [48] generating lift. The flow is two-dimensional and
Reduced upper-surface pressure and upward lift the airfoil has infinite span. Note the narrower
streamtubes above and the wider streamtubes
follow from the higher speed by Bernoulli's principle,
below.
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
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

Lift is a result of pressure differences and depends on angle of attack, airfoil shape, air density, and
airspeed.

Pressure differences
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
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 Angle of attack of an airfoil
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
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]
An airfoil with camber compared to a symmetrical
Cambered airfoils generate lift at zero angle of attack. airfoil
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
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

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

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
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 Airflow separating from a wing at a high angle of
terms of the lift coefficient, is generally less than 1.5 attack
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
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

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

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

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] Flow around an airfoil: the dots move with the flow. The
black dots are on time slices, which split into two – an upper
and lower part – at the leading edge. A marked speed
Mutual interaction of pressure difference between the upper-and lower-surface streamlines
differences and changes in flow is shown most clearly in the image animation, with the upper
markers arriving at the trailing edge long before the lower
velocity ones. Colors of the dots indicate streamlines.
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. Pressure field around an airfoil. The lines are
To produce this downward turning, the airfoil must isobars of equal pressure along their length. The
have a positive angle of attack or have sufficient arrows show the pressure differential from high
(red) to low (blue) and hence also the net force
positive camber. Note that the downward turning of
which causes the air to accelerate in that
the flow over the upper surface is the result of the air direction.
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

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

Pressure integration
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
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

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,
 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

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

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)
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 Comparison of a non-lifting flow pattern around an airfoil; and a
lifting flow pattern consistent with the Kutta condition in which the
flow with nonzero circulation. The
flow leaves the trailing edge smoothly
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

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

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.
Circulation component of the flow around an
The Kutta–Joukowski theorem relates the lift per unit airfoil
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
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
Cross-section of an airplane wing-body
aspect ratio, the three-dimensional effects associated
combination showing the isobars of the three-
with finite span can affect the whole span, not just dimensional lifting flow
close to the tips.

Wing tips and spanwise distribution

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
Cross-section of an airplane wing-body
reducing lift. The lift tends to decrease in the
combination showing velocity vectors of the three-
spanwise direction from root to tip, and the pressure dimensional lifting flow
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

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 Euler computation of a tip vortex rolling up from
on the wing. Approximate theories for the lift the trailed vorticity sheet
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
Planview of a wing showing the horseshoe vortex
induced by the vortex", for example.[121] But system
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

Integrated force/momentum balance in lifting flows

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
Control volumes of different shapes that have been used in
on the shape of the outer boundary, as analyzing the momentum balance in the 2D flow around a lifting
shown in the diagram at right. For a airfoil. The airfoil is assumed to exert a downward force −L' per unit
flat horizontal rectangle that is much span on the air, and the proportions in which that force is
longer than it is tall, the fluxes of manifested as momentum fluxes and pressure differences at the
vertical momentum through the front outer boundary are indicated for each different shape of control
and back are negligible, and the lift is volume.

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

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 Illustration of the distribution of higher-than-ambient pressure on
by the airplane. The net force due to the ground under an airplane in subsonic flight
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
Drag coefficient
Flow separation
Fluid dynamics
Foil (fluid mechanics)
Küssner effect
Lift-to-drag ratio
Lifting-line theory
Spoiler (automotive)

Footnotes
1. "What is Lift?" ([Link]
Glenn Research Center | NASA. NASA Glenn Research Center. Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20230209111213/[Link]
t-is-lift/) from the original on February 9, 2023. Retrieved February 9, 2023.
2. Kulfan (2010)
3. Clancy, L. J., Aerodynamics, Section 14.6
4. Doug McLean Aerodynamic Lift, Part 2: A comprehensive Physical Explanation The Physics
teacher, November, 2018
5. Doug McLean Aerodynamic Lift, Part 1: The Science The Physics teacher, November, 2018
 6. "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" ([Link]
g/web/20140427084226/[Link] August
16, 2000. Archived from the original ([Link]
html) on April 27, 2014. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
7. "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] ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20190825165619/[Link]
August 25, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
8. Arvel Gentry Proceedings of the Third AIAA Symposium on the Aero/Hydronautics of Sailing
1971. "The Aerodynamics of Sail Interaction" ([Link]
6/[Link]
f) (PDF). Archived from the original ([Link]
s%20of%20Sail%[Link]) (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."
9. "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
10. "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
[Link] "Archived copy – Tom Benson Interview" ([Link]
120427005906/[Link] Archived from the original (h
ttp://[Link]/pages/[Link]) on April 27, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
11. Clancy, L. J., Aerodynamics, Section 5.2
12. 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."
13. "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" ([Link]
org/web/20090411055333/[Link]
luids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original ([Link]
s/sgil/physics_paper_doc/paperse_phys/fluids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) (PDF) on April 11,
2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
14. Ison, David, "Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift?" ([Link]
150924073958/[Link] Plane &
Pilot, archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]) on September 24, 2015, retrieved January 14, 2011
15. "...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
16. Anderson and Eberhardt (2001)
17. Langewiesche (1944)
18. "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
19. a. "Lift from Flow Turning" ([Link]
[Link]/WWW/K-12/airplane/[Link]). NASA Glenn Research Center. May 27, 2000.
Archived from the original ([Link] 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" ([Link]
20130618032326/[Link] Archived from the
original ([Link] 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."
20. a. Chris Waltham. "Flight without Bernoulli" ([Link]
oc/papers_phys/fluids/fly_no_bernoulli.pdf) (PDF). The Physics Teacher Vol. 36 Nov. 1998.
Archived ([Link]
ics_paper_doc/papers_phys/fluids/fly_no_bernoulli.pdf) (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 ([Link]
2PhTea..10..451S). doi:10.1119/1.2352317 ([Link] "...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."
21. "...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 [Link] Archived (ht
tps://[Link]/web/20230209111605/[Link]
aeronautics/foilw2/) February 9, 2023, at the Wayback Machine
22. " 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 ([Link]
[Link]/users/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/fluids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf)
Archived ([Link]
ics_paper_doc/papers_phys/fluids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) April 11, 2009, at the Wayback
Machine
23. "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
[Link]
Archived ([Link]
l-behavior-pressure-distribution-over-a-clark-y-14-wing) August 5, 2021, at the Wayback
Machine
24. "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
25. Auerbach, David (2000), "Why Aircraft Fly", Eur. J. Phys., 21 (4): 289,
Bibcode:2000EJPh...21..289A ([Link]
doi:10.1088/0143-0807/21/4/302 ([Link]
2), S2CID 250821727 ([Link]
26. Denker, JS, Fallacious Model of Lift Production ([Link]
02/[Link] archived from the original
([Link] on March 2, 2009, retrieved
August 18, 2008
27. 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 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1965JFM....23..801W), doi:10.1017/S0022112065001702 ([Link]
10.1017%2FS0022112065001702), S2CID 121981660 ([Link]
pusID:121981660)
28. Anderson, David; Eberhart, Scott (1999), How Airplanes Fly: A Physical Description of Lift (h
ttp://[Link]/AERO/[Link]), archived ([Link]
6200755/[Link] from the original on January 26, 2016,
retrieved June 4, 2008
29. Raskin, Jef (1994), Coanda Effect: Understanding Why Wings Work ([Link]
g/web/20070928072421/[Link] archived
from the original ([Link] on September 28,
2007
30. Auerbach (2000)
31. Denker (1996)
32. Wille and Fernholz(1965)
33. White, Frank M. (2002), Fluid Mechanics (5th ed.), McGraw Hill
34. McLean, D. (2012), Section 7.3.2
35. McLean, D. (2012), Section [Link]
36. 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."
37. 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."
38. 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."
39. "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] ([Link]
t/GetPDFServlet?filetype=pdf&id=PHTEAH000010000008000451000001&idtype=cvips&doi
=10.1119/1.2352317&prog=normal)
40. Craig G.M. (1997), Stop Abusing Bernoulli
41. "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" ([Link]
75304/[Link] Archived from the original ([Link]
org/resource/1/phteah/v10/i8) on March 17, 2012. Retrieved August 4, 2011.
42. 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."
43. 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"
44. "Cambridge scientist debunks flying myth - Telegraph" ([Link]
0121849/[Link]
[Link]). Archived from the original ([Link]
nce-news/9035708/[Link]) on June 30, 2012.
Retrieved June 10, 2012. Cambridge scientist debunks flying myth UK Telegraph 24
January 2012
45. Flow Visualization ([Link] National Committee for Fluid
Mechanics Films/Educational Development Center. Archived ([Link]
0161021122939/[Link] 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.
46. "...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 ([Link]
ics_paper_doc/papers_phys/fluids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) Archived ([Link]
rg/web/20090411055333/[Link]
uids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) April 11, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
47. "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" ([Link]
-12/airplane/[Link]). NASA. Archived from the original ([Link]
W/K-12/airplane/[Link]) on April 27, 2014. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
48. "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
49. "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 [Link]
theory/ Archived ([Link]
beginners-guide-to-aeronautics/venturi-theory/) February 9, 2023, at the Wayback Machine
50. "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" ([Link]
12/airplane/[Link]). August 16, 2000. Archived from the original ([Link]
gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/[Link]) on July 17, 2012. Retrieved June 27, 2021.
51. "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" ([Link]
de/files/area2/[Link]) (PDF). Archived from the original ([Link]
es/area2/[Link]) (PDF) on December 7, 2013. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
52. "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" ([Link]
g/web/20090411055333/[Link]
ds/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original ([Link]
gil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/fluids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) (PDF) on April 11,
2009. Retrieved September 10, 2009.
53. "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] ([Link]
d=PHTEAH000028000002000084000001&idtype=cvips&prog=normal)
54. Doug McLean Understanding Aerodynamics, section [Link], Wiley, 2012
55. "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" ([Link] Archived ([Link]
g/web/20160126200755/[Link] from the original on
January 26, 2016. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
56. 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
57. "...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 ([Link]
doi:10.1088/0031-9120/38/6/001 ([Link]
1), S2CID 1657792 ([Link]
58. 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 [Link] 1, 1987, p. 53 [4] ([Link]
Archived ([Link]
1119/1.14960) April 28, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
59. "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" ([Link]
[Link]/hbase/fluids/[Link]). Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/hbase/fluids/[Link]) on October 14, 2012. Retrieved July 26, 2012.
60. "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
61. "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
62. Clancy (1975), Section 5.2
63. Abbott, and von Doenhoff (1958), Section 4.2
64. "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
65. "...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] ([Link]
-9120/10/5/009/pdf/0031-9120_10_5_009.pdf)
66. "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] ([Link]
[Link]/hbase/fluids/[Link]#c2) Archived ([Link]
0120708102756/[Link] July 8, 2012,
at the Wayback Machine
67. White (1991), Section 1-4
68. White (1991), Section 1-2
69. Anderson (1991), Chapter 17
70. Abbott and von Doenhoff (1958), Chapter 5
71. Schlichting (1979), Chapter XXIV
72. Abbott and Doenhoff (1958), Chapter 8
73. Williamson, C. H. K.; Govardhan, R. (2004), "Vortex-induced vibrations", Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics, 36: 413–455, Bibcode:2004AnRFM..36..413W ([Link]
du/abs/2004AnRFM..36..413W), doi:10.1146/[Link].36.050802.122128 ([Link]
g/10.1146%[Link].36.050802.122128), S2CID 58937745 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:58937745)
74. 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
75. Zdravkovich, M.M. (2003), Flow around circular cylinders, vol. 2, Oxford University Press,
pp. 850–855, ISBN 978-0-19-856561-1
76. Clancy, L. J., Aerodynamics, Sections 4.5, 4.6
77. McLean (2012), Section 7.3.3
78. Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 1.41
79. Jeans (1967), Section 33.
80. Clancy (1975), Section 4.5
81. Milne-Thomson (1966.), Section 5.31
82. McLean 2012, Section [Link]
83. McLean (2012), Section 3.5
84. McLean 2012, Section [Link]"
85. McLean 2012, Section [Link]
86. McLean, Doug (2012). "[Link]". Understanding Aerodynamics: Arguing from the Real
Physics. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1119967514. Doug McLean, Common
Misconceptions in Aerodynamics ([Link] on
YouTube
87. Anderson (2008), Section 5.7
88. Anderson, John D. (2004), Introduction to Flight (5th ed.), McGraw-Hill, p. 257, ISBN 978-0-
07-282569-5
89. Yoon, Joe (December 28, 2003), Mach Number & Similarity Parameters ([Link]
[Link]/question/aerodynamics/[Link]), [Link], archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20210224153817/[Link]
[Link]) from the original on February 24, 2021, retrieved February 11, 2009
90. Batchelor (1967), Section 1.2
91. Thwaites (1958), Section I.2
92. von Mises (1959), Section I.1
93. "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" ([Link]
1055333/[Link]
ewton_lift.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original ([Link]
er_doc/papers_phys/fluids/Bernoulli_Newton_lift.pdf) (PDF) on April 11, 2009. Retrieved
September 10, 2009.
94. White (1991), Chapter 1
95. Batchelor (1967), Chapter 3
96. Aris (1989)
97. Spalart, Philippe R. (2000) Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Elsevier Science Publishers.
 98. White (1991), Section 6-2
99. Schlichting(1979), Chapter XVIII
100. Anderson (1995)
101. "...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 ([Link]
ISBN 9781118454190.
102. Elements of Potential Flow California State University Los Angeles "Faculty Web Directory"
([Link]
8/Slides/PotentialFlow/[Link]). Archived from the original ([Link]
[Link]/cwu/me408/Slides/PotentialFlow/[Link]) on November 11, 2012.
Retrieved July 26, 2012.
103. Batchelor(1967), Section 2.7
104. Milne-Thomson(1966), Section 3.31
105. Clancy (1975), Section 4.8
106. Anderson(1991), Section 4.5
107. Clancy(1975), Sections 8.1–8
108. von Mises (1959), Section VIII.2
109. Anderson(1991), Section 3.15
110. Prandtl and Tietjens (1934)
111. Batchelor (1967), Section 6.7
112. Gentry (2006)
113. McLean (2012), Section 7.2.1
114. Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 12.3
115. McLean (2012), Section 8.1.3
116. McLean (2012), Section 8.1.1
117. Hurt, H. H. (1965) Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators, Figure 1.30, NAVWEPS 00-80T-80
118. Lanchester (1907)
119. Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 10.1
120. Clancy (1975), Section 8.9
121. Anderson (1991), Section 5.2
122. Batchelor (1967), Section 2.4
123. Milne-Thomson (1966), Section 9.3
124. Durand (1932), Section III.2
125. McLean (2012), Section 8.1
126. Shapiro (1953), Section 1.5, equation 1.15
127. Lissaman (1996), "Lift in thin slices: the two dimensional case"
128. Durand (1932), Sections B.V.6, B.V.7
129. Batchelor (1967), Section 6.4, p. 407
130. Prandtl and Tietjens (1934), Figure 150
131. Lanchester (1907), Sections 5 and 112
References
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 ([Link]
doi:10.1088/0143-0807/21/4/302 ([Link]
2), S2CID 250821727 ([Link]
Babinsky, H. (2003), "How do wings work?", Phys. Educ., 38 (6): 497,
Bibcode:2003PhyEd..38..497B ([Link]
doi:10.1088/0031-9120/38/6/001 ([Link]
1), S2CID 1657792 ([Link]
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 ([Link]
edu/abs/2002PhTea..40..166E), doi:10.1119/1.1466553 ([Link]
53), S2CID 121425815 ([Link]
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 ([Link]
web/20070928072421/[Link] archived
from the original ([Link] 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:[Link].....S ([Link]
book.....S)
Smith, N. F. (1972), "Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics", The Physics Teacher, 10
(8): 451, Bibcode:1972PhTea..10..451S ([Link]
451S), doi:10.1119/1.2352317 ([Link]
Spalart, Philippe R. (2000), "Strategies for turbulence modeling and simulations",
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 21 (3): 252, Bibcode:2000IJHFF..21..252S (htt
ps://[Link]/abs/2000IJHFF..21..252S), doi:10.1016/S0142-727X(00)00007-2
([Link]
Sumer, B.; Mutlu; Fredsøe, Jørgen (2006), Hydrodynamics around cylindrical structures
(revised ed.)
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 ([Link]
bs/1969AnRFM...1..265D), doi:10.1146/[Link].01.010169.001405 ([Link]
6%[Link].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 ([Link]
doi:10.1119/1.879927 ([Link]
Weltner, K. (1987), "A comparison of explanations of the aerodynamic lifting force", Am. J.
Phys., 55 (1): 53, Bibcode:1987AmJPh..55...50W ([Link]
mJPh..55...50W), doi:10.1119/1.14960 ([Link]
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 ([Link]
[Link]/abs/1965JFM....23..801W), doi:10.1017/s0022112065001702 ([Link]
org/10.1017%2Fs0022112065001702), S2CID 121981660 ([Link]
CorpusID:121981660)
Williamson, C. H. K.; Govardhan, R (2004), "Vortex-induced vibrations", Annual Review of
Fluid Mechanics, 36: 413–455, Bibcode:2004AnRFM..36..413W ([Link]
du/abs/2004AnRFM..36..413W), doi:10.1146/[Link].36.050802.122128 ([Link]
g/10.1146%[Link].36.050802.122128), S2CID 58937745 ([Link]
[Link]/CorpusID:58937745)
Zdravkovich, M. M. (2003), Flow around circular cylinders 2, Oxford University Press,
pp. 850–855, ISBN 978-0-19-856561-1

Further reading
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 ([Link]
u/abs/1957PhRv..108.1109C). doi:10.1103/PhysRev.108.1109 ([Link]
hysRev.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 ([Link]
"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] ([Link]
_phys/fluids/fly_no_bernoulli.pdf) Archived ([Link]
tp://[Link]/users/sgil/physics_paper_doc/papers_phys/fluids/fly_no_bernoulli.pdf)
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* ([Link]
111/j.1949-8594.1973.tb09040.x/pdf) Archived ([Link]
p://[Link]/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1973.tb09040.x/pdf) December 17,
2012, at [Link] Part II Bernoulli, Newton, and Dynamic Lift Part I* ([Link]
[Link]/doi/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1973.tb08998.x/pdf) Archived ([Link]
eb/20171214015904/[Link]
pdf) December 14, 2017, at the Wayback Machine

External links
Discussion of the apparent "conflict" between the various explanations of lift ([Link]
[Link]/www/k-12/airplane/[Link]) Archived ([Link]
25070253/[Link] July 25, 2021, at the
Wayback Machine
NASA tutorial, with animation, describing lift ([Link]
[Link]) Archived ([Link]
WWW/K-12/airplane/[Link]) March 9, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
NASA FoilSim II 1.5 beta. Lift simulator ([Link]
s://[Link]/WWW/K-12/airplane/[Link])
Explanation of Lift with animation of fluid flow around an airfoil ([Link]
o/) Archived ([Link]
June 13, 2021, at the Wayback Machine
A treatment of why and how wings generate lift that focuses on pressure ([Link]
om/how/) Archived ([Link]
w/) December 19, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
Physics of Flight – reviewed ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20210309120724/[Link] March 9, 2021, at the
Wayback Machine. Online paper by Prof. Dr. Klaus Weltner
How do Wings Work? ([Link]
g/0031-9120/38/6/001/pdf/pe3_6_001.pdf) Holger Babinsky
 Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift? ([Link]
t/zine/article/[Link]) Archived ([Link]
[Link]/component/zine/article/[Link]) September 24, 2015, at the Wayback
Machine Plane and Pilot magazine
One Minute Physics How Does a Wing actually work? ([Link]
FO4PBolwFg) Archived ([Link]
com/watch?v=aFO4PBolwFg) May 20, 2021, at the Wayback Machine (YouTube video)
How wings really work, University of Cambridge ([Link]
-wings-really-work) Archived ([Link]
[Link]/research/news/how-wings-really-work) 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 ([Link]
[Link]/web/20170422033534/[Link]
projekte/detailansicht-publikation/publikation/212513/) by Rolf Steinegger
Joukowski Transform Interactive WebApp ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20191019152549/[Link] October 19, 2019, at the
Wayback Machine
How Planes Fly ([Link] Archived ([Link]
[Link]/web/20210611154757/[Link] June
11, 2021, at the Wayback Machine YouTube video presentation by Krzysztof Fidkowski,
associate professor of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan

Retrieved from "[Link]