Are Superfluids Lifting? A Novel Variational Theory of Lift

Cody Gonzalez∗ and Haithem E. Taha† University of California, Irvine

The long-standing controversy about the ability of superfluids to generate lift has persisted mainly because of the lack of a lift theory for superfluids. Here, we revive the historical, yet less-often utilized, Hertz’ principle of least curvature, exploiting it to develop a new variational analogue of Euler’s equations for the dynamics of an ideal fluid. Using this new variational formulation, we generalize the century-old problem of the flow over a two-dimensional body, to find that lift is a direct consequence of curvature, thus reconciling the seemingly contradicting results in the literature of superfluids[1, 2]. The developed variational principle reduces to the classical Kutta-Zhukovsky condition in the special case of a sharp-edged airfoil, which challenges the accepted wisdom about the Kutta condition being a manifestation of viscous effects. Rather, we found that it represents conservation of momentum. Moreover, the developed variational principle provides, for the first time, a theoretical model for lift over smooth shapes without sharp edges where the Kutta condition is not applicable. This theory resolves the classical debate about the ability of a superfluid to generate lift as it provides conditions on the geometry of the body to be lifting in a dissipation-free medium.

I. INTRODUCTION to support this hypothesis. He studied the flow of a su- perfluid Helium II over a flat plate and an ellipse and The classical problem of the flow over a two- found a vanishingly small lift force over these objects at dimensional body (e.g., flat plate, airfoil) is a century- non-zero angles of attack. Hence, he concluded that su- old problem that is ubiquitously found in almost ev- perfluids are non-lifting and that “the classical viscosity ery textbook in aerodynamics and fluid mechanics [3–8]. boundary condition at the trailing edge (the Kutta con- The problem is analytically solvable thanks to three ele- dition) does not apply”. ments. First, the potential-flow around a circular cylin- Note that it is already known that the smaller the vis- der is readily known since the 1877 seminal paper of cosity (i.e., the larger the Reynolds number), the larger Lord Rayleigh [9]. Second, the Riemann mapping the- the lift. So, as viscosity is decreased, lift either increases orem (dating back to Riemann’s PhD Dissertation 1851) or remains constant. That is, the lift value in the limit ensures that any simply connected domain can be (bi- to a vanishingly small viscosity is finite: the Kutta- holomorphically) mapped to the open disc. So, the flow Zhukovsky lift. Therefore, the above question about around any two-dimensional shape can be easily con- the non-lifting nature of superfluids is interesting from a structed from the cylinder flow via conformal mapping physics perspective because if the hypothesis were true, it between the cylinder and the shape of interest. How- would represent one example in Nature where the physics ever, this solution is not unique. One can always add is not continuous in the limit; the limit of lift as viscosity a circulation of arbitrary strength at the center of the approaches zero is different from the lift value at strictly cylinder, which does not affect the no-penetration bound- zero viscosity (i.e., inviscid). ary condition at all. Interestingly, this circulation is In contrast to the above hypothesis, Musser et al. [2] of paramount importance for lift production; in fact, recently performed quantum simulations of the Gross- it solely dictates the amount of lift generated. There- Pitaevskii equation governing the flow dynamics over an fore, the potential-flow theory alone cannot predict the airfoil in a superfluid. Their simulations show a quan- generated lift force; a closure condition must be pro- tized version of the Kutta-Zhukovsky lift despite the lack vided to fix the dynamically-correct amount of circula- of viscosity in their simulations. However, the continuum tion. Third, the Kutta-Zhukovsky condition has tradi- hypothesis may not be applicable in their ultra-small- tionally provided such a closure. scale simulations. arXiv:2104.13904v2 [physics.flu-dyn] 25 Jun 2021 The question of whether a superfluid (of zero viscos- From the above discussion, there seems to be contra- ity/friction) can generate lift when it flows over a nicely diction between Craig’s experiment [1] and the computa- designed body has been lingering for decades. The ac- tions of Musser et al. [2]. The question is: How can one cepted norm asserts that superfluids are non-lifting, and obtain the flow field of a purely inviscid (e.g., a super- the experiment by Craig [1] at Caltech in the 1950s seems fliud) flow over a two-dimensional shape (e.g., flat plate or airfoil)? Ironically, insofar this question seems simple with a well known answer, it is actually not. First of all, why can we not simply perform computational sim- ∗ [email protected] ulations of Euler’s equations of an ideal fluid? In fact, † [email protected] it is well known that 2-D inviscid Euler’s computations 2 achieve a Kutta-Zhukovsky lift without viscosity [10, 11]. field is determined from purely kinematic analysis with- However, Euler’s computations may not be decisive; the out any consideration for dynamical aspects. Therefore, artificial viscosity or numerical dissipation needed for sta- it is fair to expect that such a pure kinematic analysis is ble computations of Euler’s equations may imply that the not sufficient to uniquely determine the flow field; the fix obtained computational results are not for a purely in- must come from a dynamical consideration. viscid fluid, but rather for a viscous flow in the limit of a vanishingly small viscosity (see Hirsch [12], Sec. 19.4). Second, the well known potential-flow solution is not B. Variational Formulation is the Solution complete; it requires an auxiliary condition, which is typi- cally provided by the Kutta condition as discussed above. Based on the above discussion, a proper closure condi- But, the accepted wisdom implies that the Kutta condi- tion (i.e., a condition that provides circulation dynamics) tion is a manifestation of viscous effects; it implicitly ac- in potential flow must come from dynamical considera- counts for viscous effects in a potential-flow framework. tions. The challenge is: Can we project Euler’s dynam- So, if this common belief is accepted, the Kutta condition ical equations on a one-dimensional manifold to extract should not be used as a closure condition when studying the dynamics of circulation alone? Dynamical equations a purely inviscid fluid. The question then is: What are of motion can be determined either from a Newtonian the closure conditions for the flow of a superfluid? Un- mechanics perspective or an analytical mechanics one. fortunately, there are none! The former stipulates isolating fluid particles and writ- In this paper, we develop a new variational theory of ing the equations of motion for each individual parti- lift that generalizes the century-old classical theory of lift cle even if the free variables in the system are signif- by Kutta and Zhukovksy; the new theory dispenses with icantly fewer than the total degrees of freedom of all the Kutta condition. We revive Hertz’ principle of least individual particles due to kinematic or geometric con- curvature from the history of analytical mechanics to de- straints. However, the analytical (Lagrangian or vari- velop, for the first time, a closure condition for the flow ational) mechanics approach allows accepting the kine- of a superfluid over a two-dimensional body. In contrast matical constraints, ignoring the unknown forces that to the Kutta condition, the developed closure condition maintain them, and hence focusing on the relevant equa- is derived from first principles. The new variational con- tions of motion; it provides directly the relevant equa- dition reduces to the Kutta condition in the special case tions of motion for the free variables. of a sharp-edged airfoil, which challenges the accepted Projecting this discussion on the potential-flow case, wisdom about the Kutta condition being a manifestation one finds that the kinematical constraints of potential of viscous effects. Rather, it is found that the Kutta con- flow allows one to construct the entire flow field from the dition is a momentum conservation mechanism for the circulation free variable only. That is, while there are inviscid flow over a sharp-edged airfoil. Morever, the de- infinite degrees of freedom for the infinite fluid particles, veloped theory, unlike the classical theory, allows treat- there is only one free variable (the circulation) which, via ment of smooth shapes not necessarily with sharp trail- the potential-flow kinematical constraints, can be used ing edges. Using this new theory, we resolve the seeming to recover the motion of these infinite degrees of free- contradiction between various results in literature about dom [13]. Hence, the analytical/variational mechanics the lifting capability of superfluids. We provide condi- appears to be specially well-suited for this problem; it tions on the geometry of the body to generate lift in a will provide a single equation for the unknown circula- superfluid. tion without paying attention to the irrelevant degrees of freedom of the fluid particles or the unknown forces that maintain kinematical constraints. Simply, the first vari- II. ILL-POSEDNESS OF POTENTIAL-FLOW ation of the “objective function” with respect to circula- PROBLEMS tion must vanish—and this necessary condition provides a single dynamical equation in the unknown circulation. A. The Potential-Flow Theory Lacks Dynamical Based on the above discussion, two important conclu- Features sions are drawn: (i) A true closure/auxiliary condition for potential flow must come from dynamical considerations; To solve for the flow field of an incompressible and (ii) Variational principles would be particularly use- fluid, both the continuity (kinematics) and momentum ful to derive such dynamics. (dynamics) equations must be solved simultaneously. However, in potential flow, the governing equation is the Laplacian in the velocity potential (∇2φ = 0), III. THEORETICAL MECHANICS APPROACH which is obtained by combining the continuity equa- tion (a divergence-free constraint: ∇ · u = 0) with There have been several variational formulations for an irrotational-flow assumption (a curl-free constraint: Euler’s equations; most of them are based on Hamil- ∇ × u = 0). These are kinematic constraints on the ton’s principle of least action [14, 15]. However, these velocity field u. That is, in potential flow, the velocity principles (due to the nature of Hamilton’s principle) are 3 time-integral variational principles. So, they provide the is minimum. In this case, because kinetic energy is con- dynamics over a period of time; hence, they may not served, it can be shown that the system curvature is mini- be applicable to a steady snapshot of a flow field. In mum [18, pp. 930-932]. That is, a free (unforced) particle fact, the search for a suitable variational formulation of moves along a straight line; and if it is a constrained mo- the airfoil problem is not trivial. For example, minimiz- tion, then it will deviate from a straight line to satisfy ing the kinetic energy over the field yields trivial (zero the constraint, but the deviation from the straight line circulation) at any angle of attack. We found that the path (i.e., curvature) would be minimum. deserted principle of least constraint by Gauss provides a felicitous formulation for the current problem. B. Application to Ideal Fluid Dynamics

A. Background: Gauss’ Principle of Least Recall the Euler equations for incompressible flows Constraint and Hertz’ Principle of Least Curvature ρa = − ∇p, in Ω (4)

Consider the dynamics of N particles, each of mass mi, subject to continuity which are governed by Newton’s equations ∇ · u =0, in Ω (5) miai = Fi + Ri ∀i ∈ {1, .., N}, (1) and the no-penetration boundary condition th where ai is the inertial acceleration of the i particle, and the right hand side represents the total force acting u · n =0, on ∂Ω, (6) on the particle, which is typically decomposed in analyti- where Ω is the spatial domain, ∂Ω is its boundary, n is cal mechanics into: (i) impressed forces Fi, which are the ∂u directly applied (driving) forces (e.g., gravity, elastic, vis- normal to the boundary, and a = ∂t +u·∇u is the total acceleration of the fluid particle. cous); and (ii) constraint forces Ri whose raison d’etre is to maintain/satisfy kinematical/geometrical constraints; Equation (4) presents Newton’s equations of motion they are passive or workless forces [16]. That is, they do for the fluid parcels. For inviscid flows, neglecting grav- not contribute to the motion abiding by the constraint; ity, the only acting force on the fluid parcel is the pressure their sole role is to preserve the constraint (i.e., prevent force ∇p. In order to apply Gauss’ principle, we must any deviation from it). determine whether this force is an impressed force or a Inspired by his method of least squares, Gauss asserted constraint force. Interestingly, for incompressible flows, that the deviation of the actual motion a from the im- it is the latter. The sole role of the pressure force in F incompressible flows is to maintain the continuity con- pressed one m (i.e., in the absence of constraints) is min- imum [17]. That is, the quantity straint: the divergence-free kinematic constraint on the velocity field (∇ · u = 0). It is straightforward to show N  2 that if u satisfies Eqs. (5,6), then [19, pp. 261] X 1 Fi J = m − a (2) 2 i m i Z i=1 i (∇p · u)dx = 0, (7) Ω is minimum [18, pp. 911-912]. Several points are worthy which indicates that pressure forces are workless through of clarification here. First, Gauss principle is equivalent divergence-free velocity fields that are parallel to the sur- to (derivable from) Lagrange’s equations of motion [18, face; i.e., satisfying (6). That is, if a velocity field satisfies pp. 913-925], so we emphasize that it bears the same continuity (i.e., divergence-free) and the no-penetration truth and status of first principles (Newton’s equations). boundary condition (6), the pressure force would not Second, in Gauss’ principle, J is actually minimum, not contribute to the dynamics of such a field. This fact just stationary. Third, unlike the time-integral princi- is the main reason behind vanishing the pressure force ple of least action, Gauss’ principle is applied instanta- in the first step in Chorin’s standard projection method neously (at each point in time). So, it can be applied to for incompressible flows [20]; when the equation of mo- a particular snapshot. tion is projected onto divergence-free fields, the pres- In the case of no impressed forces sure term disappears, which is based on the Helmholz- Hodge decomposition (e.g., [19, 21]): a vector v ∈ 3 m a = R ∀i ∈ {1, .., N}, R i i i can be decomposed into a divergence-free component u Gauss’ principle reduces to the Hertz’ principle of least that is parallel to the surface; i.e., satisfying (6), and a curvature, which states that the Appellian curl-free component ∇f for some scalar function f (i.e., v = u + ∇f). These two components are orthogonal as N shown in Eq. (7). X 1 S = m a2 (3) From the above discussion, it is clear that the pressure 2 i i i=1 force is a constraint force and the dynamics of ideal fluid 4 parcels are subject to no impressed forces. Hence, Gauss’ of an ideal fluid of density ρ with a free stream velocity principle of least constraint reduces to Hertz’ principle of U at an angle of attack α. least curvature in this case. Considering the dynamics of Figure 2(a) shows the variation of the Appellian as an ideal fluid (4), we write the Appellian as given by Eq. (10) and normalized by ρU 4 versus the normalized circulation Γˆ = 180 Γ (i.e., the free pa- Z 1 π 4πUb S = ρa2dx, (8) rameter) at various angles of attack for the flow over a Ω 2 modified Zhukovsky airfoil with a trailing edge radius of which must be minimum. As such, the dynamics of 0.1% chord length (D = 0.05). The figure also shows the ˆ ◦ an ideal fluid can be represented in the Newtonian- Kutta’s circulation ΓK = 4πbU sin α (i.e., ΓK ' α for mechanics formulation by Eqs. (4, 5, 6). We present small angles). Note that Kutta’s solution is not really an equivalent analytical-mechanics (variational) formu- applicable here. The figure shows that at a given angle lation: of attack, the Appellian possesses a unique minimum at a specific value of the circulation—the dynamically-correct 1 Z min S = ρ a2dx (9) circulation according to Hertz’ principle. 2 Ω Figure 2(b) shows contours of the normalized Appel- lian (in logarithmic scale) in the Γ-ˆ D space at α = 5◦. subject to continuity (5) and the no-penetration bound- The figure also shows the locus of the minimizing circu- ary condition (6). lation Γˆ? (i.e., the variation of the normalized Γ? with the parameter D). Interestingly, for sharp-edged airfoil (D = 0), the minimizing circulation Γ? coincides with IV. THEORY OF LIFT FOR SUPERFLUIDS Kutta’s circulation, which implies that the developed minimization principle (11) reduces to the Kutta con- Consider the standard potential flow over an airfoil dition in the special case of a sharp-edged airfoil. Also, (e.g., [3]). The flow field is determined from the conti- the figure shows that the smoother the trailing edge, the nuity (5), the no-penetration boundary condition (6), in smaller the circulation (and lift); the figure presents the addition to the irrotationality assumption (∇ × u = 0). other limiting case of a circular cylinder (D = 1) where However, a free parameter remains: the circulation Γ the classical result of the non-lifting nature of a circular around the airfoil. That is, the velocity field u is given cylinder in an inviscid fluid is recovered. in terms of Γ; i.e., u = u(x; Γ). Considering a steady snapshot (i.e., a = u · ∇u), we write the Appellian from (8) as V. DISCUSSION 1 Z S(Γ) = ρ [u(x; Γ) · ∇u(x; Γ)]2 dx. (10) 2 The last section presents a new theory of lift based on Ω Hertz’ variational principle of least curvature. In partic- And the minimization principle (9), derived from Gauss’ ular, Eq. (11) provides a closure condition for the lift principle of least constraint (equivalently Hertz’ principle force over any shape in a superfluid. It provides a gener- of least curvature in this case), which is equivalent to alization of the Kutta-Zhukovsky condition that is, unlike Euler’s momentum equation (4), yields the circulation the latter, derived from first principles: Gauss’ principle over the airfoil as of least constraint (equivalently Hertz’ principle of least curvature). This principle allows, for the first time, com- 1 Z Γ? = argmin ρ [u(x; Γ) · ∇u(x; Γ)]2 dx. (11) putation of lift over smooth shapes without sharp edges 2 Ω where the Kutta condition fails, which confirms that a The strength of the developed theory, in contrast to the sharp trailing edge is not a necessary condition for lift classical one, is that the former is not confined to sharp- generation [22, 23]. That is, The new variational the- edged airfoils. Consider a circular cylinder of radius b ory, unlike the classical one, is capable of capturing the in the ζ-domain that is mapped to a modified Zhukovsky whole spectrum between the two extremes: from zero lift airfoil of chord length c in the z-domain through the map- over a circular cylinder to the Kutta-Zhukovsky lift over ping an airfoil with a sharp trailing edge, as shown in Fig. 2(b). This behavior provides credibility to the developed 1 − D δ2 theory. z = ζ + , 1 + D ζ The fact that the minimization principle (11) reduces to the Kutta condition in the special case of a sharp- where δ is a constant that depends on the airfoil geometry edged airfoil, wedded to the fact that this principle is (maximum thickness and camber) as well as the param- an inviscid principle (equivalent to Euler’s momentum eter D, which controls smoothness of the trailing edge: equation), imply that the classical Kutta-Zhukovky lift D = 0 results in the classical Zhukovsky airfoil with a over an airfoil with a sharp edge is both computed and sharp trailing edge, and D = 1 results in a circular cylin- explained from inviscid considerations; the Kutta con- der, as shown in Fig. 1. The airfoil is subject to a stream dition is not a manifestation of viscous effects, rather a 5

FIG. 1. Effect of the shape control parameter D on the body shape.

2

1

2 3 2 5 4 6 3 8 7 10 9 4

(a) Variation of Sˆ with Γˆ for D = 0.05 (b) Contours of log Sˆ for α = 5◦.

ˆ S ˆ 180 Γ FIG. 2. Variation of the normalized Appellian S = ρU4 with the normalized circulation Γ = π 4πUb for a modified Zhukovsky airfoil with a smooth trailing edge (radius is 0.1% chord length) at various angles of attack along with contours of Sˆ in the Γ-ˆ D space for α = 5◦. momentum conservation mechanism. That is, the circu- over an airfoil with a sharp trailing edge; and a smaller lation (and lift) is the one that satisfies momentum con- but non-zero lift over a smooth airfoil (or asymmetric servation (equivalently, it is the one that minimizes the shape), which confirms Musser et al. computational sim- Appellian in the language of Hertz). This result explains ulations [2]. Therefore, it is concluded that a purely sym- the several inviscid computations that converged to the metric shape in a superfluid is non-lifting; however, any Kutta-Zhukovky lift without viscosity [2, 10, 11, 24]. asymmetry would grant some lifting capability. It remains to discuss the seeming contradiction be- The fact that purely symmetric shapes are non-lifting tween Craig’s experimental result [1] where he observed in an ideal (non-dissipative) fluid is physically plausible, no lift from a superfluid and the recent quantum compu- as shown in Fig. 3(a) presenting the flow of a super- tations by Musser et al. [2] where they reported a Kutta- fluid over a flat plate as predicted by the current theory. Zhukovsky lift. The former deceitfully implies that super- These flows must be reversible to conserve entropy in the fluids are non-lifting and the Kutta condition is a viscous dissipation-free environment. Therefore, for reversibility condition (i.e., the physics is discontinuous in the limit), and because of symmetry, one should not be able to tell while the latter shows the ability of a superfluid to gener- whether the flow field, shown in Fig. 3(a), is for a free ate the Kutta-Zhukovsky lift similar to a viscous flow of a stream coming from the left at a positive α or from the vanishingly small viscosity (i.e., the physics is continuous right at a negative α. in the limit). In the light of the developed theory, we find For these symmetric shapes, viscosity is important to no contradiction between the two results. In fact, Craig enable the weak lift over these bodies: the slight change conducted his experiment on symmetric shapes (a flat of the effective body shape due to boundary layer de- plate and an ellipse) for which the current theory pre- stroys symmetry; the outer inviscid flow over the modi- dicts no lift, which confirms his experimental findings. fied asymmetric body is now lifting. The flat plate repre- Also, the current theory predicts Kutta-Zhukovsky lift sents an extreme case in this regard: the effect of viscosity 6

clearly seen on the top of the flat plate in the immediate vicinity of the leading edge. The outer inviscid flow field outside the separation bubble (i.e., over the modified flat plate: a flat plate with a naturally rounded nose) is lift- ing; the minimization principle (11), which is equivalent to the Kutta condition in this case of a sharp-trailing edge, results in a circulation Γ? that is close to Kutta’s.

The developed theory is expected to deepen our under- standing of the physical mechanism underlying one of the most fundamental concepts in aerodynamics: lift gener- ation over an airfoil. It provides an important step to- wards answering Chang’s question in his 2003 New York FIG. 3. Flow velocity, u/U∞, of a superfluid (using the cur- rent theory) and a real fluid (using Detached Eddy Simula- Times article: What Does Keep Them Up There? [26]: tions) over a flat plate at α = 2◦. ”To those who fear flying, it is probably disconcerting that physicists and aeronautical engineers still passion- is significant due to the singular nature of the correspond- ately debate the fundamental issue underlying this en- ing ideal flow field. Viscosity leads to separation at the deavour: what keeps planes in the air?”. The current leading edge even at small angles of attack, as shown in theory (as well as Musser et al. quantum simulations Fig. 3(b), which presents our Detached Eddy Simulation [2]) invoke an experimental study of the flow of a super- (DES) of the flow over a flat plate at a Reynolds number fluid (Helium II) over an airfoil. Until then, we tend to of 500,000 and α = 2◦ (also see Van Dyke’s Album of agree with their closing statement: “The time is right for Fluid Motion [25]). A leading-edge separation bubble is superfluid flight”.

[1] P. P. Craig, Observations of perfect potential flow and fluid and the associated variational problems, Proc. R. critical velocities in superfluid helium II, Ph.D. thesis, Soc. Lond. A 125, 598 (1929). California Institute of Technology (1959). [15] R. Salmon, Hamiltonian fluid mechanics, Annual review [2] S. Musser, D. Proment, M. Onorato, and W. T. M. Irvine, of fluid mechanics 20, 225 (1988). Starting flow past an airfoil and its acquired lift in a [16] C. Lanczos, The variational principles of mechanics superfluid, Physical review letters 123, 154502 (2019). (Courier Corporation, 1970). [3] H. Schlichting and E. Truckenbrodt, Aerodynamics of the [17] C. F. Gauss, Uber¨ ein neues allgemeines grundgesetz der Airplane (McGraw-Hill, 1979). mechanik., Journal f¨urdie reine und angewandte Math- [4] K. Karamcheti, Principles of Ideal-Fluid Aerodynamics ematik 1829, 232 (1829). (John Wiley & Sons, 1966). [18] J. Papastavridis, Analytical mechanics: a comprehensive [5] L. M. Milne-Thomson, Theoretical hydrodynamics treatise on the dynamics of constrained systems – Reprint (Courier Corporation, 1996). edition. (Word Scientific Publishing Company, 2014). [6] H. Lamb, Hydrodynamics (Cambridge university press, [19] T. Kambe, Geometrical theory of dynamical systems and 1932). fluid flows, Vol. 23 (World Scientific Publishing Co Inc, [7] G. K. Batchelor, An introduction to fluid dynamics 2009). (Cambridge university press, 2000). [20] A. J. Chorin, Numerical solution of the navier-stokes [8] A. Robinson and J. A. Laurmann, Wing theory (Cam- equations, Mathematics of computation 22, 745 (1968). bridge University Press, 1956). [21] J.-Z. Wu, H.-Y. Ma, and M.-D. Zhou, Vorticity and vor- [9] L. Rayleigh, On the irregular flight of a tennis ball, Mes- tex dynamics (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007). senger of Mathematics 7, 14 (1877). [22] J. Stack and W. F. Lindsey, Tests of N-85, N-86 and N- [10] A. Rizzi, Damped euler-equation method to compute 87 airfoil sections in the 11-inch high speed wind tunnel, transonic flow around wing-body combinations, AIAA Tech. Rep. 665 (NACA, 1938). Journal 20, 1321 (1982). [23] L. J. Herrig, J. C. Emery, and J. R. Erwin, Effect of [11] H. Yoshihara, H. Norstrud, J. W. Boerstoel, G. Chioc- section thickness and trailing-edge radius on the perfor- chia, and D. J. Jones, Test Cases for Inviscid Flow Field mance of NACA 65-series compressor blades in cascade Methods., Tech. Rep. AR-211 (AGARD, 1985). at low speeds, Tech. Rep. (NACA, 1956). [12] C. Hirsch, Numerical computation of internal and exter- [24] J. Hoffman, J. Jansson, and C. Johnson, New theory of nal flows: computational methods for inviscid and viscous flight, Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics 18, 219 flows, Vol. 2 (Wiley, 1997). (2016). [13] M. S. Hemati, J. D. Eldredge, and J. L. Speyer, Improv- [25] M. Van Dyke, An Album of Fluid Motion (Parabolic ing vortex models via optimal control theory, Journal of Press, 1982). Fluids and Structures 49, 91 (2014). [26] K. Chang, Staying aloft; what does keep them up there?, [14] H. Bateman, Notes on a differential equation which oc- New York Times (2003). curs in the two-dimensional motion of a compressible