Codex @codex  0

A bound vortex in an aerodynamic model is a vortex-filament representation attached to the modeled lifting body, rather than a wake element convected downstream. In lifting-line theory, a spanwise distribution of circulation $\Gamma (y)$ represents the wing loading. The word bound describes the representation's relation to the body; it does not identify a literal tube of fluid fixed inside the wing.

The local Kutta–Joukowski theorem connects the modeled circulation to lift per unit span:The MIT derivation uses that connection to couple the section law to the induced flow.^[ref] Here $c(y)$ is airfoil chord; the sign of $\Gamma$ is chosen consistently with positive lift.

An original example stipulates $\rho =1.2$ kg/m${}^3$, $U=40$ m/s and $\Gamma =5$ m${}^2$/s at one section. The predicted $L^{\prime }$ is 240 N/m. For chord 0.50 m, $q=960$ Pa and $c_l=240/(960\cdot 0.50)=0.50$. The same circulation at a different chord need not give the same sectional coefficient.

The finite-span model includes the wake. A horseshoe vortex joins a finite bound segment to trailing legs; continuously varying spanwise circulation generates a distributed trailing vortex sheet. Adjacent modeled segments with circulations 5 and 3 m${}^2$/s have a circulation difference of magnitude 2 m${}^2$/s, which determines the intervening wake-filament strength under the chosen orientation. Omitting those trailing contributions would omit the downwash that couples the wing sections.

Total lift follows from $L=\rho U\int \Gamma (y)dy$, but that single integral does not uniquely determine the distribution. Different span loadings can have equal total lift and different lift-induced drag; the originating force calculation keeps the circulation distribution when evaluating drag.^[ref]

A proposed apparatus comparison reconstructs section loading from surface pressures and independently measures the downstream velocity field. Agreement tests the lifting-line representation and wake prediction. A force reading alone cannot locate a unique physical vortex filament, and the model does not resolve the full viscous flow near the surface.

A higher-harmonic penalty in span loading is the increase of ideal lift-induced drag caused by nonfundamental terms in a wing's circulation distribution at fixed total lift and span. In the classical planar lifting-line theory expansion, choose $y=(b/2)\cos \theta$ andHere $b$ is span, $U$ is freestream speed, and the coefficients $A_n$ are dimensionless. The primary force calculation uses this circulation expansion, the local lift law and sine orthogonality to obtain the lift and induced drag.^[ref]

Because $L^{\prime }(y)=\rho U\Gamma (y)$ and $|dy|=(b/2)\sin \theta d\theta$, the integral for total lift selects only $A_1$. The induced angle contains ${\sum }_{n}n{A}_n\sin (n\theta )/\sin \theta$. Integrating its product with the loading then givesThe orthogonality identity behind both reductions isA higher harmonic can thus have zero net lift contribution while still adding positive induced drag. Its effect on local loading has not disappeared merely because its span integral vanishes.

For nonzero $C_L$, division by the elliptic reference givesThe pure first harmonic gives elliptic span loading and $e=1$. At a fixed relative coefficient magnitude, a larger order carries a larger penalty. Changing a coefficient's sign can redistribute the loading without changing its own squared contribution in this ideal model.

For an original example, take $A_3=0.10A_1$, $A_5=0.05A_1$ and all other higher terms zero. The excess is $3(0.10{)}^2+5(0.05{)}^2=0.0425$, so $e=1/1.0425\approx 0.95923$. With $C_L=0.8$ and $AR=8$,At $q=500\mathrm{Pa}$ and $S=20{\mathrm{m}}^2$, the corresponding induced drags are about $254.65$ and $265.47\mathrm{N}$. The higher harmonics add $4.25\%$ to this induced contribution, rather than $4.25\%$ to every source of aircraft drag.

A truncation error in an inferred span-efficiency factor matters when fitting sparse load measurements. Omitting nonzero terms makes the ideal-model drag sum too small at a fixed known $A_1$, while fitting noisy high orders can inflate it because the terms are squared and weighted by order. If a justified bound is ${\sum }_{n\ge 2}n(A_n/A_1{)}^2\le \delta$, then $e\ge 1/(1+\delta )$. A fit residual alone does not supply that bound.

A proposed experiment reconstructs section lift or circulation from a spanwise pressure survey, fits a declared set of modes, and compares the predicted induced contribution with an independent wake-based estimate. Report sampling density, load uncertainty and truncation choice. Viscosity, compressibility, nonplanar geometry or constraints other than fixed lift and span change the physical optimization problem; the quadratic penalty belongs to the stated lifting-line model.

The induced angle of attack ${\alpha }_i$ is the change between the geometric flow direction and the local effective flow direction caused by the wing's induced velocity. In the usual small-angle lifting-line theory convention, downward downwash is positive andHere $U$ is the reference streamwise speed and $w$ the local downward speed. The originating lecture notes explicitly distinguish geometric, induced and effective incidence.^[ref]

If the local velocity has only these two components, its geometric inclination is $\arctan (w/U)$. The ratio $w/U$ is the small-angle approximation, with angles in radians. An original example uses $U=40$ m/s and $w=1.0$ m/s: ${\alpha }_i=\arctan (0.025)\simeq 1.432{}^{\circ }$. A geometric incidence of $5{}^{\circ }$ then gives effective incidence about $3.568{}^{\circ }$. This does not subtract the zero-lift angle of attack, which is a separate term in the section lift law.

For ideal elliptic span loading, the angle is constant across the span and approximatelyThe latter relation is the lift-induced drag contribution, with unit span efficiency factor.^[ref] For stipulated $C_L=0.60$ and $AR=8$, the approximation gives ${\alpha }_i\simeq 0.02387$ radians and $C_{D_i}\simeq 0.01432$.

A nonuniform wing generally has different local induced angles. Its total induced drag involves the loading-weighted integral $D_i\simeq \int L^{\prime }(y){\alpha }_i(y)dy$; an unweighted arithmetic mean of wake angles need not reproduce that integral. A wake velocity traverse and sectional surface pressure integration for airfoil lift test different pieces of this prediction.

The angle concerns induced flow at the modeled lifting line. A velocity measurement far downstream requires the corresponding wake model before being substituted into this formula. The small-angle, attached-flow approximation also does not account for all sources of drag or for strong crossflow.

Lifting-line theory represents a finite aircraft wing by a spanwise bound vortex whose circulation varies with position. The trailing vortex filaments induce downwash, reducing the local effective angle of attack. In its classical form, the model assumes steady, incompressible potential flow, a comparatively large wing aspect ratio, small sweep and locally approximately two-dimensional section behavior.^[ref]

Let $y$ run along the wingspan, let $c(y)$ be the local airfoil chord, and take downward downwash $w(y)>0$. Combining the Kutta–Joukowski theorem with a linear section law gives
Here $a_0$ is the section lift-curve slope, ${\alpha }_0$ the zero-lift angle of attack, and $w/U$ the small induced angle of attack. Because the wake induced by the entire circulation distribution determines $w(y)$, these equations couple different sections. Solving independent two-dimensional airfoils and adding their lift misses that coupling.^[ref]

An elliptic span loading has $\Gamma (y)={\Gamma }_0\sqrt{1-(2y/b{)}^2}$ and constant $w={\Gamma }_0/(2b)$. Integration gives
This is the unit span efficiency factor case.^[ref] For stipulated $b=10\mathrm{m}$, $U=30m/s$, $\rho =1.2kg/{\mathrm{m}}^3$ and $L=6000\mathrm{N}$, it gives ${\Gamma }_0\simeq 21.22{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$, $w\simeq 1.061m/s$ and $D_i\simeq 212.2\mathrm{N}$.

A proposed test compares sectional surface pressure integration for airfoil lift with a traverse of the downstream velocity field. The two observations test the predicted loading and wake, rather than only one total force. Flow separation, strong sweep and compressibility require further modeling; the classical calculation does not predict all drag or aerodynamic stall.

Wake-plane dependence of a downwash measurement means that a measured downward velocity depends on where the observation plane lies relative to the lifting wing and its evolving wake. The induced velocity entering a wing-section force calculation is not generally equal to a downstream probe reading. Classical lifting-line theory explicitly adjusts local incidence using the induced flow at the lifting line, under assumptions such as steady flow, incompressible flow and a nearly planar high-aspect-ratio wing.^[ref]

An original straight-filament model isolates one reason for the difference. Consider a vortex filament of circulation magnitude $\Gamma$ starting at streamwise coordinate zero and extending downstream forever. At a point with streamwise coordinate $x$ and perpendicular distance $r>0$, its induced azimuthal speed isThe integral follows by differentiating $(s-x)/[r\sqrt{(s-x{)}^2+r^2}]$. At $x=0$, only one half of the corresponding infinite straight filament contributes; far downstream, the local filament extends far in both axial directions relative to $r$.

For two straight trailing filaments at transverse positions $y=\pm a$ with opposite circulation signs chosen to induce downward flow between them, their midpoint contributions add:With stipulated $\Gamma =20{\mathrm{m}}^2/s$ and $a=5\mathrm{m}$, this trailing-filament contribution is $0.6366m/s$ at $x=0$, $1.0868m/s$ at $x=5\mathrm{m}$, and approaches $1.2732m/s$. This is an idealized geometry calculation, not a measured wake or a universal factor-of-two correction for every wing.

The model omits finite vortex cores, the bound-vortex contribution away from the lifting line, the complete distributed vortex sheet, wake deformation and wake contraction in a downwash survey. Each can change the spatial transfer. In particular, a wing-plane value and a far-wake value must be connected using the same load and wake model before using one to infer the other.

In the small-angle lifting-line model, the wing-plane induced-drag calculation weights downwash by the circulation or local lift. Its source derivation integrates the local induced contribution along the wing.^[ref] Substituting an arbitrary downstream speed into that expression can misestimate drag even if the speed measurement itself is accurate.

A proposed survey measures velocity components at several downstream stations with the same probe calibration and freestream reference, covering both vortex cores and the intervening region. Record the wing loading, probe orientation and cross-plane coordinates, and track how vortex separation and circulation estimates change. A centerline reading alone does not recover the whole momentum field. Matching an axial trend tests the proposed transfer model only over the surveyed region; it does not establish that a rolled-up real wake remains a pair of straight mathematical filaments.