REVIEWS Further
Quick links to online content
WILLIAM P. RODDEN
1. INTRODUCTION
flow over the "Airplane as a Whole (Durand 1935). Many additional years
"
rence & Flax 1954, Ferrari 1957). Most of the basic tools of interference or in
preceded the publication of two truly comprehensive survey articles (Law
Calif., to Section 2 are gratefully acknowledged. The portion of this article contributed
by Holt Ashley was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Office
of Aerospace Research, under Contract No. F4462068C0036.
431
432 ASHLEY & RODDEN
exemplify some of the more successful methods known to them for analyzing
the near flow field and aerodynamic loading experienced by threedimen
sional combinations of slender elements in subsonic or supersonic main
streams. There are certain topics that will be omitted altogether, and others
that have been summarized so thoroughly elsewhere that more than a litera
ture citation here seems redundant. A brief listing of these two categories in
tHis Introduction, we believe, constitutes a partial survey of significant past
contributions.
The following are excluded from the present scope:
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Free surface and cavitation effects in liquids. While they have obvious

Far fields and the sonic boom.  Whe nthe source of disturbances is a
sonic speed relative to the surrounding
streamlined aircraft flying faster than
gas, it has long been known that the principal farfield nonlinear effect is a
displacement of wavefronts from positions calculated by wholly linearized
acoustics. The implications have been thoroughly surveyed by Hayes (1971),
who also discusses such influences as those of atmospheric nonuniformity,
winds, and turbulence. It is noted that methods reviewed in Section 3 are
well adapted to finding the supersonic near field, on which boom predictions
can be based.
ing the reference list within bounds, the authors next propose to identify
several topics that are relevant but have already been well reviewed in earlier
books or articles.
Twodimensional flow, biplanes, and cascades.I t is hard to imagine a
"body" as giving rise to a purely p'lane flow. Nevertheless, this subject de
serves mention if only because its relative mathematical tractability has
stimulated such an enormous volume of research. For instance, Chapter XI I
of Thwaites (1960) sU,mm
twodimensional biplanes and infinite arrays of lifting airfoils. Notable early
contributions by the exact method of conformal transformation are due to
Garrick (1936, 1944). The extension of nonlinear and smallperturbation
solutions for compressible fluid appears in Chapter 12 of Woods (1961). The
theory of oscillating cascades was fully developed by Siihngen & Meister
(1958) for the incompressible case. More recently, compressibility effects on
oscillating cascades and closely related problems were introduced by such
authors as Jones & Rao ( 1970) and Bland (1968). The interesting attempt to
construct nonlinear incompressible solutions for general unsteady motions
of interacting airfoils is typified by Giesing (1968a).
trary bodies," this approach was fully described by Smith & Hess (1967) for
nonlifting shapes, which can be simulated with distributed sources. Djojodi
hardjo & Widnall (1969) published a valiant attempt to determine the true
evolution of the wake and loading of an isolated wing with finite thickness
and incidence. The similar treatment of wings and bodies in combination
would seem to be possible at present levels of computer capacity, but the
promise has not yet been realized.
about 10 percent, and decreased when the body is larger. The fuselage is also
to be increased when the ratio of fuselage diameter to wingspan is less than
1.0 rr.
0.07
0
hi =
hi =
0.8 1=::l'+;;:__1f___t___+
O.B
0.6
=
Y.. =
Cl' = 0.3
0.21 1
..a
.=
Tl
o
Ferrari (1957). They were found by his adaption of Multhopp (1941), who
proposed that liftingline theory for isolated wings be corrected by centering
in the wing an infinite circular (or elliptical) cylinder and essentially adding
image trailing vortices so that this cylinder is caused to be a streamline of the
flow in the "Trefftz plane" far downstream of the wing. Such numerical esti
mates can be shown to agree quite well with suitably interpreted measured
data.
Many other cases like the foregoing could be referenced. The approach
to wingtail interference in Chapter 1 of Ferrari (1957) is one. He makes the
assumptionusually exact in supersonic flow because of the "law of for
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
bidden signals" but questionable at M < I that any influence at the wing

of estimating the flow field or "downwash" at the tail due to the wing and its
wake, then calculating the tail loads as those on an isolated surface exposed
to known freestream perturbations. When a central body is present in such
problems, it is typically idealized as an infinite cylinder whose presence can
be simulated through imaging. For instance, the supersonic wingbody
theory of Morikawa ( 1952) combines this model with Laplace transforma
tion on the x coordinate to simplify the analysis. Since it proves difficult to
handle cases where the wing plane does not contain the fuselage axis, most of
these theories deal only with this midwing position .
& Weber 1953) in Great Britain. For subcritical, subsonic flight these are well
summarized in Bagley (1962) while Lock & Bridgewater ( 1967) describe the
more recent extensions to the transonic and supersonic ranges.
As Lock & Bridgewater ( 1967) point out about their subject, "a useful
and possibly superior alternative might thus be provided to some of the older
reference to physical reality. " These same words contain a valid criticism of
design methods which are based on theoretical considerations without much
most of the contents of Sections 2 and 3 below, which are really just another
evolutionary step toward the remote goal of flowfield analysis for wholly
arbitrary configurations. Current practice in the United States tends to
demonstrate that techniques such as Kiichemann's and those of Woodward
( 1968) are complementary, in the sense that the former serve to guide the
preliminary shaping of the flight vehicle whereas the latter are useful for de
termining the entire near field at later design stages. Formal configuration
optimization, for maximum supersonic liftdrag ratio and the like, is another
highly mathematical process for which the bridge to simple physical under
standing has not yet been built.
appointment for flows in three and four (i.e., with time dependence) dimen
sions. The work of Sauerwein (1964) , for example, succeeded in overcoming
many of the difficulties of geometrical conceptualization and stability of
multidimensional characteristics. Nevertheless, long computer runs re
mained, as did a slow drift with time of the computed results in cases where
there should have been a transient approach to steady flow.
As of the present writing, none of the nonlinear numerical schemes has
been applied to general wingbody combinations. The most promising would
seem to be that of Moretti and collaborators3 (e.g., Grossman, Marconi &
Moretti 1971; Moretti & Abbett 1966) . The flow around blunt noses is ren
dered hyperbolic by introducing artificial time dependence, then conducting
a finitedifference solution of the unsteady equations until the steady state is
reached. For supersonic and hypersonic regions, a straightforward down
stream " marching" computation is chosen in preference to characteristics.
The instability of many competing methods is not encountered. With cur
rently available computer capacities, it is believed that fairly complicated
interacting configurations will soon be analyzed in this way.
* * *
I Note that, in the first reference, the pattern of streamlines and fluid properties
p = RpT (2)
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
Like the gas constant R, the specificheat ratio 'Y is uniform throughout the
flow. The fluid particle velocity vector 0, observed in an inertial reference
frame, is assumed to be irrotational. Thus the influence of the small viscosity,
which is always present in fact, remains confined to surfaces of tangential 0
discontinuity simulating attached boundary layers and thin wakes. It is
noted that slenderbody methods can approximate separated wakes by
means of freevortex systems with "feeding sheets" (cf appropriate sections
of Nielsen 1960), but this refinement is not pursued here.
An immediate consequence of irrotationality is the existence of a velocity
potential<I>,
Q = grad <I> (3)
(u, v, w) are small compared with U and the dimensionless deviations of the
is one requiring small perturbations: that almost everywhere in the field
5,
state variables from their freestream values p, p, etc are correspondingly
small. Two conditions are placed on M and the disturbance parameter
(Mc'l)2 1 (5)
and
((M25) h 11) 1 +
M2 1
(6)
Here (6) is added to ensure (for bodies, at least; cf Chapter 12 of Ashley &
WINGBODY AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION 439
(1  M2)cpxx + cp"" + CP
2M2 M2
 CPxt  U2 CPtt = 0 (7)
U
Equation (7) enforces both conservation of mass and Newton's law of
motion. During its derivation, the state variables are eliminated through
linearization of a first integral of Newton's law known variously as Ber
noulli's or Kelvin's equation. The most useful form of the latter is one that
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
cp p  p",

=
1
"2P", U2
(9)
is appropriate, whereas for unsteady flow over thin wings the fully linearized
version holds,
Cp  cpt
2u 2
(10)
U U2
=
As will be seen, however, a stratagem that often yields more accurate airload
estimates in wingbody problems is the (mathematically inconsistent) as
sociation of (9) or even (8) with velocity fields determined from (7) .
In suitable combinations, three types of boundary conditions are needed
for uniqueness when solving (7). These are as follows:
+ u
az" az"
w(x, y, Zu, t) = (15)
at ax
for all (x, y) on the planform a,ea. A further approximation to (1St, accord
ing to which it is enforced not at Z=Zu but at z=O+, the upper side of the
planform's projection, is adopted in isolated wing theory. It is not acceptable
for body surfaces, however; the manner of its application to interaction prob
lems will be taken up later.
The Kutta condition.For lifting surfaces it has been found that an addi
tional specification is needed to render the bound circulation unique. This
takes the form of requiring flow field quantities to behave continuously when
passing across the (sharp) " trailing edge," which is defined to be that portion
of the planform boundary whose outward normal in the xy plane makes less
than a right angle with the freestream direction.
By way of anticipation, one may summarize the favored approach to in
teraction theory as follows. The boundaryvalue problem is solved by super
position of suitable singular solutions of a linear differential equation
[equation (7) or its steady counterpart]. " Nonlinearity" is introduced by
WINGBODY AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION 441
satisfying boundary condition ( 12) at or near the actual positions of the wing
and body elements. If j ustified by improved agreement with experimental
data, a nonlinear relation such as (8) may be employed for pressures and
aerodynamic loads.
There are several dimensions along which the subject matter may be
further subdivided. For steady flow the most clearcut distinction occurs be
tween subsonic and supersonic flight, which characterize Sections 2 and 3, re
spectively. It has also been customary to separate steady and unsteady
motion of the boundaries, the latter solutions being useful in aeroelasticity
treat steady flow as a limit, for vanishingly small frequency w, of the case of
and certain dynamic response calculations. The authors prefer, however, to
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
at w=O.
cists have taken the lead in developing methods that also have great utility
Such interactions as those between wing and tail or some other non
coplanar lifting system are regarded as special cases of a multielement con
AGARD 1971) .
Some theories are better adapted to the determination of pressure dis
tribution and loads all over the surface of the wingbody system; resultant
forces and moments are then found by numerical integration. Others orga
nize the computation in such a way that some or all of the forces are more
conveniently obtained from momentum flux through a farfield control sur
face. These are, respectively, exemplified by the Woodward and the NASA
Langley approaches described in Section 3.
Finally, the authors discern important distinctions based on the degree
to which the chosen singularities violate local streamline continuity over the
surfaces on which they are distributed. All interaction theories must be de
signated "finiteelement m.ethods," because they satisfy the flow tangency
condition only at a finite number of stations and thus d etermine the strengths
of a finite number of singularity elements. However, these singularities vary
all the way from the pressure modes used in subsonic wing theory, each of
which gives rise to a continuous distribution of upwash w over the entire
liftingsurface planform, to vortex lattices and doublet patches of constant
strength, which produce infinite w around their boundaries and in the wake.
A systematic study of the implications, for computational efficiency and ac
curacy, of various element choices has yet to be made (see, however, the at
tempt discussed by Djojodihardjo & Widnall 1969). It would have signifi
cance for the refinement of interaction theory.
2. INTERFERENCE AT SUBSONIC SPEEDS
questions of convergence must be answered. The exact solution for the circu
lar wing oscillating in incompressible flow (Schade & Krienes 1940) provides
a test for convergence, but no such test exists for arbitrary planforms. For
the most part, questions of convergence are answered by comparative calcu
lations on standardized configurations (such as those proposed by the Struc
tures and Materials Panel of AGARD) . This is a necessary but insufficient
condition for convergence, particularly since similar methods are being com
pared. A comparison of solutions for the generalized aerodynamic forces on
an oscillating Ttail has been reproduced by Ashley (Part I, AGARD 1971),
and some indication of the scatter of results by various methods is shown;
Andrew (1971) has since obtained new results, but the general question of
convergence still deserves further study,
ground effect for either steady or oscillatory motion. Lifting surfaces may be
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
of arbitrary planform and dihedral. Bodies may have elliptic cross sections
and an arbitrary distribution of width or radius. This method is a combina
tion of liftingsurface theory, the method of images, and slenderbody theory.
The doubletlattice method is used to model the lifting surfaces. Slender
body theory is used to model the bodies. The interference between the lifting
surfaces and bodies is obtained by the use of images and slenderbody theory.
Example calculations by this approach are shown in the next section.
Bodyelement methods are those that use surface singularities to satisfy
the Neumann boundary conditions on the body surface. These methods may
be placed in two categories : those (a) that use lifting surface elements and
(b) that use source elements. In the first category are the methods of Wood
ward (1968), Kalman et al (1971) , and Giesing et al (1971, Part I) . The gen
eral approach of these methods is to replace the body by an axial doublet
distribution and an annular wing of constant cross section. Elements cannot
be placed on the actual body shape nor can the elements be inclined to the
flow. The kernel function of Berman et al (1970), mentioned above, was de
veloped for lifting surfaces that are inclined to the flow. The geometry of the
wake associated with this kernel function, however, is the same as that asso
ciated with the classic kernel, i.e., the wake extends to downstream infinity
from the sending point along a line parallel to the free stream. If this type of
kernel is used on an inclined body surface, then wakes emanating from
points near the body leading edge will thread through the body surface near
its trailing edge. This situation is not physically meaningful and may lead
to numerical difficulties.
Sourcetype elements are placed on the body surface for the methods of
the second category. A distribution of vorticity is placed either on the wing
camber line or on the surface while a distribution of source or doublet ele
ments is placed on the wing and body surfaces. In this category are the
methods of Rubbert & Saaris (1968), Labrujere et al (see AGARD 1970),
Djojodihardjo & Widnall (1969), Hess (1970), and Tulinius (1971) . The
method of Tulinius is somewhat different from the rest. Sources and vortices
are placed on the wing camber line while quadrilateral vortices are placed
on the body surfaces. These methods furnish surface pressure distributions
and not just loading, but they are restricted to steady flow. Of all of the
WINGBODY AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION 447
methods described above, only slender wingbody theory, the method of
Kalman et al (1971) , and the previously mentioned methods of Giesing et al
furnish solutions for wingbody combinations in oscillatory motion.
approach, and the convergence of the usual series of pressure loading func
tions has always seemed assured in view of its selection on the basis of exact
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
two and threedimensional solutions, the current difficulties with the control
surface problem notwithstanding. The finiteelement methods, on the other
hand, seem to possess none of the traditional values other than some approxi
mation to the calculus of infinitesimals. Indeed, the success of the finite
element methods remains to be explained, although the study by James
(1969) of the twodimensional steady case sheds some light on the correct
convergence characteristics of the finiteelement methods. Nevertheless, the
finiteelement methods have compared favorably with the kernelfunction
method where they are comparable, and both have been compared favorably
with experimental results. The original developments of the vortex and
doubletlattice methods were compared extensively with experimental and
other theoretical results in the references cited above. Later correlations
have been presented by Rodden & Liu (1969) and by Ka.lman, Rodden &
Giesing (1971) . Correlations for the constantpressurepanel method of
Woodward have been presented by Bradley & Miller (1971).
An experimental study by Forsching, Triebstein & Wagener (Part II,
AGARD 1971) has yielded extensive pressure measurements on a swept wing
with two control surfaces oscillating in an incompressible flow. LaBarge
(1971) has made a correlation study using Petkas' version (1969) of the
doubletlattice method. Results for two of the modes of vibration are taken
from LaBarge (1971) and are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The calculations
were carried out by dividing the span into eleven unequalwidth strips; the
strip widths were chosen so as to place the centerlines of three of the strips
at the three measurement stations. Two chordwise divisions were considered
to investigate convergence. Nine and thirteen unequal chordwise divisions
were chosen, the small chordlength elements being concentrated near the
leading edge and hinge line. Comparison of the 99element solutions with the
143element solutions indicated convergence of the 99element solutions, but
an improved definition of the leadingedge and hingeline singularities results
from 143 elements.4 Figures 2 and 3 correspond to Figures 9 and 15, respec
tively, of Forsching, Triebstein & Wagener (Part I I , AGARD 1971), al
4 Note that only the theoretical results for 143 elements have been included on
the figures.
448 ASHLEY & RODDEN
.09
.06
Z U '0 3
1  0.
w <l
Q
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
1..1..
I..I.. w
U
a:: 0
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
w
a::
::::>
Of
if
w
:03 <
 <
a:: a w :' O . O
Cl.
a i f 0 . 67
=
: 0 6 CI o f =  0 . 6 5
: 0.
.02
I 0 0
>
0 00 0
z
ffi
o kR
 

sVj
 E....!!. v

0 2 2
4 60
H
e8 0 I OO
i n g
PERCENT CHORD
0 0 0
though Figure 3 has been corrected to show that the outboard flap was locked
during the test run and to reverse the sign of the imaginary part of the pres
sure coefficient. GeneraIIy good agreement is noted between the test and
calculated results. However, significant differences appear toward the trailing
edge of the control surfaces ; it is apparent that accurate hingemoment calcu
lations will be obtained only when viscous interactions are accounted for.
Data for wings with control s urfaces have also been p resen ted by Tijde
man & Zwaan (Part I I , AGARD 1971). The data are for transonic Mach
numbers including the high subsonic and low supersonic regimes. Correlation
WINGBODY AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION 449
.06 of if
aw"" 0.17
aif =  0 . 80
a of = 0 . 0
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
:09
100
PERCENT CHORD
20 40 60 H i ng e 80
studies of these data would indicate the extent to which shock waves should
be accounted for in addition to the viscous effects already noted above to be
important in the prediction of hinge moments.
Next considered are correlations (Figures 47) taken from Giesing, Kal
man & Rodden (197 1 , Part I I) for wingbody combinations. Figure 4 presents
experimental data for spanwise loading obtained by Martina (1956) for a
highly swept wing on a long cylindrical fuselage. The first wingbody theory
of Giesing (1968b) , which includes the method of images, is compared with
the experimental data in Figure 4; the refined wingbody theory of Giesing
450 ASHLEY & RODDEN
o.5 .....
0.4
0. 3
kr = O.O
o 11
),=0.34
AR=8.0
M =0.2
c = AVERAGE CHORD
0 GIESING, KALMAN S RODDEN
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
 GIESING
o EXPERIMENT, MARTINA
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
O
I NG
(' 1 _
W
7 O. O .5
A0 . 
O

0
.Q O
8 . 97
I
'
y /s
FIGURE 4. Comparison between measurements and two predictions of the steady
subsonic spanwise load distribution on a sweptwingbody combination at angle of
attack; Ct, C, X, and AR are sectional lift coefficient, local wing chord, taper ratio,
and aspect ratio, respectively. (See text for further detail.)
et al (1971, Part II) is also shown. Both theories show excellent agreement
with the data. Another comparison of the refined wingbody theory of Giesing
et al with experimental data for spanwise loading is shown in Figure 5 for an
aircraft with wingmounted engine nacelles. The data lie above the calculated
results, probably because of the development of a leadingedge vortex on the
highly swept wing. A final comparison of wingbody interference in steady
flow is shown in Figure 6, which compares spanwise loading calculated by
the methods of Labrujere et al (AGARD 1970) and Giesing et al with
experimental data of Korner (1969) . The experimental data were measured
at low Reynolds number and thus show the classic reduction in lift caused by
viscous boundarylayer effects. The results of Labrujere et al lie above those
of the image method because those authors have accounted for effects of wing
thickness that are not considered in the image method. The only experi
mental liftingpressure data known to the authors for wingbody combina
tions in oscillatory motion have been obtained by Cazemier & Bergh ( 1964)
at low Reynolds number and Mach number. A comparison of these data with
the image method of Giesing et al is presented in Figure 7 ; the agreement
is generally good.
A source of indirect correlation of oscillatory aerodynamic interference
theory is a flutter test of interfering surfaces. A number of such tests have
been performed since flutter was first observed by Topp et al ( 1966) to be a
significant problem on variablegeometry configurations. Efforts to predict
WINGBODY AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION 451
0. 1 4
o
o
0. 1 2
o
0.10
o.oa
a: I I
u
.....
o GIESING, KALMAN a RODDEN
<
u
o EXPERIMENT, . WALKER
u
0.06
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
0.02
0
0 .
. I O 2 0.
3
0.4O 5
. 0
.6
O. 70
.a

0
1 .0
y/ s
FIGURE 5. Comparison between theory and experiment for the steady subsonic
spanwise load distribution on an aircraft with cambered wing and wingmounted
nacelles.
the measured flutter characteristics have been made by Sensburg & Laschka
(1970) , Albano, Perkinson & Rodden (1970, Part II), Seidel & Sensburg (Part
II, AGARD 1971) , and by Mykytow et al (1970) . The predictions have
generally been reliable and serve to confirm the validity of the aerodynamic
methods employed. However, the additional parameters present in the flutter
problem, i.e., stiffness and inertia, make specific evaluation of an aerody
namic method problematical since no evidence of sources of discrepancy,
e.g., viscous effects, is obtained. Measurement of oscillatory pressures on
interfering surfaces is a preferable but, admittedly, more difficult alternative.
Experimental measurements of oscillatory air loads (lift and moment) on
two interacting lifting surfaces in tandem have been presented by Destuynder
(Part II, AGARD 1971) . However, no correlation studies of the data are
known to the authors.
3. SUPERSONIC SPEEDS
M = O. I I S
aw = So
A = O. A R =S.O.A= 1 .0. DIe = 1 .0
a f = So
Ole = 1 .0
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
0. 1
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.:3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
y/s
FIGURE 6. Comparison between theory and experiment for the spanwise distri
bution of sectional lift coefficient Ct on a rectangular wingbody combination.
Q.
U
<l
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
" "
\
PLUNGE ROLL
30.0 STATION NO. 2
STATION NO. 3
\
1 0.0 \
\
q
20.0
\
\
\
b
\
\
b...
b..
''tl...
1m
5.m:,,l
u 0.5 1.0
x/c
FIGURE 7. Comparison between theory and experiment for the pressure difference
across three spanwise wing stations oscillating in the indicated motions.
scheme has seen wider application for M> 1, which is the reason for its
supersonic configurations. As mentioned in Section 2, the Woodward (1968)
q, =  Re {fV(x 
J.W d
}
)2  (M2  1 )r2
(16)
WINGBODY AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION 455
BODY INTERFERENCE PANELS
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
FIGURE 8. The manner in which line singularities are used to represent bodies
and the arrangement of facets for lifting surfaces and wingbody interactions, for the
theory of Woodward (1968).
and
cfm =
cos 8
R
e {f !nW [x  ]d } (17)
r v(x  )2  (M2  1 ) r2
where r and 8 are polar coordinates in the cross section, 8 0 being at the =
flr =
[
U 1 + 
acp. arB ] (18)
ax dx
associated with the axisymmetric body disturbance, while the doublets match
Vr = U cos 8
[d zc
  a
] +
aCPD drB
U  (19)
dx ax dx
Equation (19) means that the doublets must cancel a radial velocity that
would otherwise exist owing to the body's angle of attack a plus the slope
dzc/dx of its (slightly) cambered axis. It is worth mentioning that many
fine points (necessarily omitted here) associated with all the boundary condi
tions, formulas for u, v, and w due to the various singularities, etc, are
elaborated by Woodward, Tinoco & Larsen (1967) . The complete computer
program appears in LaRowe & Love (1967).
Figure 8 shows the mean plane of each lifting surface as represented by
(up to 100) panels or facets, each in the form of a trapezoid with two sides
456 ASHLEY & RODDEN
parallel to the xz plane of symmetry of the vehicle and the other two inclined
(20)
where the integral extends over the facet area, the "real part" again being
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
eliminated from the forward Mach cone from any singularity) . As with the
body line sources, f. is taken to be constant over facets originating on the
leading edge and varies linearly with over aft facets. From a familiar prop
As in the case of the lifting type of area singularities, which will be dis
cussed next, the algebra of evaluating the source disturbances is facilitated
<PAp(X, y, z)
1
4 11'"
{zf r [xt]ddTf (2 1)
=  Re
J l(YTf) 2+z2]v(xtP (M2 _ 1) [(YTfP+z2J }
6 This singularity is sometimes called a "udoublet sheet."
WINGBODY AERODYNAM IC INTERACTION
45 7
When finding velocities u , v , and w and treating the limit of (21) as zO,
one must take finite parts of the singular integrals in the usual manner.
A control point is selected for boundarycondition purposes within the
area of each facet ; Woodward, Tinoco & Larsen (1967) indicated that a
station at 95 percent of the streamwise chord through the centroid yields
most accurate results. At this station on each rectangular body facet, the
condition Vn 0 is enforced, where Vn is the normal velocity induced there by
=
the sum of all flow singularities whose effects have not already been ac
counted for by conditions like (18) and (19) .
Similarly, at each wing station, Vn is computed due to all bodyaxis
sources and doublets, all body and wing lifting elements, and wing sources
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
located on lifting surfaces other than the one at which the boundary condi
tion is being applied. Typically, the resulting Vn is required to satisfy an
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
equation like
(22)
which ensures that streamlines over this wing are sloped so as to account for
its angle of attack and follow its camber surface zc(x, y) . Unlike (18) and
(19) , equation (22) is wholly linearized. Together with the conditions Vn 0 =
drag at a fixed lift (or lift and pitching moment) in the presence of one or
more interacting bodies.
Figures 9 through 13 have been selected from Woodward, Tinoco &
Larsen ( 1967) . All show measured and computed pressure distributions, by
way of emphasis that such details are a natural byproduct of this theory.
458 ASHLEY & RODDEN
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
f  "l
z
100 WING
84 BODY PANELS
PANELS
FIGURE 9. A wingbody configuration, with locations of taps used for wing pressure
o EXPERIMENTAL
 NIELSEN THEORY
 PRESENT METHOD
IXw 1.92
C(S D O
RN  L5xl06
p . C, C,
90 MERIDIAN ( CC O t
o
o
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
O L__+______+__+==
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
45 MERIDIAN
1!!.
CIIw
1
O 4____+____4______________
o
TOP MERIDIAN
2
 _ .Q _ 
;
fJp

Cltw 1
e 0
. 2 0 .2 .8 1.0 1.2
FIGURE 10. Measured and predicted pressures on the surface of the body shown
in Figure 9. RN is chord Reynolds number. The values of wing and body angles of
attack a,. and aB are shown.
460 ASHLEY & RODDEN
G> EXPERIMENTAL
NIELSEN THEORY
PRESENT METHOD 
M =1.48
3
Qw= l.92
0:6 0"
2 RN = L5 x106
P =C C
p p
(0:  0)
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
1
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
3
v 2.58
r
/JP
rw 2
,l
3
r
!1.92
,8p
Qw
2
(i) (i) (i)
   ...:.    
! L25
r
1
I I I
o .2 .4 .6 .8 LO
WING CHORD FRACTION X/C
FIGURE 1 1 . Measured and predicted pressures at four stations on the upper wing
surface of the Figure 9 configuration; x and y are spanwise and chordwise coordinates,
c is wing chord, and r is body radius.
WINGBODY AERODYNAM I C INTERACTION 46 1
(!)
   NIELSEN THEORY
EXPERIMENTAL
_ ..G)
 1
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
3
45 MERIDIAN
2
,liP
tl w 1
3
2
TOP MERIDIAN

/3P
;
 1
o .2 .4 .6 ,8 1.0 1.2
WING CHORO FRACTION X!c
S WING
OD
PANELS
P NE S AA
9 B Y :L
:====::_ Y= Y=5.S
Y=2.iiii
100
t l!'YI=I:
PANELING SCHEME !!::::"
M= I.S 0 = 40
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
.. LOIVER SURFACE
0.20
0.16
0. 12
o.08
1).04 . G)
Cp
x/c
r'
e

t x/c
e oQ.El e
......
Y = 4.0
0.04
e
O.OS . :
!
0.12 I
j
G Ci)
0.20 G Q
O'16 Q . Q . Q
QQ QGQ '
0. 12
0.08
0.04
0.2
e
0,4
Ci)
0 . 6 O.S . LO
e e e
x/c
. 0.2 0.4 0.6 e e
iii
e ",>.....
FIGURE 13.
: /. ,
analyzed by Nielsen ( 1952) , the pattern of facets used when applying the
Woodward theory, and the locations of staticpressure holes. Comparisons
between measured and predicted differences between Cp and its value at
zero incidence are shown on Figures 10, 1 1 , and 12, under circumstances
explained in the captions. For these cases there is little to choose between
the accuracy of the present method and the simpler interference theory of
Nielsen (1952), except that Woodward is more successful in estimating body
pressures near the wing leading edge.
Figure 13 shows a cambered wing centered in a body with slight boat
tailing. The theory is again seen to estimate local Cp quite well at four span
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
wise wing stations. These results are perhaps more satisfactory than
individual pointbypoint comparisons might suggest, since it is notoriously
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
volume with generators parallel to the free stream (d the account in Chapters
field momentum flux through the sides and rear face of a cylindrical control
Here two integrals are taken over body length l in terms of dummy variables
Xl and X2. Sex, 8) is the sectional area of the entire configuration cut by a plane
passing through the axis at station x, inclined at the Mach angle sin1 (1/M)
to the flight direction and also normal to a plane through the axis at the angle
8 defined below ( 1 7) (d Figure 96 of Ashley & LandahI 1965) . The two parts
of drag due to lift are obtained by the method of Middleton & Carlson ( 1965),
which is a nearfield scheme based on pressure elements resembling Wood
ward's but applied to a zerothickness projection of the entire vehicle having
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
From the latter drag contributions, one can omit the "leadingedge suc
tion," which is harder to eliminate in the momentum formulation of the
theory and which, in the physical world, is not usually achieved at subsonic
edges of thin wings.
The assumptions of zero volume in the computation of drag due to lift
and of zero lift in the volumetric wave drag prevent consideration of mutual
interaction between volume and lift. That such interaction may occur is
evident from the nonlinear relationships between wave drag and the various
element strengths. Carlson and Harris assert, however, that it "appears to
be negligible for slender supersonictransport configurations but . . . may
be significant for supersonicdash vehicles." It is noted that a recent paper
by Bonner (1969) is representative of current work that accounts for this
interaction and may point the way to its future inclusion in the Langley
programs.
Figure 14 reproduces, from Carlson and Harris, typical computergraphic
representations of a fighter with closecoupled wing and horizontal stabilizer,
as these might be employed for the two parts of the potentialdrag computa
tion. Skinfriction drag is determined primarily from wetted area, Reynolds
number, and Mach number. All such quantities as lift, pitching moment,
and sideforce are evidently calculated from the zerovolume model by nu
merical summation of the forces experienced by individual loaded facets at a
particular choice of angles of attack and sideslip.
Figure 15 illustrates the manner in which the components of drag might
be expected to vary with lift for a supersonic bomber such as the B58, with
In Figures 16 and 1 7, the quantities CD, CL, and Cm are the total drag, lift
its surfaces cambered so as to minimize drag at some cruising flight condition.
(P0lJ/2) U2, wing planform area, and (in the case of Cm) mean wing semichord.
standard aeronautical practice of dividing by flight dynamic pressure
FIGURE 14. Computergraphic representations of the two models used for drag
prediction of a. fighter. (Figures 14 through 1 7 adapted from Carlson & Harris, NASA
1969.)
conventional allmovable stabilizer on the left. At the scales given, the mea
sured values of the various aerodynamic quantities show quite acceptable
agreement with predictions. A possible exception is seen in the drag estimates
for the fighter in Figure 16. Carlson & Harris (NASA 1969) remark that
"other comparisons of the fighter aircraft data with theoretical results indi
cate that the discrepancy is due more to the vertical displacement of airplane
components than to component thicknesses."
CONCLUDING REMARKS
 NEAR FIELD
DRAG
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
U FT
M= 2.7
CD
FIGURE 16. Measured and predicted coefficients of drag vs lift for the
indicated vehicles at two supersonic Mach numbers.
WINGBODY AERODYNAM I C INTERACTION 467
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
3
o o 0
<> 5
 5 o
10
FIGURE 1 7. Measured and predicted coefficients of moment and drag vs lift for the
indicated vehicles at M = 2 and for different angular positions of the longitudinal
trimming surfaces.
namic efficiency, as they have already done in the case of the US supersonic
transport.
That these realizations of theory are quite successful in estimating air
loads on streamlined vehicles at small inclinations to the direction of flight
should be apparent from the foregoing selection of examples. A certain hu
mility, however, is called for. Numerous defects of current formulations
have already been pointed out, and a few will be mentioned for emphasis
here. The entire area of transonic flow cannot be described satisfactorily,
especially when shocks lie partway back on wing surfaces and interact with
the boundary layer ; cf literature survey by Newman & Allison (1971). Flow
separations and thick wakes elude theoretical analysis, even in the relatively
simple instance of concentrated vortices emanating from highly swept leading
edges (see Chapter 4 of Nielsen 1960; Polhamus 197 1 is a recent paper on
this same topic) . The true positions and "rolling up" of wakesthin as well
as thickare inadequately represented. Aerodynamic forces, particularly
the drag due to lift, cannot be as effectively calculated in unsteady motion
as in steady. Finally, the aerodynamics of vertical and shorttakeoff
vehicles in slow flight holds many frustrations for the industrious analysts
and programmers to whose hands the field of wingbody interaction now
seems to have been entrusted.
468 ASHLEY & RODDEN
LITERATURE CITED
Albano, E., Perkinson, F., Rodden, W. P. Thin Wings in Subsonic Flow. New
1970. Subsonic liftingsurface theory York: Plenum
/
aerodynamics and flutter analysis of in Berman, J. H., Shyprykevich, P." Smedf
terfering wing horizontaltail configura jeld, J. B. 1970. A subsonic nonplanar
/
tions; Part I Subsonic oscillatory aero kernel function for surfaces inclined to
/
dynamics for wing horizontaltail con the freestream. J. A ircr. 7 : 1 8890
figurations; Part IIWing tail flutter Berman, J. H., Sh yprykevich, P., Smedf
/
correlation study. USAF FDLTR7059, jeld, J. B., Kelly, R. F. 1968. Unsteady
Parts I and II. aerodynamic forces for general wing con
Albano, E., Rodden, W. P. 1969. A doublet trolsurface configurations in subsonic
lattice method for calculating lift dis flow. USAF FDLTR67117
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
esi
sonic flows. AIAA J. 7 :2 7985, 2192 ing airfoil in a wind tunnel in subsonic
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
I I
Argyris, J . H. 1970. The impact o f the instationarer Druckverteilungen am
digital computer on engineering sciences. Fliigelhalbmodell der VJ 0  C . NLR
A eronaut. J. 74 : 1 341, 1 1 12 7 Rept. F. 23Z
Ashley, H. 1962. Supersonic airloads on in Chou, D. C. 1966. Methods of calculating
terfering lifting surfaces by aerodynamic aerodynamic loads on aircraft structures,
influence coefficient theory. The Boeing Part II IEffects of engines, stores and
Co. Rept. DZZZ67 wingtail interference. USAF FDLTR
Ashley, H., Landahl, M. T. 1965. Aero 6637, Part III
dynamics of Wings and Bodies. Reading, Davies, D. E. 1964. Generalized aero
w
Mass. : AddisonWesley dynamic forces on a Ttail oscillating
Ashley, H., Ro e, W. S. 19 70. On the un harmonically in subsonic flow. Roy.
steady aerodynamic loading of wings A ircr. Est. Rept. No. Structures 295
with control surfaces, Z. Flugwiss. 1 8 : Djoiodihardjo, R. R., Widnall, S. E. 1969.
32130 A numerical method for the calculation
S t
Bagley, J. A. 1962. Some Aerodynamic of nonlinear, unsteady lifting potential
Principles for the DeSign of wep Wings. flow problems. AIAA J. 7 :20019
In Progress in A eronautical Sciences, ed.
D . Kiichemann, Vol. 3, Chap. 1 . Elms
Dulmovits, J. 1964. A lifting surface
method for calculating load distributions
ford, NY: Pergamon and the aerodynamic influence coefficient
Belotserkovskii, S. M. 1967. The Theory of matrix for wings in subsonic flow. Grum
WINGBODY AERODYNAMIC INTERACTION 469
man A irer. Eng. Corp . Rept. A D R 0102 Hayes, W. D. 1947. Linearized supersonic
64. 1 flow. North Am. Av. Rep. AL222. (Re
Durand, W. F. 1935. Airplane as a Whole printed as Princeton University AMS
General View of Mutual Interactions Rept. No. 852)
Among Constituent Systems. In A ero Hayes, W. D. 1971 . Sonic boom. Ann. Rev.
dynamic Theory, ed. W. F. Durand, Sect. Fluid Mecho 3 :26990
P, vol. VI. Berlin : SpringerVerlag (re Hayes, W. D., Probstein, R. F. 1959.
printed 1963 by Dover Publications) Hypersonic Flow Theory. New York,
Etkin, B. 1955. Numerical integration London: Academic
methods for supersonic wings in steady Hedman, S. G. 1965. Vortex lattice method
and oscillatory motion. Inst. A erophys., for calculation of quasi steady state load
Univ. of Toronto, Rept. 36 ings on thin elastic wings. A eronaut. Res.
Falkner, V. M. 1943. The calculation of Inst. Sweden Rept. 105
aerodynamic loading on surfaces of any Hess, J. L. 19 70. CalcUlation of potential
flow about arbitrary threedimensional
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
design of supersonic wingbody combina boundary problem for the wave equation.
tions, including flow properties in the Quart. A ppl. Math. 1 0 : 12940
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.
near field, Part I IDigital computer Multhopp, H. 1941. Zur Aerodynamik des
program description. NASA CR73107 Flugzeugrumpfes. Luftfahrtforschung 1 8 :
Laschka, B. 1963a. Das Potential und das 5266
Geschwindigkeitsfeld der harmonisch Multhopp, H. 1950. Methods for calculat
schwingenden tragenden Flache bei Un ing the lift distribution of wings (sub
terschallanstromung, ZAMM 43:32533 sonic lifting surface theory). A eronaut.
(see erratum in ZAMM 43:284) Res. Counc. Rep. Mem. No. 2884
Laschka, B. 1963b. Zur Theorie der har Mykytow, W. J., Noll, T. E., Huttsell, L.
monisch schwingenden tragenden Flache J., Shirk, M. H. 1 9 70. Subsonic flutter
bei Unterschallanstromung. Z. Flugwiss. characteristics of a variable sweep wing
1 1 :26591
Laschka, B., Schmid, H. 1967. Unsteady FDLTR6959
and horizontal tail combination. USAF
Sauerwein, H. 1964. The calculation of two Watkins, C. E., Runyan, H. L., Woolston,
and threedimensional inviscid unsteady D. S. 1955. On the kernel function of the
flows by the method of characteristics. integral equation relating the lift and
A FOSR 641055, M I T Fluid Dynam. downwash distributions of oscillating
Res. Lab. finite wings in subsonic flow. NACA
Schade, T., Krienes, K. 1940. Theorie des Rep. 1234
kreisformigen schwingenden Tragflache Watkins, C. K, Woolston, D. S., Cunning
auf potentialtheoretischer Grundlage. ham, H. J. 19 5 9. A systematic kernel
Luftfahrtforschung 1 7 :387400 function procedure for determining aero
Sensburg, 0., Laschka, B. 1970. Flutter in dynamic forces on oscillating or steady
duced by aerodynamic interference be finite wings at subsonic speeds. NASA
tween wing and tail. J. A ircr. 7 : 3 1924 Tech. Rep. R48
Smith, A. M. 0., Hess, J. L. 1967. Calcula Weber, ]., Kirby, D. A., Kettle, D. A. 1956.
tion of Potential Flow about Arbitrary An extension of Multhopp's method of
Bodies. In Progress in A eronautical calculating the spanwisc loading of wing
Sciences, ed. D. Kiichemann, Vol. 8,
Chap. 1. Elmsford , NY: Pergamon
fuselage combinations. A eronaut. Res.
Counc. Rep. Mem. No. 2872
S6hngen, H., Meister, E. 1958. Beitrag zur
White, R. B., Landahl, M. T. 1968. Effect
Aerodynamik eines schwingenden Git of gaps on the loading distribution of
ters. ZAMM 38 :44365
planar lifting surfaces. A IAA J. 6 :62631
Woods, L. C. 1961. The Theory of Subsonic
Spreiter, ]. R. 1948. Aerodynamic proper
ties of slender wingbody combinations at
Plane Flow. Cambridge : Cambridge Univ.
subsonic, transonic and supersonic
Press
speeds. NACA TN 1662
Stark, V. J. E. 1958. A method for solving Woodward, F. A. 1968. Analysis and design
the subsonic problem of the oscillating
of wingbody combinations at subsonic
finite wing with the aid of highspeed and supersonic speeds. J. A ircr. 5 :52834
digital computers. Saab A ircr. Co. TN 41 Woodward, F. A., Hague, D. S. 1969. A
Stark, V. J. E. 1964. Aerodynamic forces on computer program for the aerodynamic
a combination of a wing and a fin oscillat analysis and design of wingbodytail
ing in subsonic flow. Saab A ircr. Co. TN combinations at subsonic and supersonic
54 speeds, Vol. I : Theory and program
Thwaites, B., Ed. 1960. Incompressible utilization. Gen. Dynam. Ft. Worth Div.
A erodynamics. Oxford : Clarendon Press Res. Rep. ERRFW867
Topp, L. J., Rowe, W. S., Shattuck, A. W. Woodward, F. A., Tinoco, E. N., Larsen,
1966. Aeroelastic considerations in the de J. W. 1967. Analysis and design of super
sonic wingbody combinations, including
flow properties in the near fiel d, Part 1
sign of variable sweep airplanes. Proc.
Fifth Int. Congr. A eronaut. Sci., London
Truckenbrodt, K 1953. Tragfiachentheorie Theory and application. NASA CR
bei inkompressibler Str6mung. Jahrb. 73106 (Part I)
1953 WGL, 4065 Wu, T. Y., Talmadge, R. B. 1961. A lifting
Tulinius, J. R. 1971. Theoretical prediction surface theory for wings extending
472 ASHLEY & RODDEN
through multiple jets. Vehicle Res. Corp. Zlotnick, M., Robinson, S. W. 1954. A
Rep. No. 8 simplified mathematical model for cal
Yates, E. C., Jr. 1966. A kernelfunction culating aerodynamic loading and down
formulation for nonplanar lifting surfaces wash for wingfuselage combinations
oscillating in subsonic flow. AIAA J. 4 : with wings of arbitrary plan form. NACA
148688 TN 3057
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1972.4:431472. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Technische Universiteit Eindhoven on 06/12/14. For personal use only.