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

net/publication/355979250

Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

Preprint · November 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 1,234

1 author:

Nicholas Landell-Mills
Indigo
42 PUBLICATIONS   32 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Skydivers achieve buoyancy at terminal velocity. View project

Sports explained by Newtonian physics (Force = ma). View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Landell-Mills on 10 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

A thought experiment. How is drag minimized?

Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills

5 July 2022
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22342.80960;
CC License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Keywords: Aerodynamics; Celera 500L; Newton; physics.


Fig. 1a. Celera 500L

Abstract
Newtonian mechanics (Force = ma) is used to assess claims made by the aircraft manufacturer Otto Aviation that their new
prototype Celera 500L airplane is about seven times more fuel-efficient than a comparable business jet. See Fig. 1a. This is
an extraordinary claim based on the novel aerodynamic design, which supposedly provides substantially reduced drag due to
laminar airflows. These claims have not been independently verified or replicated, so should be treated with extreme
scepticism. Some critics view the claims as being implausible based on conventional analysis using fluid mechanics.

Nonetheless, the Celera 500L provides an opportunity to review aerodynamics and

how forces (lift and drag) acting on an airplane are assessed using Newtonian
mechanics, as a case study. This is a thought experiment.

The Newtonian approach contrasts conventional analysis (i.e. fluid mechanics) and
draws similarities between the Celera 500L design and fish shapes. The efficiency
gains claimed by the Celera 500L are at least partly possible if they replicate how a
swordfish can swim at 100 km/hr, out pacing the fastest land animal, a cheetah at
90 km/hr. The swordfish’s high-speed achievements provide an intriguing aspect of
physics that remains unexplained. See Fig. 1b. Fig. 1b. Swordfish vs. Cheetah.

1. INTRODUCTION - Fin-like vertical stabilizer in the tail-plane (i.e. vertical

fin). This part is sometimes referred to a ventral fin in
aviation. But this terminology can be misleading as it is
located at the rear of the fuselage. A fish’s ventral fin is
located near the mid-section of the fish.
A. Celera 500L.
The increased efficiency is reflected in the significantly lower
In 2021, a start-up aircraft manufacturer, Otto Aviation, fuel consumption in cruise flight, as compared to similar sized
introduced a prototype small business airplane capable of business jets at similar airspeeds.
carrying 6 passengers. They claimed the aircraft was extremely
efficient due to its novel design, which includes: See Fig. 1c.
- An egg-shaped fuselage (sorry, prolate spheroid shape),
with a low AOA for the cockpit.
- Thing, low-aspect ratio wings with winglets, located to
the rear of the fuselage (to the rear of the mid-section of
the fuselage). The thin wings are not used to stored fuel,
which is located in the fuselage.
- Curved (elliptical) shaped horizontal stabilizer in the Fig. 1c. Celera 500L new design features.
tail-plane.

1
 Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

B. Celera 500L performance data claimed.

2. BACKGROUND

A. Newton: Lift = m/dt * dv.

The physics of lift is disputed. There is no scientific

experiment on a real aircraft in realistic conditions that proves
any theory or equation for lift to be true. See Appendix I.
According to Newtonian mechanics wings with a positive
angle of attack (AOA) pass through a mass of static air each
second (m/dt), which they accelerate to a velocity (dv)
downwards, to create a downward force (Force DOWN = ma =
m/dt * dv). The reaction generates an equal and opposite
upward force, of which lift is the vertical component (i.e. Lift =
m/dt * dv). Simply put, the wings push air down, causing the
airplane to be pushed up. See Fig. 2a-i. See Appendix II.
Fig. 2a-i. Newtonian forces acting on an airplane – 3D view.
In terms of airflows, the underside of the wing pushes the air
down. Whereas a vacuum of low air pressure on the topside of
the wing pulls air down, helped by the Coanda effect. See Fig.
2a-ii. See Appendix III.
Fig. 2b-i. Celera 500L airplane. [2]
Otto Aviation claims the Celera 500L has a: [2][4]
See Fig. 2b.-ii
- Glide ratio of 22:1; which is higher than a comparable
small business jet, such as a Lear 25 at 16:1.
This glide ratio is almost 3x greater than small, propeller
aircraft such as a Cessna 172 at about 8:1. It is also
better than commercial airliners’ typical 17:1 glide ratio.
- Fuel consumption of about 12 Liters/100 km; which is
about seven times better than a similar sized business
jets. In other words, the Celera consumes about 85% less
fuel per 100 km flight than a comparable small business
jet. This is a staggering difference.
This is an extraordinary improvement in fuel efficiency.
The Celera 500L provide the fuel efficiency of a large
(SUV or saloon) car.
- Cruise airspeed of about 740 km/hr and range of about
7,200 km, which are comparable to similar sized
business jets.
- Overall the Celera 500L is claimed to have 16% the
hourly operating cost of a comparable business jet.

Fig. 2a-ii. 2D diagram of upper wing airflows.

Newtonian mechanics favors an absolute wing airflow Fig. 2b-ii. Celera 500L performance data.
diagram, which is very different to the relative airflow diagrams
used by fluid mechanics to assess lift. See Fig. 2a-iii. While the engine may provide some limited efficiency
improvements, the main source of gains is the aircraft design.

A lack of available data makes detailed analysis difficult and

there is no independent verification of the data provided by the
aircraft manufacturer. Therefore some skepticism is warranted.
The Celera 500L is probably not as revolutionary as it claims to
be, as the significant efficiency claims may be partly motivated
by marketing and a desire to gain attention.

The claimed efficiency gains are reviewed below according to

conventional analysis (i.e. Fluid mechanics) and then Newtonian
mechanics.

Fig 2a-iii Relative and absolute wing airflow diagrams.

2
 Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

3. NEWTON VS. CONVENTIONAL ANALYSIS The combined effect is to quadruple the parasitic drag force;
and thus quadruple drag generated: See Fig. 3a-iii.

4x Force (Drag) = 2m/dt DRAG * 2dv DRAG

A. Total Drag.

The wing pushes the air out of its path as it passes forwards
through the air. Total drag is the sum of parasitic drag and
induced drag: See Fig. 3a-i.

Drag TOTAL = Drag PARASITIC + Drag INDUCED

Fig. 3a-iii. If aircraft velocity x2; then drag x4.

(2) Induced drag arises primarily because the wing pushes

the air slightly forwards as part of the lift generation process.
See Fig. 3a-iv.

According to Newtonian mechanics, induced drag depends

Fig. 3a-i. Parasitic and induced drag..
An aircraft transitions from slow flight (high total drag), to
cruise (low total drag), to high-speed flight (high total drag).
The two types of drag are described:
(1) Parasitic drag arises primarily from the aircraft
physically pushing the air out of its path, which can include drag
due to surface friction. Parasitic drag increases exponentially
with airspeed (aircraft velocity), and is described by the standard
equation for drag: See Fig. 3a-ii.
primarily on the wing AOA and tends to decrease exponentially
with airspeed. As airspeed increases, a lower wing AOA is
needed to generate sufficient lift for the aircraft to fly.
Downwash is accelerated downwards at a steeper angle and less
aggressively, In turn this action also reduces the induced drag
produced by the wing.
i.e. Lift and induced drag is proportional to downwash
velocity2; which usually arises from a decreasing wing AOA as
the airplane velocity increases.

Drag = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density

* Surface Area * Coefficient of Drag)

Fig. 3a-iv. Key forces acting on an airplane.

The amount of induced drag depends on the angle that the

Fig. 3a-ii. A Newtonian explanation of drag.
The kinetic energy required to overcome parasitic drag tends
to increase exponentially with airspeed. (i.e. Parasitic drag =
aircraft velocity2).
wings push air downwards (i.e. The angle for ‘dv’.) For the
example of an aircraft that transitions from slow flight to high-
speed flight. As airspeed increases with engine power, the
aircraft reduces its wing AOA to maintain altitude and lift (Lift
= m/dt * dv). A reduced wing AOA increases the angles that the
downwash is pushed down by the wings, to be more vertical. In
turn, this reduces the amount of induced drag generated. See
Fig. 3a-iv.

Conventional analysis fails to explain why parasitic drag is

proportional to aircraft velocity squared. i.e. It fails to explain
why drag quadruples if aircraft velocity doubles.

Newtonian mechanics based on the mass flow rate (Force =

ma = m/dt * dv) can explain this relationship between parasitic
drag and aircraft velocity. An aircraft travelling twice as fast:
- Flies through twice the mass of air each second (2x m/dt
DRAG),, which it pushes out of it’s path.
Fig. 3a-iv. The angle downwash changes with wing AOA.
- Accelerates this air flown through to twice the velocity
as before (2x dv DRAG), as aircraft momentum has also The explanation of induced drag based on Newtonian
doubled. mechanics described above is new.

3
 Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

D. Problems with the conventional analysis.

B. Significance of total drag.
Understanding total drag is significant because it can explain
the Celera 500L’s performance and it is used to calculate the
Lift / Drag ratio.
Conventional analysis described above provides an
incomplete and unsatisfactory explanation for the dramatic
efficiency gains claimed. Therefore, either the efficiency claims
or the conventional analysis above is wrong.

The Lift / Drag (L/D) ratio is used in aerodynamics as an
indication of the aerodynamic efficiency of the wing. A wing
that produces a high L/D ratio provides a large amount of lift or
a small amount of (parasitic and induced) drag. For example this
typically occurs at high airspeed and low wing AOA. See Fig.
3b.
In addition, the conventional analysis above and that of Otto
Aviation relies on the view that laminar airflow provides
significant benefits to lift in itself. However, laminar airflow is a
condition for efficient lift generation and forward motion. Lift is
only possible if sufficient laminar airflow is present. No
explanation how laminar airflow itself creates a force is
provided.

For example, the prevailing view is that lift and the

aerodynamics of flight are explained by either Navier Stokes
equations [1] or the standard equation for lift:

Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density

* Wing Area * Lift Coefficient) [1]

But these equations for lift do not include any direct

Fig. 3b. Standard forces acting on an airplane.
adjustment for the degree of laminar airflow that is present.
Even the lift coefficient does not provide a clear and measurable
assessment for laminar airflow.
C. Performance data reviewed.

The explanation for the highly efficient flight according to

Otto Aviation was low drag and high aerodynamic efficiency,
which maintains laminar airflow. In turn this is due to the
aircraft’s unique egg-shape, low aspect ratio wings (low induced
drag), and efficient engine located at the rear. See Fig. 3c.

Fig. 3c. Laminar airflow on the Celera 500L [4]

There are only a few professional reviews of the Celera 500L

This space is intentionally left blank.
and the efficiency claims made by Otto Aviation.

The critics that did review the aircraft and claims, are
skeptical that the claimed drag reduction was due to laminar
airflow, or if it was achievable as claimed. [4] In addition,
laminar flow may not be achievable as it is tends to be complex
and difficult to maintain in practice (fickle).

4

4. NEWTONIAN MECHANICS
A. Performance data reviewed.
The Newtonian explanation for lift based on the mass flow
rate (Lift = ma = m/dt * dv) is provided in Appendix II. The
absolute wing airflow diagrams are described in Appendix III.
As compared to conventional analysis above, Newtonian
mechanics provides a very different assessment for the increased
efficiency claimed by the Celera 500L, which includes:
1) The thin wings indicate that the mass of air flown through
each second by the wings is low (low (m/dt).
In turn, this implies that the fuselage contributes towards the
total ‘m/dt’ to meet the lift requirements to fly.
2) Low aspect ratio wings means that the aircraft should be
efficient at generating lift.
Like a glider, to generate lift (Lift = m/dt * dv), it relies on a
relatively long wingspan to catch a lot of air (high m/dt),
which it accelerates downwards to a relatively low velocity
(low dv), which is energy efficient (K.E. = 0.5 mv2).
3) The propeller located at the rear probably helps maintain
laminar airflow over the rear section of the fuselage, by
pulling air backwards. This prevents turbulence or airflow
separation on the fuselage.
4) The key advantage is the egg-shaped fuselage, which
participates in generating lift, rather than acting as a source
of drag. See Fig. 4a-i.
Fig. 4a-i. Drag on a Celera 500L and business jet.
A typical airplane (business jet) physically pushes the air in
its path out of the way, creating significant drag. In
particular, the cockpit provides only a slightly slanted (i.e.
relatively high AOA) to the direction of travel. The flat
underside of the jet’s fuselage contributes little to lift.
Whereas, the Celera 500L has a more aerodynamic design.
The nose initially accelerates the air at an oblique (i.e.
almost vertical) angle away from the fuselage, at a low
velocity.
In particular, the cockpit provides a low AOA to the
direction of travel, and therefore low drag, as compared to a
conventional business jet.
The lift generation mechanics is different for the airflows on
the underside and topside of the fuselage:
5
Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.
- The air pushed downwards by the underside nose of the
fuselage contributes towards lift, given the AOA to the
direction of travel. This is similar to how the underside
of a wing generates lift. This force creates high pressure
under the fuselage (i.e. Pressure = Force/Area).
- The air pushed upwards by the nose of the fuselage is
akin to the upwash from the topside of a wing.
- Similar to how the topside of a wing pulls air
downwards as it moves forwards, the rear section of the
fuselage accelerates the upper air mass downwards. This
action creates downwash, which contributes to lift.
More precisely, the fuselage’s forward motion creates
low air pressure (a vacuum) on the topside of the back
section of the fuselage. This pulls (sucks) the upper air
mass downwards. This process is enhanced by the
Coanda effect (due to the curved shape of the rear
fuselage) and by the propeller pulling air backwards.
See Fig. 14a-ii.
Fig. 4a-ii. Downwash on the topside of a Celera 500L.
Conversely, the underside of the rear section of the
fuselage provides a small amount of negative lift by
pulling air upwards. However, this is relatively limited if
the aircraft has a positive AOA. In this situation, the
aircraft has little upward curvature on the underside of
the rear section of the fuselage. See Fig. 10g-iii.
In turn, if the fuselage contributes towards lift, which would
be mostly generated in the rear section of the fuselage. Then
this would explain the rear location of the wings, behind the
mid-section of the fuselage. It is assumed that the horizontal
stabilizer in the tail section provides negative lift, similar to
conventional aircraft. See Fig. 4a-iii.
Fig. 4a-iii. Celera 500L weight and lift distribution.
Overall, this means that instead of generating drag, the
fuselage functions like an extension of the wing and boosts
lift (Lift = m/dt * dv): See Fig. 4a-iv.
- The fuselage passes through and accelerates downwards
a significant mass of air each second (high m/dt), as
compared to the wings.
- However, the rounded shape of the fuselage facing the
direction of travel means that this air flown through
(m/dt) is like to be accelerated downwards to a modest
velocity (low dv), as compared to the wings.

Fig. 4a-iv. Lift generated by the fuselage.
Therefore, the fuselage provides a net positive contribution
to flight, rather than a net negative contribution to flight like
other aircraft.
This logic implies that the efficiency of fuselage could be
improved further by changing the design to be more like the
cross section of a wing at the trailing edge.
5) The Celera 500L would still generate some lateral
aerodynamic drag from the fuselage, as the nose of the
fuselage pushes the static air flown through sideways, away
from the aircraft. However, this drag may be partially
negated if the rear section of the fuselage pulls the air back
towards its original position. In this way, the fuselage
temporarily dislocates the air it flies through.
6) Lift could be boosted by the Celera 500L’s rear vertical fin
directing some of the air flown through downwards. The
vertical fin may have a much greater effect than currently
understood.
Lift distribution across the wing
The difference in lift distribution and the composition of
‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ are illustrated in Fig. 4a-v.
Fig. 4a-v. 2D lift distribution of a Celera 500L
vs. business jet.
This illustration highlights how the Celera 5000 generates lift
from its fuselage, whereas the business jet does not.
6
Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.
B. Like a fish?
Several features of the Celera 500L are similar to a fish.
Suggesting that the efficiency benefits of its design are close to
those of a fish than a bird.
This comparison to fish is worth considering seriously, as a
swordfish (the fastest fish) can swim at about 100 km/hr through
water, which is faster than a cheetah (the fastest land animal)
can run on land at about 90 km/hr. A tuna fish can swim at a
respectable 80 km/hr. The physics for this phenomenon has not
been adequately explained. See Fig. 4b-i.
Fig. 4b-i. Maximum sprint speeds of fish and a cheetah.
The swordfish’s higher speed, as compared to a cheetah, is
the reverse of what is expected given the following facts:
- Water is about 830x denser than air. Therefore, logically
water should be about 830x harder to push out of the
way per unit surface area facing the direction of travel,
as compared to air. This assertion is based on the
standard equation for drag:
Drag = 0.5 (Velocity2 * Fluid Density
* Surface Area * Drag Coefficient) [1]
Therefore, theoretically the swordfish should experience
830x greater drag swimming, as compared locomotion
through the air.
It can be argued that the swordfish has a lower drag
coefficient than a cheetah due to its slippery skin (scales)
and more streamlined body shape. However, it is
impossible for the swordfish’s drag coefficient to be
about 830x less than a cheetah’s; based on known
differences in drag coefficients for other objects.
- It is the reverse of what humans have achieved with
technology. Airplanes can travel faster than the speed of
sound, which is approx. 1,240 km/hr (330 m/s).
However, most submarines do not exceed much lower
speeds of 60 km/hr underwater, which is about 40% less
than a swordfish’s top speed.
The Celera 500L certainly looks somewhat similar to a tuna
fish from the side. The similarities between the Celera 500L
design and fish include:
- The prolate spheroid shaped fuselage is similar to those
of fish; as well as airships and rugby balls.
- The design includes a unique vertical swept tail (vertical
fin) that looks suspiciously similar to the caudal fin (tail)
of high-speed fish such as tuna and swordfish. See Fig.
4b-ii
 Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

According to Newtonian mechanics and the analysis

Fig. 4b-ii. Celera 500L and tuna fish. [2][3]
- In fact, the vertical fin most closely resembles a shark’s
caudal fin. This is curious because a shark, like the
Celera 500L, has negative buoyancy. A shark sinks to
the bottom of the ocean if it does not keep swimming to
push itself upward. See Fig. 4b-iii.
provided, it is possible for the Celera 500L to achieve significant
efficiency gains as compared to similar business jets. This view
is based the fuselage being turned from a major source of drag to
a source of lift, assisted by the fish-like vertical fin and propeller
at the rear. However, a lack of data makes it impossible to
verify the claims made by Otto Aviation.

6. CONCLUSIONS
Fig. 4b-iii. Celera 500L and shark fins compared.

This comparison is emphasized as the Celera 500L has This case study of a Celera 500L aircraft provides an example
its propeller at the rear, directly behind the tail-plane. for how Newtonian mechanics can provide insight into the
This position is similar to how a fish’s caudal fin physics of drag and lift, which is not available from
provides most of the power for forward movement. conventional analysis (i.e. fluid mechanics). Experimentation
However, there are limitations to such a comparison as and testing could establish if the Newtonian approach was valid.
the Celera 500L vertical fin is fixed, and a fish’s caudal The Celera 500L may be another example of biomimicry,
fin moves from side-to-side. Also, Otto Aviation claims whether intended or not.
that the lower part of the Celera 500L’s vertical fin is to
prevent a propeller striking the ground, not for any
aerodynamic benefit.
A lack of reliable data available makes it impossible to
verify the comparison between the Celera 500L and fish.
However biomimicry is a well established tool used to
improve the efficiency of motion through fluids.

The argument against the Celera 500L replicating the

swordfish’s high-speed and efficient locomotion, includes:
- Submarines have a similar shape and design to the
Celera 500L , but are not particular fast nor efficient.
- Otto Aviation has made no claim to replicate a
swordfish’s hydrodynamics in the air in the Celera 500L.

7

7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Author: Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills, independent researcher.
Corresponding email: nicklandell66@gmail.com
Funding: This paper was self-funded by the author.
Request for financial support: If you found this research to
be useful, entertaining or worthy. Then kindly thank, support
and encourage the author with a financial donation via the email
above on www.PayPal.com or using the direct PayPal link:
https://paypal.me/landell66?country.x=FR&locale.x=en_US
This paper could not have been produced through the
established academic and scientific system. Thank you.
Background: The author is British, currently living in
France, and was born in 1966 in Botswana. He worked in
finance for 25 years in numerous countries. During this period
he qualified as an accountant (ACA) in England & Wales, as
well as a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA).
The author held a private pilot’s license (PPL) for 20 years.
He flew and maintained a small, single-engine, home-built
airplane (Europa XS monowheel, registration: G-OSJN). Since
2014 he has worked full time on applied physics projects, which
include the theory of lift and flight.
Academic background: The author is a graduate of The
University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. He was awarded a
M.A. degree class 2:1 in economics and economic history.
Affiliations: None.
Author Contributions: This paper is entirely the work of
the author, Mr. Nicholas Landell-Mills.
Disclaimer: The author confirms and states that all data in
the manuscript are authentic, there are no conflicts of interest,
and all sources of data used in the paper are acknowledged
where possible.
Acknowledgments: None.
ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4814-0443
8
Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.
8. REFERENCES
[1] NASA, Glenn Research Centre. www.grc.nasa.gov
[2] Otto Aviation. www.ottoaviation.com
[3] Image source: Encyclopedia Britannica; web ink:
www.britannica.com .
[4] B. Read; Going with the flow; 19 March 2021, Royal Aeronautical
Society magazine, UK;
[5] Removed
Unpublished papers by the author:
[6] N Landell-Mills (2019), How airplanes generate lift is disputed.
Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34380.36487.
[7] N Landell-Mills (2019), Newton explains lift; Buoyancy explains
flight. Pre-Print DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16863.82084.
[8] Removed.
Appendix:
[9] R Matthews (Jan 1, 2012), The secret to airplane flight. No one
really knows. The National newspaper, UAE.
[10] R. Allain, There's No One Way to Explain How Flying Works;
Wired Magazine, 22 Feb 2018,
[11] CW McAvoy (2002); Analytical and Experimental Approaches to
Airfoil-Aircraft Design Integration; NC State Universities, thesis,
Aerospace Engineering,
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/7
[12] K Leoviriyakit and A Jameson, Challenges and Complexity of
Aerodynamic Wing Design, Chapter 1, page 2, Dept Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Stanford University, International Conference
on Complex Systems (ICCS2004), Boston, May 16-21, 2004. See:
http://aero-comlab.stanford.edu/publications.html
[13] M Van tooren, J.P.T.J. Berends (2008); Feasilization of a structural
wing design problem; DOI: 10.2514/6.2008-2263;
[14] A. Jameson and L. Martinelli (1997); Optimum Aerodynamic
Design Using the Navier–Stokes Equations; Theoretical and
Computational Fluid Dynamics; (1998) 10: 213–237.
[15] W. Thielicke, (2014). The flapping flight of birds: Analysis and
application. University of Groningen, Department of Ocean
Ecosystems, PhD Thesis.
[16] D.D. Chin, D.Lentink; Flapping wing aerodynamics: from insects
to vertebrates; Journal of Experimental Biology 2016 219: 920-
932; doi: 10.1242/jeb.042317.
[17] K. Chang (Dec 9, 2003), Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up
There? New York Times. See: www.nytimes.com
[18] R Matthews (Jan 1, 2012), The secret to airplane flight. No one
really knows. The National newspaper, UAE.
[19] RR Britt (August 28, 2006), How Do Airplanes Fly? in Live
Science.: https://www.livescience.com/7109-planes-fly.html
[20] R. Allain, There's No One Way to Explain How Flying Works;
Wired Magazine, 22 Feb 2018,
[21] E Regis, No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air. 1 Feb
2020, Scientific American Magazine.
[22] J Hoffren (2012), Quest for an Improved Explanation of Lift,
AIAA Journal, Helsinki University of Technology,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-872
[23] NF Smith (1972); Bernoulli and Newton in Fluid Mechanics, the
Physics Teacher Journal, (AAPT), volume 10; Published online in
2006 at: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2352317 .
[24] Image of Davis Wing licensed from Critical Past;
www.criticalpast.com .
[25] Images of wing in a wind tunnel licensed from Critical Past;
www.criticalpast.com .
[26] Source: youtube: Phoenix FD 3.0 - Wind Tunnel; Nov 2016;
https://youtu.be/IOLaoHbuVGY
[27] Top Gun: Maverick | NEW Official Trailer (2022 Movie) - Tom
Cruise; Mar 29, 2022; YouTube channel: Paramount Pictures;
https://youtu.be/giXco2jaZ_4 .
[28] Removed.

APPENDIX I – UNRESOLVED THEORY OF LIFT
A. The theory of lift remains unresolved. [6]
The physics of lift is disputed. There is
no scientific experiment on a real aircraft
in realistic conditions that proves any
theory or equation for lift to be true.
Fig. I-a. Unknown.
Experts still cannot agree whether aircraft generate lift by
being pulled upwards according to fluid mechanics, or pushed
upwards according to Newtonian mechanics; nor exactly what
role vortices play. This is surprising given airplanes have been
flying for over a hundred years.
Academics, engineers, aircraft manufacturers, pilots, aviation
authorities, and other pundits (e.g. NASA) promote over twelve
diverse theories of lift. New theories are occasionally proposed.
Worse, there is no accepted universal theory of how lift is
generated that applies to all objects that fly. Airplanes,
helicopters, birds and insects each have their own unique
explanations. Different theories are used to explain lift in
different insects. This aspect is highly inconsistent.
B. Media and academic commentary.
The media occasionally comment on the ongoing debate
about the mysterious, unproven and unknown causes of lift:
− “Staying Aloft; What Does Keep Them Up There?” in
New York Times, 2003. [17]
− “How Do Airplanes Fly?” in Live Science, 2006. [19]
− “The secret to airplane flight. No one really knows.”
in the National Newspaper, 2012. [9]
− “There's No One Way to Explain How Flying Works,”
in Wired Magazine, 2018. [10]
− “No One Can Explain Why Planes Stay in the Air.” in
the Scientific American magazine, 2020. [21]
Academic journals occasionally address this issue as well:
− “Quest for an Improved Explanation of Lift,” in the
AIAA journal, 2012. [22];
The physics on how birds fly is also debated:
− “….to date, flapping flight is not fully understood.”
[15]
− “….there are still myriad open questions about how
animals fly with flapping wings,” [16]
9
Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.
C. Academics, engineers, pilots, pundits, …..
Various groups promote at least twelve radically different
theories of flight, which include:
- Academics and engineers prefer complex models based
on fluid mechanics (e.g. Bernoulli, Navier-Stokes, Euler,
….). They frequently confuse mathematical proof, wind
tunnel experiments or computer simulations (e.g. CFD) for
scientific evidence.
- Aircraft manufacturers and designers (e.g. Burt
Rutand) design wings by intuition, trial and error, rather
than by any particular theory or equation for lift.
[11][12][13][14] This aspect is evident from the long list
of failed wing designs as well as the unresolved debate on
how wing design affects lift performance.
Similarly, micro unmanned vehicles (drones) are simply
built to mimic bird and insect flight, without the
designers fully understanding the physics involved.
- Pilots prefer Newtonian based theories of lift. Simply
put, wings push air downwards and the reactive equal and
opposite force pushes the airplane upwards. Momentum is
transferred from the airplane to the air.
- NASA sits on the fence in this debate, and supports both
explanations of lift. “So both Bernoulli and Newton are
correct.” [1] NASA fails to state what proportion of lift
is explained by Bernoulli and Newton; 50/50? Or 70/30?
However, both Newtonian and fluid mechanics cannot be
true as they provide very different and incompatible
explanations of lift. How can NASA not know which
theory of flight is correct?
- Aviation authorities (e.g. FAA, CAA, EAA; …)
recommend that pilots are taught a theory of flight based
on the Venturi effect and Bernoulli’s principles of fluid
dynamics. NASA describes this theory to be incorrect’ [1]
and academics discredited Bernoulli’s theorem as an
explanation for lift at least as early as 1972. [23]
- Other groups promote a mixture of different theories of
lift based on vortices, the Magnus effect, the Coanda
effect, …..
- Some group advocate that the pressure differential on a
wing explains lift. However, pressure is a consequence of
a force (Pressure = Force/Area), not a cause. Correlation
of pressure and lift on a wing does not prove causality.
- Empirical observation: The factors that affect lift in
practice have been observed and measured; as summarized
by the standard equation for lift: [1]
Lift = 0.5 (Aircraft Velocity2 * Air Density
* Wing Area * Lift Coefficient)
However, this equation only describes the factors that
affect lift; it does not explain why these factors affect lift.
In particular, fluid mechanics fails to explain the physics of
the standard equation for lift, but Newtonian mechanics
can. For example, only Newtonian mechanics can explain
why lift quadruples if aircraft velocity doubles.

APPENDIX II – NEWTON EXPLAINS LIFT
A. Lift = m/dt * dv [7]
Newtons Laws of Motion describe the relationship between
the motion of an object (airplane) and the forces acting on it.
Newtonian mechanics is used to explain active lift generation
using absolute airflow analysis. Simply put, the wings fly
through a thin layer of air that is accelerated downward. The
reactive equal and opposite force pushes the wings upward.
Where:
- Momentum = mv [1]
- m = Mass of air the wings fly through.
- m/dt = Mass per unit time. The mass flow rate.
- dt = Change in time (i.e. per second).
- dv = Change in velocity of the air.
- v = Velocity that the air is accelerated to.
- a = dv/dt (acceleration).
The Newtonian explanation simplified (Force = ma)
For an airplane in stable cruise flight, wings with a positive
AOA fly through a thin mass of air (m), that they accelerate (a)
down, to create a downward force (Force DOWN). The equal and
opposite upward force generated (Force UP) provides lift. This
process can be summarized by the equations: See Fig. II-a-i.
Force DOWN = ma = Force UP (Lift).
Fig. II-a-i Newtonian forces acting on a wing simplified.
The mass flow rate theory: Lift = m/dt * dv
For an airplane in stable cruise flight through static air, where
the wings have a positive AOA. The wings fly through a mass of
air each second (m/dt), which they accelerate to a velocity (dv)
downwards, to create a downward force (Force DOWN), as
summarized by the equation: See Fig. II-a-ii.
Force DOWN = ma = m * dv/dt = m/dt * dv [1]
Fig. II-a-ii. Newtonian forces acting on a wing.
Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.
The inertia of the air provides resistance to the downward
force, producing a reactive equal and opposite upward force
(Force UP) that provides lift, as shown by the equation:
Force DOWN = Force UP (Lift) (2)
Lift is the vertical component of the upward force, opposite to
gravity. See Fig. II-a-iii.
Fig. II-a-iii. Forces acting on a wing.
For simplicity, it is assumed that an airplane in flight at a very
low wing AOA, the upward force is close to the vertical
direction. Therefore induced drag is negligible, and lift equals
the upward force, as shown by the equation:
Force UP = Lift (3)
Equations (1), (2), and (3) can be combined as follows:
Force DOWN = Force UP (Lift) = m/dt * dv (4)
Simplified to: Lift = m/dt * dv (5)
Units: N = kg/s * m/s
There is no net gain or loss of momentum, energy and mass
in this process of generating lift. In flight, wings transfer
momentum and kinetic energy from the aircraft to the air, by
accelerating the air flown through down, which generates lift.
A wing cannot generate lift unless it accelerates a mass of air
downward, which creates downwash and a pressure impulse.
Evidence for downwash and a pressure impulse is provided by
airplanes disrupting dust on the ground and cloud patterns in the
airplane’s path. These are more evident from heavier and faster
aircraft, which need to generate significant lift to fly. See Fig.
II-a-iv.
Fig. II-a-iv. Downwash and pressure impulse from a jet.
(1)
Additional considerations
‘m/dt’ increases with airspeed. Therefore, lift is expressed as
the mass flow rate ‘m/dt’, and not ‘m’, because this factor of lift
is time dependent. i.e. Lift depends on the amount of air flown
through by the wings each second.
‘m/dt’ is a product of the volume of air flown through and air
density. The volume of air flown through depends on airspeed,
wingspan, and wing reach (i.e. wing AOA and wing thickness).
10
 Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

‘dv’ depends primarily on aircraft momentum (airspeed and
mass), wing AOA, and wing depth (chord).
‘dv’ arises due to a one-off force (impulse) from the wings
against the air. Therefore, ‘dv’ is not time dependent; and not
expressed as acceleration ‘dv/dt’. The velocity of the downwash
is constant. ‘dv’ does not change if the time period is altered.
B. ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ analysed separately.
Lift generation is complicated as key factors (e.g. airspeed,
momentum, aspect ratios, flaps, wing AOA, ….) can affect both
‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ in a non-linear and inter-dependent manner. See
Fig. II-b-i.

This analysis only relates to the wings. It does not include the
effects from the tail or fuselage for simplicity.

The absolute airflow analysis used by the Newtonian

approach above, depicts an airplane moving through static air. In
contrast, the relative airflow analysis used by fluid mechanics
(Navier-Stokes equations) and the flow-turning theories for lift,
the wing is depicted as stationary with relative airflows moving
Fig. II-b-i. ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ analysed separately.
above and under the wings. [1] See Fig. II-a-v.
For example, a change in wing AOA affects ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’,
and therefore, lift and induced drag. In turn, these changes can
effect airspeed and aircraft momentum, which also then effects
‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’.

This approach allows for the alternative methods of

generating lift between ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’ to be presented
Fig. II-a-v. Relative and absolute wing airflow diagrams. graphically along a constant lift curve. See Fig. II-b-ii.

The momentum theory: Lift = d(mv)/dt

The Newtonian approach based on the mass flow rate is

consistent with the old Newtonian explanations of lift based on a
change in momentum or flow turning, which can be summarized
by the equation: See Fig. II-a-vi.
Force DOWN = ma = m * dv/dt = d(mv)/dt [1] (6)

The reactive equal and opposite upward force provides lift,
expressed as the change in momentum of the air:
Force DOWN = Force UP (Lift) = d(mv)/dt
Fig. II-b-ii. Graph comparing ‘m/dt’ and ‘dv’,
for constant lift.
(7)
In addition, this approach allows for the lift distribution along
a wing according to Newtonian mechanics to be presented in 3D
images. See Fig. II-b-iii.

Fig. II-a-vi. Transfer of momentum and K.E. to the air.

Two Newtonian equations for lift

The analysis above provides two Newtonian methods and

Fig. II-b-iii. 3D lift distribution for a small airplane.
equations to calculate the lift generated by a wing:
Lift = m/dt * dv (mass flow rate) (5) This approach allows the lift generated by different aircraft
configurations, wing shapes, flight conditions, etc….. to be
Lift = d(mv)/dt (momentum theory) (8) compared and analysed in new ways.

Both lift equations (5) and (8) are based on Newtons 2nd Law
of motion (Force = ma). Both are correct and produce the same
values. The equations express the same concept, but through
different perspectives.

11
 Celera 500L reviewed using Newtonian physics.

B. The Coanda effect.

APPENDIX III – WING AIRFLOWS
Fluid flow naturally follows a curved surface due to the
Coanda effect. For example, water falling from a tap is re-
directed by the curved side of a spoon demonstrating the Coanda
A. Two wing airflows. [7] effect, as illustrated in Fig. III-b-i.

The two key wing airflows involved in the generation of lift

by an airplane with a positive wing AOA: See Fig. III-a-i.
1) The underside of the wing pushes air down.
2) The topside of the wing pulls air down.

Fig. III-b-i. Coanda effect – Spoon experiment.

According to Newtonian mechanics, the water flow passively

Fig. III-a-i. Two airflows on a wing.
These two wing airflows are described: See Fig. III-a-ii.
1) The underside of a wing physically pushes the air flown
through below it downwards and slightly forwards. This
creates high pressure on the underside surface of the wing,
based on the standard equation for pressure (Pressure =
Force /Area [1]).
2) On the topside of the wing a zone of low air pressure
arises, due to the forward movement of the wing creating a
relative vacuum behind it. This low air pressure zone pulls
the air above the wing downwards. After the wing has
passed, the air continues to descend. In addition:
- Any curvature on the topside of the wing can enhance
downward airflows of the air above the wing due to
the Coanda effect, as explained below.
- The air above the wing pulled downwards reaches the
trailing edge on the wing, to avoid triggering a stall.
- The low air pressure on top of the wing is typically
described as being greatest towards the leading edge.
re-directed by a spoon due to the Coanda effect creates a small
turning force due to the change in momentum of the water flow.
The reactive equal and opposite force pushes the spoon
diagonally to the left sideways and downward. However the
spoon pivots to the left as far as the reactive force allows.
Wind tunnel experiments
Wind tunnel experiments demonstrate airflows arising due to
the Coanda effect on the topside of a curved airplane wing, as
well as the turbulence that arises on a flat wing. See Fig. III-b--
ii.
Fig. III-b--ii. Airflow on curved and flat wings. [24][26]
In general, wings produce a stronger Coanda effect with
laminar (smooth / non-turbulent) airflow at a lower AOA, higher
airspeed, and where the wings are deepest (largest chord, such as
near the fuselage). Conversely, the Coanda effect is weakest at
high AOA, slower airspeeds, and where the wings are narrow
(small chord, such as at the wing tips). See Fig. III-b--iii.

Fig. III-a-ii. 2D diagram of upper wing airflows.

Fig. III-b--iii. Smooth vs. turbulent airflows on a wing. [25]

The flat undersides of wings are typically designed to push air

down without inducing any Coanda effect.

12

View publication stats