See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/343537213

The lifting force of an airplane wing when flying horizontally at high speeds,
or why the airplane does not fall and remains in the air. Explanation of the
turbulent trail.

Preprint · August 2020

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13000.34564

CITATIONS READS

0 157

1 author:

Alexander Braginsky
Southern Federal University
110 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alexander Braginsky on 18 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The lifting force of an airplane wing when flying horizontally at high speeds, or why the
airplane does not fall and remains in the air. Explanation of the turbulent trail.

Alexander Braginsky
SFU, Institute of Physics, 344090, Russia, Rostov-on-Don, Stachki 194.
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This work explains the lifting force of the airplane in horizontal flight. The paper describes the
horizontal flight of an airplane with a zero angle of attack. It shows that during a horizontal flight
five vertical forces act on the airplane: gravity: pressure gradient with a minus sign, Archimedes'
force, potential force and vortex force obtained from the minimum action. The first three forces
were known, they were taken into account earlier when the plane was moving horizontally, but
did not answer the question of why the plane remains in the air and does not fall. The potential
force was also known from Euler's equations, but its effect on the airfoil from the air had not
previously been taken into account. The vortex force obtained from the minimum action in the
application to a continuous medium has not previously been taken into account in aerodynamics.
In horizontal flight, the vortex force is directed upwards. It increases with the speed of the
airplane and compensates for the gravity of the airplane at high speed, so that the plane flies and
does not fall. In addition, the paper provides an explanation of the vortex trail behind the
airplane, which is mentioned in the CMI Millennium problem.

Keywords: lifting force; airfoil; vortex trail.

1. Introduction.

Every time when we fly in a plane, my wife says” I can't understand why the plane is flying and
not falling”. I explain that at high speed in the air there is a change in the pressure that keeps the
plane in flight, because the air pressure under the wing of the airplane is greater than the air
pressure over the wing of the airplane. Actually, it is written in all textbooks on aerodynamics.
Meanwhile it never occurred to me to doubt this simple logic.

As it turned out, this is completely erroneous reasoning. It all started with an article: "No one can
explain why planes stay in the air" [1], which my friend sent me on May 10, 2020 after reading
my popular article about cyclones and anticyclones and the problem of the Millennium of
turbulence [2].

The paper Scientific American [1] told about the problem of describing the horizontal flight of
an airplane which is more than a hundred years old. A hundred years is certainly not a thousand.
On the other hand, this task could not have occurred before the first planes appeared. In addition,
Albert Einstein himself had a hand in it. In 1916, he tried to solve this problem, but could not, as
it is written in the paper [1]. In general, it is quite a worthy problem, with a history.

I read an article [1] and I can't understand what the problem is. Air blows the wings of the plane.
The Bernoulli equations which are almost three hundred years old are fulfilled for the air. It is
claimed that upon the wing of the airplane air speed is more than the speed under the wing, so
the pressure under the wing more and it keeps the plane in horizontal flight.
Figure 1. Movement of air around the wing of the airplane.
Incorrect distribution of air speed and pressure around the airfoil.

The author of the article writes “Here is only one problem” [1]. Air can come off the wing from
above, so there is a kind of "vacuum or discharge". This is because the wing of the airplane is
designed so that it reflects the air from above when flying horizontally.

Why then is the air speed over the wing of the airplane greater? After all, if the wing of an
airplane chops off some of the air from above, then how can the speed of the air flowing around
the wing from above be greater? Look, all the wings of airplanes have a thickening in front, just
like the wings of birds in nature. We are considering horizontal flight. The plane moves evenly
and rectilinearly, with the lower surface of the airplane wing lying in a horizontal plane. There is
no angle of attack on the wing. The plane has already gained altitude, passengers have unbuckled
their seat belts and are calmly watching TV or sleeping. Meanwhile, the plane's wing reflects the
air from above, just as a hill reflects the wind in an open field.

Everyone knows that the wind is much weaker over the hill. According to the Bernoulli equation,
the pressure is greater where the wind is weaker, and less where the wind is stronger. It is
obvious that when flying horizontally under the wing of an airplane the air speed is higher, so
the pressure under the wing should be less. So it turns out that passengers are calmly flying and
sleeping, and the air pressure is higher over the wing of the airplane and, nevertheless, the plane
does not fall, but calmly flies.

There is no doubt that the air speed is lower above the airfoil. This is exactly the case where no
measurements are needed. The fact that the wing of the airplane repels the air flow from above is
also drawn in pictures in all textbooks on aerodynamics [3, 4].

In addition, the air really presses on the wing from above, based on the design of the airfoil,
since the tangent to the airfoil has an acute angle with the horizon, and from below the air passes
parallel to the airfoil and does not exert additional pressure (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Distribution of air speed and pressure around the aerofoil of the airplane.

The acute angle between the tangent to the aerofoil and the horizon line at the top of the airplane
wing, in fact, means that the aerofoil creates an angle of attack from above for oncoming air
flow. Therefore, the pressure at the horizontal position of the airplane wing (Fig. 2) is always
greater over the wing of the airplane.

Then it is not clear why the authors of the article [1] and textbooks on aerodynamics [3, 4]
decided that the air pressure is greater under the wing of the airplane? Perhaps to reassure
students of aviation institutes or they will refuse to fly on planes. It turns out that the difference
in air pressure presses on the wing of the airplane from above (Fig. 2). Then why does the
airplane not fall?

Firstly, I want to immediately reassure readers that even if the air pressure is greater over the
wing of the airplane, this does not mean that the plane is affected by a downward force as a
result of potential air movement around the wing of the airplane. The fact is that textbooks on
aerodynamics [3,4] use an incorrect interpretation of the Bernoulli equation.

The Bernoulli equation describes a stationary potential air movement in which the sum of all
forces acting on a unit volume of air is zero. Therefore, the sum of the forces acting from this
volume of air is also zero. This is indicated by Euler's equations of hydrodynamics for stationary
potential air movement.

Indeed, the sum of the forces acting on a unit volume of air at a steady stationary potential
motion is zero, so the pressure gradient with a minus sign  grad (P) is equal to the velocity

gradient squared multiplied by ½ of the density grad ( 2 ) , and as a result, these two forces
2

compensate for each other:  grad ( P)  grad ( 2 )  0 . This equation is in many textbooks
2
on aerodynamics, it follows from the Euler equation for mechanics of continuum medium in
1752.


The expression  grad ( 2 ) is nothing more than the potential force or gradient of the kinetic
2
energy of air with a minus sign. However, in textbooks on continuum mechanics, this force is
1
called the potential Euler term:  grad ( 2 ) , multiplied by the density  .
2
 
However, in [5] the force  grad ( 2 ) was obtained from the minimum of the action, it has the
2
physical dimension Newton, so it is a force. In the article [5], it was called a potential force, as
Euler firstly recorded it. It is the potential force that describes the correct movement of cyclones
and anticyclones in the air, as shown in [2, 6].

Therefore, there is no difference for potential air movement, where the pressure is higher: below
the wing of the airplane or above the wing of the airplane. The pressure gradient is compensated
by the kinetic energy gradient of the air, as the change in internal energy of air is equal to the
change in kinetic energy of air, and the sum is a constant. This is indicated by the Bernoulli
equation of 1738 for stationary potential motion of a continuous medium.

The sum of the forces acting on the wing of the airplane from the air, associated with its
stationary potential horizontal flow, is zero. Why it is not written in textbooks on aerodynamics
is a rhetorical question. How then to explain to students pilots, "why planes remain in the air"
when flying horizontally [1]. And what to teach in the course of aerodynamics about the lift of
the wing of an airplane when moving horizontally if the sum of the known forces acting on the
wing of the airplane from the air is zero according to the Bernoulli equations.

You can't write in a textbook on aerodynamics that we don't know why the plane doesn't crash
during the flight. Therefore, in textbooks on aerodynamics, they reason from the opposite: the
plane flies and does not fall, so the air pressure is greater from below, therefore, the air speed
must be greater from above the wing of the airplane according to Bernoulli's law [1]. Agree, "it
is iron logic". Although in fact, everything is the opposite, in terms of the direction of the
pressure gradient in the air (Fig. 2).

Note that when solving this problem, you need to separate two concepts: air pressure and the
force acting on the airplane from the air. There is pressure in the air, and there is pressure of
forces on the wing of the airplane from the air – these are different things. The plane flies
horizontally and does not fall as a result of the equality of gravity and the sum of all the forces
that act on the plane from the air. It is necessary to prove that the resulting force from the air is
directed upwards and is equal to the weight of the airplane. And the second question: where the
air pressure is higher, above or below the wing of the airplane. After all, air pressure is a
characteristic of air, not an airplane.

The pressure on the wings of the resulting force acting from the air, of course, is directed
upwards. However, this is not the air pressure gradient with the minus sign:  grad (P) which is

directed downward (Fig. 2). It is also not a potential force  grad ( 2 ) directed upwards,
2
since the sum of the potential forces acting on a solid from the stationary potential flow of air is
zero. This is well known from the time of Bernoulli (1738) and Euler (1752). This was also
known to Einstein in 1916. This is the question, "why do planes stay in the air?" [1]. Then what
force keeps the plane in the air, when flying horizontally? After all, it is clear to everyone that
miracles do not happen.

As is known [3,4,7], Zhukovsky used the fact that the air flow velocity is higher over the wing of
the airplane when deducing the lift force (Fig. 1). Therefore, he received a lifting force.
However, if we take into account the real situation that the speed of air flow under the airfoil is
greater than the speed over the airfoil in horizontal flight, then the Zhukovsky force is directed
downward, along with the air pressure that presses on the wing of the airplane from above
(Fig.2).
The viscosity in the air is low, it obviously will not help to keep the airplane in the air. Prandtl
took into account the air viscosity in the boundary layer when describing the lift force of an
airplane [7]. But he also assumed that the air velocity is greater over the wing of the airplane
(Fig. 1), since the strength of the viscosity depends on the speed. Therefore, if we now
recalculate the forces received by Prandtl in accordance with (Fig. 2), they will also be directed
downward.

Thus, the viscosity and similarity principle, which is used in describing the motion of a viscous
fluid [7], will not help us to explain the lift force of an airplane wing. The airfoil sets the pressure
gradient and speed gradient along the vertical axis. Therefore, if Zhukovsky and Prandtl obtained
upward forces based on the velocity distribution in Fig. 1, then now, when recalculated in
accordance with Fig. 2, these forces will be directed downward.

Let's remember all the forces that operate in a continuous medium. Here, as they say, the
drowning man grasps at straws. Remember the heroic case when a pilot landed a plane on the
Hudson river in 2009. The depth of the Hudson river at the point where the plane landed was
thirteen meters, and the plane was kept on the water by the power of Archimedes.

As it is known the force of Archimedes in water is equal to the weight of the displaced liquid. In
air, Archimedes ' force is equal to the weight of the displaced air. It is due to this force that
balloons fly, since warm air is lighter than cold, so the air inside the balloon is heated with a gas
burner.

An airplane flying in the air is also affected by the Archimedean force equal to the weight of the
displaced air. However, the weight of the displaced air is less than the weight of the same
volume of displaced water by a thousand times. Obviously, the power of Archimedes in the air
will not save us and will not be able to explain why the plane does not fall when flying
horizontally, but it must be taken into account.

2. Equations of air movement and equations of equilibrium of the airplane in the air.

To understand what force holds the plane in the air, we will write down all the forces that act on
the plane in the air. Let's use the equation of motion (1) in [2]. From Newton's second law for air,
taking into account gravity, we get:
  
   P   2 
   grad ( P)  grad ( )  2
2
 2 (grad ( P))  2 grad ( P)  g . (1)
t 2 c t c c

Here on the right are the forces acting on a single volume of air.

 grad (P) - this is the pressure gradient with a minus sign, the one that everyone was hoping
for and which turned out to be directed downward (Fig. 2).


 grad ( 2 ) - the potential force that saved us when describing cyclones and anticyclones
2
[2,6] and which is equal to and opposite to the pressure gradient with a minus sign, with a non-
vortex potential movement of air.
  
 P    P
 2 - part of the centrally symmetric force f C   grad ( )  2
2
obtained from
c t 2 c t
the minimum action [5], proportional to the time derivative of the pressure, which is equal to
zero when the airplane is moving at a constant speed, since the pressure in the air does not
depend on time (here c – the speed of sound).

   2
fV   2 ( grad ( P))  2 grad ( P) - vortex force in the air, obtained from the minimum
c c
action [5].

g – gravitational force acting on the air and directed downward.

Equation (1) is initially written in this form:


   
   grad (P)  fC  fV  g . (1’)
t  
Here the forces obtained from the minimum of action are recorded fC , fV [5] in physics, all
forces are obtained from the minimum of action, and not from the differentiation of the velocity
 
field, as Euler did in 1752. It is obvious that differentiating the velocity field  ( x , t ) as a

complex function, it is impossible to obtain force. Therefore, the expression  grad ( 2 ) is
2
still not called a force in the physical literature, although its dimension is Newton.

Let's consider the movement of a single volume of air. We will not now take into account
turbulence we will assume that the plane does not shake during the flight. Note that the vortex

force fV is zero when the velocity direction coincides with the direction of the pressure gradient.
In this case, the scalar multiplication of vectors is equal to the product of their magnitudes and
 
  2
fV   2 (grad ( P))  2 grad ( P)  0 is a property of a one-dimensional potential flow.
c c
Then, for a stationary one-dimensional air movement, it follows from (1) that the force

 grad (P) is equal to the force  grad ( 2 ) and the potential Bernoulli motion is fulfilled.
2

In fact, the fact that the air around the airplane moves potentially in accordance with Bernoulli's
law, as written in article [1] – this is a question, since at high speed the air is strongly
compressed when it collides with the airplane, heats up and flies in different directions.
Therefore, it is quite possible that the pressure and air speed will be higher under the wing of the
airplane. This is what happens on takeoff, at a non-zero angle of attack. However, in the future,
for the sake of simplicity, we will adhere to the generally accepted position that in horizontal
flight with a zero angle of attack in the first approximation for the air near the wing of the
airplane, the Bernoulli equations are fulfilled and the sum of potential forces is zero.

Let us now consider the forces acting on the plane.

When the plane is moving horizontally, the air resistance force acts on it. It is compensated by
the work of the airplane's engines, in fact, this is what fuel is spent in flight.

Let us now consider the vertical forces acting on the airplane. First of all, it is the gravity, which
 
is equal to Mg . In the sum of the Archimedean force it is equal ( M  V ) g , here V – the
volume of the airplane. Gravity is compensated by forces acting on the wings of the airplane
from the air. Here we only take into account the area of the wings, since above and below the
fuselage there is almost no difference in air pressure and speed due to symmetry, so the area of
the fuselage can be ignored.

Note that usually the wings are combined into one common area, taking into account the area
under the fuselage, since on some airplanes they cannot be divided. Therefore, we will assume
that the small area under the fuselage adjacent to the wings is also included in the area of the
wings.

In the equation of air movement (1), the volumetric forces acting on a unit of air volume are
recorded. To get the force acting on the wing of the airplane, it is necessary to sum up the
volumetric forces.


Forces  grad ( P)  grad ( 2 ) compensate each other in each volume of air according to the
2
Bernoulli’s equation, so they do not affect the airplane. If the airplane were at rest and there was
a pressure difference on the wing, then you can multiply the pressure difference by the area of
the wings of the airplane and get the lifting force. And since the force  grad (P) is equal to the

force grad ( 2 ) and both these forces exist together as a result of the movement of the
2
airplane, they are equal to each other according to Bernoulli's law in each unit volume of air.
They can be summed, but the sum of the zeros is zero.

   2
So, to compensate gravity, we only have the vortex force V f   ( grad ( P ))  grad ( P) .
c2 c2

 
The first term  2 ( grad ( P )) of the vortex force is zero, since the pressure gradient vector
c 
grad (P) is directed vertically, and the air velocity  is horizontal, near the wing of the

airplane. Therefore, the scalar multiplication ( grad ( P)) is zero, like the scalar multiplication
of perpendicular vectors.

2
The second term of the vortex volume force: grad ( P) – not equal to zero. This force keeps
c2
the plane in horizontal flight at high speed. Let's prove this statement.

2
Please note that the force grad ( P) , directed upwards, since the pressure of air is more above
c2
the wing of the airplane because of the design of the wing profile (Fig. 2). To obtain the force
acting on the wing of the plane it is necessary to sum the forces from all unit volumes of air over
and under the wing of the plane.

2
Sum the expression grad ( P) along the vertical axis. We assume that the speed does not
c2
2
change much, then get the force acting on the unit area of the wing in the form: ( P  P0 ) ,
c2
where P0 is the pressure under the wing of the airplane , and P is the pressure over the wing of
the plane. The pressure P0 coincides with the air pressure at infinity P , since under the wing of
the airplane the pressure does not change at zero angle of attack. Now we need to multiply this
expression by the area of the wings 2S , and we get the lifting force of the airplane in the form
2
2S ( P  P0 ) when moving horizontally in a straight line at a speed of  . Above the wing, the
c2
pressure is greater, so this force is directed upwards, Q.E.D.

Thus, the sum of forces acting on the airplane in the projection on the vertical axis, in the first
approximation, has the form:
2
 ( M  V ) g  2S ( P  P0 )  0 . (2)
c2
Now it becomes clear why you need the thickening on top of the wing of the airplane (Fig. 2).
Thickening of the wing of the plane, in fact, creates the angle of attack from above, it is arranged
to have more air pressure above the wing of the plane and that the plane could fly horizontally at
high speed and not fall.

3. The turbulent trail of the plane


Note that the vortex force fV does not act on the air when it flows around the wings of the
airplane in horizontal flight. After all, we stipulated that the plane does not shake and therefore,
in the first approximation, the movement of air in the area of the wings of the airplane is
potential and corresponds to the Bernoulli equation.

However, when the plane passes, a vortex of air is formed behind it, which is clearly visible in
this photo (Fig. 3).

Figure 3. Vortex movement of air behind the airplane in the fog.

The photo (Fig. 3) clearly shows the vortex movement of air behind the airplane, which occurs
as soon as the wings of the airplane are removed. After all, it is the wings of the airplane that
prevent the occurrence of air movement vertically under the influence of lifting force
2
grad ( P) . The wings are removed – and immediately there is a whirling movement of air
c2
behind each wing of the plane. Vortex motion (Fig. 3) is the result of the action of a vortex force,
Q.E.D.

Without the lifting force of the airplane, it was not clear how to approach the problem of
describing the turbulent trail of the airplane. As it turned out, all airplanes leave this vortex trail
(Fig. 3), which is called turbulence and which can not be explained until now, see the description
of the Millennium problem on the CMI website: http://www.claymath.org/millennium-
problems/navier%E2%80%93stokes-equation

The problem is that the vortex trace (Fig. 3) cannot be described in the framework of the Euler or
Navier-Stokes equations of hydrodynamics. Since the forces in Euler's equations act in the
vertical plane XZ, where the OX axis is set by the direction of movement of the airplane, and the
OZ axis is the vertical axis. In Euler's equations, there is no component of the force directed
along the OY axis perpendicular to the XZ plane, which is necessary to describe the vortex
motion (Fig. 3).
 
Indeed, the additional force   ( grad ) in the Euler's equations [7] is the convective
 
derivative of the velocity field with a minus sign  ( grad ) multiplied by the density  . This

force is directed along the components of the velocity  . The velocity component directed along
the OY axis, perpendicular to the plane's fuselage in the horizontal plane, is zero. The pressure

gradient P along the OY axis is also zero, so there is no force directed along the OY axis in
Euler's equations. Therefore, there is no basis for the formation of a vortex motion with the OX
axis, as shown in (Fig. 3). Since the vortex motion with the OX axis requires the existence of
forces perpendicular to this axis. One vertical force proportional grad (P ) directed along the OZ
axis is not enough to form a vortex motion (Fig. 3).

The hope that additional forces associated with air viscosity in the Navier-Stokes equations will
correct the situation is unlikely, since the viscosity is very low in air. Moreover, the viscosity
forces are isotropic in air and cannot explain the anisotropy that is shown in (Fig. 3). Anisotropy
is defined as selected symmetry axes parallel to OX axis. Therefore, the idea of air viscosity was
also unconvincing for mathematicians who formulated the CMI problem of describing
turbulence in 2000 at the International Mathematical Congress.


Note that this problem is easily solved by equations (1), since the potential force  grad ( 2 )
2
has a component along the OY axis.

Indeed, vertical air velocity along the OZ axis, which is formed behind the wing of the airplane
2
as a result of the lifting force grad ( P) is not zero. At the same time, the vertical air speed
c2
away from the airplane along the OY axis is zero. Because where there is no plane, there are no
forces acting on the air. Thus, there is a vertical speed component behind the airplane wing. And
away from the airplane in the direction of the OY axis, where the airplane wings end, there is no
vertical speed.

Therefore, the speed gradient is formed behind the airplane along the OY axis. Hence, the force

 grad ( 2 ) proportional to the change in the speed value with the coordinate has a
2
component along the OY axis directed away from the airplane. The minus sign before the force
means that it is directed from a higher value to a lower value of the speed value. This force gives
the air centripetal acceleration and twists the air flow into vortices behind each wing of the
airplane as shown in figure 3 (the same force gives centripetal acceleration to the air in cyclones
and anticyclones [2, 6]).


Thus, the force  grad ( 2 ) is directed perpendicular to the OX axis, it twists the air trail of
2  
the airplane into a vortex (Fig. 3), but the force   ( grad ) - does not twist the air, it
accelerates it along the movement of the air itself and can not leave the vertical plane XZ. It
 
turns out that the force   ( grad ) as if "stroking the air" along the direction of its
  
movement. Forces  grad ( 2 ) ,   ( grad ) differ in direction since they were obtained
2
from different conditions related to symmetry. This is the problem of describing the vortex trail
of an airplane by Euler equations, which is mentioned in the Millennium problem related to the
Navier-Stokes equations on the CMI website: http://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems.

In paragraph 2 of the article [6], it was proved that Euler's equations cannot describe plane vortex
motions in the air. It has just been shown that the Euler equations cannot describe the turbulent
trail of an airplane (Fig. 3). In other words, the Euler equations are invalid (they cannot), and,
consequently, the Navier – Stokes equations, which contain the Euler equations [7], are invalid.
Therefore, to describe the motion of a continuous medium, we must use equations (1) obtained
from the minimum of the action, and not Euler's equations obtained by differentiating the
velocity field as a complex function.

Moreover, in paragraph 3 of the article [6], it was shown that the convective derivative of the
 
velocity field ( grad ) is identically equal to zero in the derivation of Euler's equations. In
other words, there is no mathematically based derivation of Euler's hydrodynamic equations, and
if so, there is no mathematically based derivation of the Navier-Stokes equations.

Most likely, Euler wrote his equations of fluid dynamics to justify the Bernoulli equation. The
fact is that when deriving Euler's equations, Newton's equations of dynamics were used under
the assumption of a constant density of the continuous medium. If we do not assume constancy
of the density of the continuous medium, we will not get the Bernoulli equations from Newton's
equations.

Eventually Euler's equations of hydrodynamics correctly describe only the stationary potential
motion of a continuous medium [2]. The Navier-Stokes equations are a generalization of the
Euler equations, taking into account the viscosity. As a result, the Millennium problem of
describing turbulence has appeared. As it has already become clear, this problem is related to the
inability to correctly describe the vortex motion by the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations [2, 5,
6], and not to the inability to find solutions to the Navier-Stokes equation, as stated in the
description of the CMI Millennium problem. There is no point in looking for solutions to the
invalid equations of motion. This is clearly seen in figure 3.

Thus, when designing airfoil, developers must achieve a potential flow of air around the airfoil
and the absence of vortex movement of air in the area of the wings of the airplane. Then the
2
vortex force component grad ( P) compensates gravity and keeps the plane in the air at high
c2
speeds.
While the plane is flying, the vortex force compensates the plane's gravity and does not affect the
air. It's like "hiding" under the wing of an airplane. As soon as the plane has passed, the vortex
force acts on air, it accelerates it and together with the potential force causes the air to move in
the form of vortices, as shown in (Fig. 3).

4. The lifting force of the airplane. Explanation and Conclusions.

We will arrange, as they say in such cases, a debriefing. What happened, how did it happen that
the vortex force saved the plane from falling during horizontal flight, and how does the resulting
2
lifting force 2S ( P  P0 ) differ from the lifting force recorded in textbooks on aerodynamics:
c2
2S ( P0  P) [3, 4].

It is obvious that these forces differ in direction and the relative multiplier  c . Force
2 2

2
2S ( P  P0 ) it is lifting force and is directed upwards (Fig. 2), and the force 2S ( P0  P)
c2
from textbooks on aerodynamics can not be called lifting, since it is directed down.
2
Let's explore the lifting force 2S ( P  P0 ) and test it at different speeds.
c2

Let's assume that the speed of an airplane is ten times less than the speed of sound 300 m c , i.e.,
less than 30 m c (or 108 km h ). Then the relative coefficient  c is less than one hundredth.
2 2

In this case, the lifting force is very small and the plane will not even be able to take off at this
speed (meaning a large airplane, not a light glider).

Let's now consider another extreme case, when a large airliner flies in horizontal flight at a speed
close to the speed of sound (about 1000 km h ), but slightly less than the speed of sound. In the
first approximation, you can put   c . Then the pressure gradient in the equations of motion (1)
2
is annulated since:  grad ( P)  grad ( P)  0 at   c , and the plane is flying, in fact, only
c2

at the potential force given by the speed gradient:  grad ( 2 ) .
2

So, where the speed should be higher for the airfoil in horizontal flight – of course, under the

wing of the airplane (Fig. 2), then the force  grad ( 2 ) will be directed upwards – from a
2
higher speed to a lower speed.

This solution for speeds close to the speed of sound was tested on May 11, 2020, as soon as the
article [1] was received, so it was immediately clear why the thickening of the upper wing of the
airplane was made.

2
After all, knowing that the plane is affected by the vortex force: grad ( P) , it is not difficult
c2
to calculate and understand that the speed is greater under the wing of the plane. Since at speed
equal to the speed of sound, the pressure gradient grad (P ) is annulated in (1) and the airplane
in flight at a speed equal to the speed of sound is held only by the potential force:

 grad ( 2 ) .
2

Note that this result is exact, it does not depend on the assumption that the movement of air
around the airplane satisfies the potential Bernoulli’s equation. When the speed of an airplane is
equal to the speed of sound, the pressure gradient falls out of the equations of motion (1) for air
with a horizontal movement of the airplane. Therefore, the wings of all planes are arranged so
that when flying horizontally, the air speed is greater under the wing of the airplane, otherwise
the plane will simply fall when flying horizontally at high speed.

But it's time to tell you where the vortex force fV appeared in the equations of motion (1), and
why it is responsible for the lift of the airplane wing. In June 2020, an article was published in
the journal PTEP [5], which describes eddy movements in the atmosphere that are directly
related to the solution of the Millennium problem – the description of turbulence.
 
In [5], we derive the forces acting in a continuous medium fC and fV (1’), which were obtained
from the action minimum. In this work, the lifting force in tornadoes was also obtained, which is
2 P
equal to , where  is the horizontal vortex velocity in the tornado, and the pressure

c 2 z
P
gradient is directed along the vertical axis upwards, towards the expansion of the tornado
z
funnel.

Thus, the lift in a tornado is the same as the lift in an airplane. The only difference is that in a
tornado, the air moves in a circle in a horizontal plane, and the airplane flies straight and itself
creates forces acting on it from the air. Therefore, it was not even thought that a straight-flying
plane could somehow be useful to the vortex force, until the problem of horizontal flight was not
told in [1].

However, in a tornado, everything is less obvious than with an airplane, since it is difficult to
measure anything in a tornado. This is the main problem associated with studying tornadoes,
since the tornado breaks all measuring devices before they have time to measure anything.

There is a scale of intensity of tornadoes, it is called The Fujita scale [8]. The Fujita scale clearly
shows that the speed 270km/ h at which a large passenger plane takes off and the wind speed in
a F3 tornado 254km/ h , at which it lifts large cars, are of the same order. From this it follows
that the lifting force in tornadoes is of the same nature as the lifting force in an airplane.

Obviously, the lift effect is related to the relative multiplier  c before the pressure gradient
2 2

2
in the vortex force grad ( P) (1). Of course, more lift can be obtained by increasing the
c2
pressure gradient, but if the speed is small, then one pressure gradient will not help. So here are
both important multipliers: the pressure gradient in air grad (P ) , which is associated with the
device profile of an airplane wing, and the relative multiplier  c that is associated with the
2 2

ratio of velocity of airplane to velocity of sound in air.

 
The relative multiplier  c in the vortex force fV clearly indicates the field-theoretic nature
2 2

of the wing lift. Its origin is the same as in electrodynamics. As you know, the relativistic
multiplier  c is associated with the names of Lorentz, Einstein, and Pauli, who built the
2 2
 
theory of relativity and used it in field theory. In article [5], the forces fC , fV obtained from the
minimum action in the application to a continuous medium were calculated.

These forces were first recorded by Kadich-Edelen in 1983 from an analogy with
electrodynamics [9]. They were derived in 2015 from the action minimum for the minimal
interaction induced by the translation subgroup, as well as the Coulomb and Lorentz forces. In a
 
continuous medium, these forces have the form fC , fV (1) [5,6].
 
We can’t get the forces fC , fV which contain a relative multiplier using mechanistic reasoning
from the molecular kinetic theory of Newton. In other words, you can't explain the lift of an
airplane wing using the idea of gas as a set of moving molecules, which they are still trying to do
in aerodynamics.
 
As shown by further research and stated in [5], the forces fC , fV are the forces of a strong
fundamental interaction obtained in an application to a continuous medium. These forces are
relativistic in nature, as are the Coulomb and Lorentz forces.

Thus, of the main three forces acting on the plane's wing in horizontal flight:
 2
 grad (P)  grad ( )  2 grad ( P) - the pressure gradient with a minus sign  grad (P) ,
2

2 c
 2
the potential force  grad ( ) and the vortex force components 2 grad ( P) , in modern
2

2 c
aerodynamics [3,4] only the pressure gradient with a minus sign is used:  grad (P) .

In this case, the wing of the airplane is arranged so (Fig. 2) that the force  grad (P) is directed
 2
down, when flying horizontally, and the forces  grad ( )  2 grad ( P) are directed up.
2

2 c

Therefore, the existing theory of aerodynamics, which only takes into account the downward
force  grad (P) (Fig. 2), does not help, but only hinders designers from designing airplane.
Obviously, if you do not take into account all the forces acting in a continuous medium, you can
not describe the dynamics of the continuous medium and the aerodynamics of the airplane.

We must pay tribute to the fact that thanks to the efforts of Zhukovsky and Prandtl, the lifting
force was written from dimensional considerations in the form F  2C S , where C is a
2

dimensionless coefficient [3,4,7]. As noted above, this force was derived from the incorrect
assumption that the speed is greater over the wing of the airplane (Fig. 1).

However, it was guessed almost correctly. Indeed, if we put that P  c , then, in the first
2

approximation, the lifting force in (2) can be written as:

F  2(     ) 2 S . (3)
 Thus, it becomes clear that it is the force (3) Zhukovsky and Prandtl tried to obtain. However,
they acted out of misconceptions about the movement of air around the wing of the airplane (Fig.
1). Therefore, even if the force (3) was guessed correctly, it does not give an understanding of
the movement of the airplane in the air, since only horizontal flight is considered here. To
describe the movement of the airplane it is necessary to take into account all the forces acting in
the air (1), obtained from the minimum action.

Knowing the correct equations of motion of the continuous medium (1) it is possible to explain
the horizontal flight of the airplane at high speed and the lift of an airplane wing (2). Therefore,
now it will be possible to simulate airplane using a computer, without having to resort to
expensive and not always possible experiments using wind tunnels and test pilots.

References

1. E. Regis No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air Scientific American (February
2020).
2. A.Y. Braginsky Explanation of cyclones and anticyclones and weather forecast. The
solution of the problems of the Millennium of turbulence. Part I. (May 2020).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341179299
3. J.D. Anderson, Jr Fundamentals of Aerodynamics McGraw-Hill (2011).
4. C.E. Dole, J.E. Lewis, J.R. Badick, B.A. Johnson Flight Theory and Aerodynamics Wiley
(2017).
5. A.Y. Braginsky The vortex motion of the continuous medium, depending on the pressure
change. PTEP 2020 (6), 063J03 (2020).
6. A.Y. Braginsky Plane vortex motion of a continuous medium. Description of air rotation
in cyclones and anticyclones. ZAMP 70, 177 (2019).
7. Landau L.D., Lifshitz E.M. Hydrodynamics, Volume 6. Nauka, Moscow (1988).
8. Шкала Фудзиты https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujita_scale
9. A. Kadić, D.G.B. Edelen, A Gauge Theory of Dislocations and Disclinations. Lecture
Notes in Physics, Heidelberg. Springer 174, 168 (1983).

View publication stats