energies

Article
Drag Reduction by Laminar Flow Control
Nils Beck 1, *, Tim Landa 2 , Arne Seitz 3 , Loek Boermans 4 , Yaolong Liu 1 ID
and Rolf Radespiel 2
1 Aeronautics Research Center Niedersachsen (NFL), TU Braunschweig, Hermann-Blenk-Straße 27,
38108 Braunschweig, Germany; yaolong.liu@tu-braunschweig.de
2 Institute of Fluid Mechanics (ISM), TU Braunschweig, Hermann-Blenk-Straße 37,
38108 Braunschweig, Germany; t.landa@tu-braunschweig.de (T.L.); r.radespiel@tu-braunschweig.de (R.R.)
3 Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology (DLR-AS), German Aerospace Center, Lilienthalplatz 7,
38108 Braunschweig, Germany; arne.seitz@dlr.de
4 Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Kluyverweg 1,
2629 HS Delft, The Netherlands; l.m.m.boermans@planet.nl
* Correspondence: n.beck@tu-braunschweig.de; Tel.: +49-531-391-66662

Received: 20 December 2017; Accepted: 15 January 2018; Published: 20 January 2018

Abstract: The Energy System Transition in Aviation research project of the Aeronautics Research Center
Niedersachsen (NFL) searches for potentially game-changing technologies to reduce the carbon
footprint of aviation by promoting and enabling new propulsion and drag reduction technologies.
The greatest potential for aerodynamic drag reduction is seen in laminar flow control by boundary
layer suction. While most of the research so far has been on partial laminarization by application
of Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) and Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC) to wings, complete
laminarization of wings, tails and fuselages promises much higher gains. The potential drag reduction
and suction requirements, including the necessary compressor power, are calculated on component
level using a flow solver with viscid/inviscid coupling and a 3D Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) solver. The effect on total aircraft drag is estimated for a state-of-the-art mid-range aircraft
configuration using preliminary aircraft design methods, showing that total cruise drag can be halved
compared to today’s turbulent aircraft.

Keywords: drag reduction; laminar flow control; boundary layer suction; transition; aircraft design

1. Introduction and Aim of the Work

Since the beginning of aviation, reduction of drag is one of the prime objectives for every aircraft
designer. An aircraft with lower drag is not only more economical in every aspect, but also less
harmful to the environment, which has become increasingly important in the last decades and will
be even more important in the future. In addition to noise, NOX and other pollutants, the primary
focus is on the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which is directly linked to the
combustion of carbon-based fossil fuels. While jet engine technology has provided much of the
efficiency improvement in the past, physical and technical limits are reached now which mean that
future improvements will be smaller and come at higher costs in terms of weight, size and investment.
Understanding in aerodynamics has improved only in small steps since the beginning of the jet
age, in part because the subsonic turbulent aircraft was aerodynamically much more mature than
the then-new jet engines [1]. Swept wings and supercritical wing profiles have expanded the speed
envelope into the transonic region, which again improved engine fidelity and of course travel times,
rather than directly reducing drag. However, there is room for substantial drag improvement by
laminar flow control. The boundary layer flow on today’s large aircraft is turbulent on almost the entire
wetted surface. This results in viscous drag five to ten times larger than that of laminar boundary layers.

Energies 2018, 11, 252; doi:10.3390/en11010252 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 252 2 of 28

The first part of this paper, in Section 2, provides a review of the research on laminar flow control
and transition prediction, with special focus on activities at DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und
Raumfahrt, German Aerospace Research Center) Braunschweig for partial laminarization of wings.
In the second part, beginning in Section 3, simple methods are used to assess the potential drag
reduction by extending the application of laminar flow control by boundary layer suction to all wetted
surfaces of the aircraft. Laminar Flow Control (LFC) is applied to existing airfoils and a generic
fuselage geometry, with no shape adaptation taken into account. The combined optimization of shape
and suction is outside the scope of this paper, but promises even greater drag reductions than those
presented here. The authors’ aim is to make the case for an in-depth investigation of the subject in
future research programs, using the sophisticated methods described in the first part of the paper.

2. Review of Recent Research on Laminar Flow Technology in Europe

The relevant transition mechanisms that can be found on transonic swept wings of modern
transport aircraft are Tollmien-Schlichting Instability (TSI), Attachment Line Transition (ALT), and
Crossflow Instability (CFI). Basic research conducted throughout the last century (e.g., [2–10]) has
led to a good knowledge about the physics of these phenomena and provided principle ideas how
to control them. By continuous research work, the German Aerospace Center (DLR) has built up
the capabilities for transition prediction as well as for design and testing of wings and empennages
following the NLF (Natural Laminar Flow) and HLFC (Hybrid Laminar Flow Control) concepts.

2.1. Transition Prediction

A prerequisite for the design of a laminar flow wing is a reliable transition prediction method.
At DLR and Airbus, the semi-empirical eN method, established by van Ingen [11,12], is used, which
is based on linear stability theory. Velocity profiles of the laminar boundary layer are analyzed with
respect to their stability against harmonic oscillations, which are superimposed as small disturbances
to an otherwise steady basic flow. If unstable, the downstream amplitude growth of a disturbance can
be expressed by the so called N-factor, defined as the natural logarithm of the ratio of disturbance
amplitude at a point downstream to its initial value at the so-called neutral point. It is assumed that
transition occurs where the N-factor of the most amplified disturbance reaches a limiting value Ncrit .
Boundary layer velocity profiles on a swept wing are three-dimensionally warped in regions
where a pressure gradient is present. When projected into the direction of the external flow, the velocity
profiles are similar to those of two-dimensional boundary layers, while in direction perpendicular
to the outer flow, the so-called crossflow profile is present, as illustrated in Figure 1. Analogous
to 2D flow cases, the profiles parallel to the external flow can become unstable against small
travelling disturbances, i.e., Tollmien-Schlichting waves, while the crossflow profiles exhibit at least
one inflectional point, making them inherently unstable against disturbances with a wave vector
approximately pointing in crossflow direction. Consequently, in the approach followed at DLR [13,14]
for transition prediction, chordwise N-factor distributions for two classes of disturbances are calculated:

1. Tollmien Schlichting Instabilities are treated as travelling waves with constant frequency and
propagation direction parallel to the flow at the boundary layer edge.
2. Crossflow Instabilities are treated as stationary (zero frequency) waves with constant wave length.
 Energies 2018,
Energies 2018, 11,
11, 252
252 33of
of28
27
Energies 2018, 11, 252 3 of 27

Figure 1. 3D Boundary Layer on a Swept Wing and related Transition Mechanisms.

Figure 1. 3D
3D Boundary Layer on a Swept Wing and related Transition
Transition Mechanisms.
Mechanisms.
In order to obtain values of Ncrit for TSI and CFI, in-flight experiments were performed in 1987
In order
[15] In
with the DLRto
to obtain
flying values
testbed ofofATTAS
NNcrit for (Advanced
TSI and CFI,CFI, in-flight experiments werewere performed in 1987
order obtain values crit for TSI and Technologies in-flight Testing
experiments Aircraft System)performed shown in
in
[15]
1987 with
Figure the
[15]2a.
with DLR
A wing flying
glove
the DLR testbed
withtestbed
flying ATTAS
modified (Advanced
sections
ATTAS Technologies
was designed
(Advanced Testing
especially
Technologies Testing Aircraft
for the System)
purpose
Aircraft System) shown
of a clear
shown in
N-
Figure 2a. A wing glove with modified sections was designed
in Figure 2a. A wing glove with modified sections was designed especially for the purpose of of
factor identification. Linear stability analysis delivered especially
amplification for the
rates purpose
for both of a clear
classes N-a
factor
clear identification.
disturbances,
N-factor and theLinearenvelopes
identification. stability
Linear analysis
of stability
NTS delivered
and analysis
NCF distributions
deliveredamplification
were ratesrates
correlated
amplification for
with both
forthe both classes
measured
classes of
disturbances,
transition and
locations the theenvelopes
from the sameofof NNTS and
experiment, NCF distributions were correlated the with the measured
of disturbances, and envelopes TS and Nshown in Figure
CF distributions 2b. During
were correlated ATTAS
with theflight
measuredtests,
transition
the criterionlocations
for from
Attachment the same
Line experiment,
Transition shown
(ALT), in Figure
first 2b.
proposed
transition locations from the same experiment, shown in Figure 2b. During the ATTAS flight tests, During
by the
PfenningerATTAS flight
[5], was tests,
also
the
the criterion
confirmed.
criterionThe for Attachment
validity of the
for Attachment Line
Linecriteria Transition
Transitionfound (ALT),
has first
(ALT), first
beenproposed proposed
successfully by Pfenninger
proven during
by Pfenninger [5], was design [5], was also
and flight
also confirmed.
The validity of the criteria found has been successfully proven during design and flight testingflight
confirmed.
testing of aThe
NLF validity
glove of
on the
a criteria
Fokker found
100 in has
1991 been
within successfully
the frame proven
of the during
project design
ELFIN and
(Europeanof a
testing
Laminar
NLF ofFlow
glove aon NLF glove 100
Fokker on ainFokker
aInvestigation) [16],
1991funded 100 inthe
within by1991
the within
European
frame of the theproject
frame ELFIN
Union. of the project
It was assumed
(European ELFINthat (European
the
Laminar ATTAS
Flow
Laminar
criterion,Flow
Investigation) although Investigation)
[16], evaluated
funded [16],
by the fromfunded
a NLF
European by the European
experiment,
Union. It was assumedis Union.
also validIt was
that assumed
forATTAS
the HLFC criterion,that thealthough
applications ATTASwith
criterion,
boundary although
layer evaluated
suction. However, from a
the NLF experiment,
evaluation of the is
A320also
evaluated from a NLF experiment, is also valid for HLFC applications with boundary layer suction. valid
hybrid for
laminarHLFC fin applications
flight experimentwith
boundary
conductedthe
However, layer
in 1998 suction.
evaluation However,
[17], whereof theboundary
A320thehybrid
evaluation
layerlaminar of the
suction finA320
was applied
flight hybrid
overlaminar
experiment the front fin20%
conducted flight ofin experiment
chord
1998on an
[17],
conducted
A320 vertical
where in
boundary 1998 [17],
taillayer
plane, where
showed
suction boundary
was that layer
criticalover
applied suction
N-factors
the frontwas
for20% applied
TSI and over
CFI were
of chord the front
on anreduced 20%
A320 vertical of
comparedchord on an
to the
tail plane,
A320
showed vertical
NLF case, tail be
ascritical
that can plane,
seen showed
fromfor
N-factors thethat critical
N-factor
TSI and CFI N-factors
envelopes
were reducedinfor TSI
Figure and CFI is
3. This
compared were thereduced
tocaused NLF thecompared
bycase, as can betoseen
inhomogeneity the
NLF case,
introduced
from as can
into the
the N-factor be seen from
flow by in
envelopes the
suction N-factor
Figurethrough envelopes
3. This discrete in
is causedmicro Figure
by theholes 3. This is caused
rather than introduced
inhomogeneity by the
through an intoinhomogeneity
idealthe porous
flow
introduced
surface. into the flow by suction through discrete micro
by suction through discrete micro holes rather than through an ideal porous surface. holes rather than through an ideal porous
surface.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure2.2.(a)
Figure (a)ATTAS
ATTASFlight
FlightExperiment
Experimentand
and(b)
(b)Evalation
EvalationofofNNTS-N
-NCF Transition
Transition Criterion.
Criterion.
TS CF
Figure 2. (a) ATTAS Flight Experiment and (b) Evalation of NTS-NCF Transition Criterion.
 Energies 2018, 11, 252 4 of 28
Energies 2018, 11, 252 4 of 27

N-FactorCorrelations.
Figure3.3.N-Factor
Figure Correlations.

2.2.
2.2.NLF
NLFand
andHLFC
HLFCWing
WingDesign
Design
Once
Oncepremature
prematuretransition
transitionduedueto toALT
ALTor orCFI
CFIhas
hasbeen
beenavoided
avoidedover
overthethefirst
first5–10%
5–10%of ofchord,
chord,
the
thetransition
transitionprocess
processis is
dominated
dominated bybyTollmien-Schlichting
Tollmien-Schlichting instabilities. It is well
instabilities. It is known from two-
well known from
dimensional boundary layers that the growth of TSI can be limited by a favorable
two-dimensional boundary layers that the growth of TSI can be limited by a favorable pressure gradient. pressure gradient.
For
Foraagiven
givenpressure
pressuredistribution
distributionthe theinitial
initialgrowth
growthof ofCFI
CFIbecomes
becomesstronger
strongerwithwithincreasing
increasingReynolds
Reynolds
number
number and sweep,
sweep, andandALTALTisisalso
also more
more likely.
likely. In conditions
In conditions where
where the suppression
the suppression of ALTof and
ALTCFIandin
CFI in the front region of a wing section can no longer be achieved solely by tailoring
the front region of a wing section can no longer be achieved solely by tailoring the pressure distribution, the pressure
distribution,
boundary layer boundary layer
suction can suctionthecan
stabilize stabilize
laminar flow.the laminar
Further flow. Further
downstream, downstream,of the
the development TSI
development of TSI can also be limited by suction. With conventional structural
can also be limited by suction. With conventional structural concepts, the installation of a suction concepts, the
installation
system in the of aarea
suction system
of the wingin theincurs
box area ofa the wingpenalty
certain box incurs a certain
in weight. Topenalty in weight.
avoid this, boundaryTo avoid
layer
this, boundary
suction layer
has so far suction
been limited has
to so
thefarwingbeen limited
nose, whichto usually
the wing nose,
ends which20%
at about usually endsleading
of chord, at aboutto
20% of chord, leading to the HLFC concept. Aft of the nose suction area, contour
the HLFC concept. Aft of the nose suction area, contour shaping was used to control TSI, and the rules shaping was used
to
forcontrol TSI, and
NLF target the rules
pressure for NLF target
distributions were pressure
applied. distributions were applied.

2.3.Design
2.3. DesignStudies
Studiesand
andDemonstration
DemonstrationTests
Tests
Introductionof
Introduction of laminar
laminar technology
technologyinto into series
series production
production requires
requires multidisciplinary
multidisciplinarywork workon on
aerodynamics, structural
aerodynamics, structuralengineering
engineering (surface quality
(surface in terms
quality in of roughness
terms and waviness),
of roughness production
and waviness),
technology (closer
production technologytolerances),
(closer systems engineering
tolerances), systems(integration
engineeringof(integration
anti- and de-icing),
of anti-and
andeven airline
de-icing),
operations
and (maintenance,
even airline operations damage repair etc.).
(maintenance, To demonstrate
damage repair etc.).theTofeasibilty of NLF
demonstrate thetechnology,
feasibilty ofa NLF
more
advanced flight
technology, test is
a more currentlyflight
advanced underway within
test is the framework
currently underwayofwithin
the EU-funded Clean Sky
the framework of Ithe
projects
EU-
SFWA (Smart
funded Clean Sky Fixed Wing Aircraft)
I projects and BLADE
SFWA (Smart Fixed (Breakthrough
Wing Aircraft) Laminar
and BLADE Aircraft Demonstrator)
(Breakthrough [18].
Laminar
ForDemonstrator)
Aircraft the BLADE flight tests, the outer wing of an Airbus A340 was exchanged for a new NLF wing
[18].
withFor
considerably
the BLADE reduced
flight sweep,
tests, theas outer
shownwing in Figure
of an4.Airbus
In order to control
A340 CFI, a leading
was exchanged for aedge
newsweep
NLF
◦
of 20 with
could not be exceeded. Practically
wing considerably reduced sweep, asallshown
wingsinare tapered
Figure fororder
4. In the reason of aCFI,
to control favorable spanwise
a leading edge
loading,
sweep of and therefore
20° could notthe be sweep
exceeded.of constant chord
Practically all lines
wingsand,arehence,
tapered isobars,
for theinreason
the shock
of aregion will
favorable
even be lower than 20 ◦ . As a consequence, with an aft-swept wing, the design Mach number is limited
spanwise loading, and therefore the sweep of constant chord lines and, hence, isobars, in the shock
to 0.74 will
region [19] even
in orderbe to
lower avoid high
than wave
20°. As drag. This was the
a consequence, withmotivation
an aft-sweptto develop the design
wing, the NLF forward
Mach
swept wing
number concept
is limited within
to 0.74 [19]the
in DLR
orderproject
to avoid LamAiR
high wave[20,21].
drag.The basic
This wasidea
theismotivation
that a forward swept
to develop
wing
the NLFexhibits
forward an increase
swept wing of sweep in chordwise
concept within thedirection due to
DLR project the taper
LamAiR (see Figure
[20,21]. 5), thus
The basic idea allowing
is that
afor cruise Mach
forward swept numbers
wing exhibits ranging an from 0.76oftosweep
increase 0.80, like for the Airbus
in chordwise A320.due
direction In an aero-structure
to the taper (see
coupled
Figure 5),design, it couldfor
thus allowing becruise
shown that numbers
Mach the problem of torsional
ranging from 0.76 static divergence
to 0.80, thatAirbus
like for the comesA320.along
In an aero-structure coupled design, it could be shown that the problem of torsional static divergence
Energies 2018, 11, 252 5 of 28
Energies 2018, 11, 252 5 of 27
Energies 2018, 11, 252 5 of 27
withcomes
that forward sweep
along withcan be resolved
forward sweepby
canaeroelastic tailoring
be resolved utilizingtailoring
by aeroelastic the anisotropic
utilizingcharacteristics
the anisotropicof
that comes
Carbon along
Fiber with forward
Reinforced sweep
Plastics can be resolved by aeroelastic tailoring utilizing the anisotropic
(CFRP).
characteristics of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics (CFRP).
characteristics of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Plastics (CFRP).

Figure
Figure4.4.BLADE
BLADENLF
NLFOuter
OuterWing
WingFlight
FlightTest
Test [18].
[18].
Figure 4. BLADE NLF Outer Wing Flight Test [18].

Figure 5. Effect of Forward Sweep and Taper.

Figure 5. Effect of Forward Sweep and Taper.
Figure 5. Effect of Forward Sweep and Taper.
HLFC with active boundary layer suction is based on the NLF concept because the same design
HLFC with active boundary layer suction is based on the NLF concept because the same design
rules HLFC
apply for the required surface pressure
suctiondistribution. Therefore, the R&D work theconducted in
rules applywith active
for the boundary
required layer
surface pressure is based on the
distribution. NLF concept
Therefore, because
the R&D work same design
conducted in
Europe since
rules apply the mid-eighties in this technology path was focused on the suction system. A large
Europe sincefor the
the required surface
mid-eighties in thispressure distribution.
technology path was Therefore,
focused onthe theR&D work
suction conducted
system. A large in
scale
EuropeHLFC demonstration
sincedemonstration was
the mid-eighties prepared under leadership of Airbus that resulted in a flight test in
scale HLFC wasinprepared
this technology path was of
under leadership focused
Airbuson theresulted
that suction insystem.
a flightAtestlarge
in
1998 on the vertical tailplanewasof an Airbus A320 shown in Figure 6. Aerodynamically, the test was a
1998 on the vertical tailplane of an Airbus A320 shown in Figure 6. Aerodynamically, the test wasin
scale HLFC demonstration prepared under leadership of Airbus that resulted in a flight test a
success,
1998 because
on the extensive
vertical laminar
tailplane flow
of an Airbus was observed,
A320 but
shown but the
in Figuresystem was much
6. Aerodynamically, too complex for
the test was
success, because extensive laminar flow was observed, the system was much too complex for
series production.
a success, becauseIn a subsequent
extensive laminar EUflow
funded
wasproject, a simplified
observed, suctionwas
but the system system
muchwastooelaborated
complex for at
series production. In a subsequent EU funded project, a simplified suction system was elaborated at
DLR, called
series called the
production. ALTTA concept
In a subsequent [22].
EU funded project, a simplified suction system was elaborated at
DLR, the ALTTA concept [22].
DLR, called the ALTTA concept [22].
Energies 11, 252
2018, 11,
Energies 2018, 252 66 of
of 27
28

Energies 2018, 11, 252 6 of 27

Figure 6.
Figure A320 HLFC
6. A320 HLFC Fin
Fin Flight
Flight Test
Test of
of 1998.
1998.
Figure 6. A320 HLFC Fin Flight Test of 1998.
The ALTTAconcept
The ALTTA conceptisisstill
stillstate
stateofofthe
theart
artfor
forHLFC
HLFCsystem
system development
development in in Europe.
Europe. AsAs shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 7, it
7, ALTTA
The consists
it consists of:
conceptof: is still state of the art for HLFC system development in Europe. As shown
in
1. Figure 7, it consists of:0.6 to 0.8 mm thick metal sheet, preferable titanium, with standard porosity
A micro-perforated
1. A micro-perforated 0.6 to 0.8 mm thick metal sheet, preferable titanium, with standard porosity
1. A (i.e., 50 µm hole diameter,
micro-perforated equally
0.6 to 0.8 spaced
mm thick hole pitchpreferable
metal of 500 µm).
(i.e., 50 µm hole diameter, equally spaced holesheet, titanium, with standard porosity
pitch of 500 µm).
2. (i.e.,
Stringers parallel
50 µmparallel to constant
hole diameter, chord
equally lines that divide the double
µm).skin into chambers.
2. Stringers to constant chordspaced holedivide
lines that pitch of
the500
double skin into chambers.
3. An inner metal sheet with throttle orifices.
2. Stringers parallel to constant chord lines that divide the double skin into chambers.
3. An inner metal sheet with throttle orifices.
4. An
3. A plenum
inner metalwith sheet
a constant under-pressure.
with throttle orifices.
4. A plenum with a constant under-pressure.
4. A plenum with a constant under-pressure.

Figure 7. ALTTA Simplified Suction System.

Figure 7.
Figure ALTTA Simplified
7. ALTTA Simplified Suction
Suction System.
System.
In each chamber an individual under-pressure is adjusted by the throttle orifices, so that the
pressure difference
In each chamber between the outside
an individual and the chamber
under-pressure deliversby
is adjusted
adjusted thethe
locally desired
throttle amount
orifices, of mass
so that the
flow through
pressure the surface.
difference
difference It has
between thebeen shown
outside andinthe
experiments that thisthe
chamber delivers layout is self-adaptive
locally desired amount to aof
certain
mass
rangethrough
flow of off-design
through the conditions.
thesurface.
surface.It has Theoretical
been
It has shown
been models have provided
in experiments
shown in experiments first
that this
that insight
layout
this into
is design
is self-adaptive
layout parameters
to a certain
self-adaptive to a
of the
range perforated
certainofrange
off-design skin, but
conditions.
of off-design this knowledge
Theoretical
conditions. is not
models have
Theoretical yet sufficient
provided
models havefirst to guide
insightfirst
provided possible
intoinsight layout
design into and
parameters
design
manufacturing
of the perforated processes. Experience
skin, but shows that
this knowledge is the
notactual pressure loss
yet sufficient characteristics,
to guide possible as a result
layout of
and
a certain laser drilling process, must be determined experimentally [23].
manufacturing processes. Experience shows that the actual pressure loss characteristics, as a result of
a certain laser drilling process, must be determined experimentally [23].
Energies 2018, 11, 252 7 of 28

parameters of the perforated skin, but this knowledge is not yet sufficient to guide possible layout and
manufacturing processes. Experience shows that the actual pressure loss characteristics, as a result of a
certain laser11,drilling
Energies 2018, 252 process, must be determined experimentally [23]. 7 of 27
The ALTTA concept was tested in 2014 within the frame of the LuFo IV
(Luftfahrt-Forschungsprogramm,
The ALTTA concept was tested German Aeronautical
in 2014 within the Research
frame of Program,
the LuFo partIV IV) project
(Luftfahrt-
VER 2 SUS (Verification ofGerman
a Simplified Suction System). Again, the targetpart
application was the vertical
Forschungsprogramm, Aeronautical Research Program, IV) project VER²SUS
tailplane
(Verificationof the
of a Airbus A320.
Simplified TheSystem).
Suction test wasAgain,
conducted in the
the target DNW (Deutsch-Niederländische
application was the vertical tailplane
Windkanäle,
of the AirbusGerman-Dutch
A320. The test Windtunnels)
was conducted Large Low
in the DNWSpeed Facility (LLF) in the Netherlands
(Deutsch-Niederländische Windkanäle, at
flight Reynolds Windtunnels)
German-Dutch numbersIt successfully
Large Low verified
Speedthe effectiveness
Facility (LLF) in ofthethe concept as at
Netherlands well as the
flight design
Reynolds
procedures. Figure 8a verified
numbersIt successfully shows the themodel mounted
effectiveness in the
of the windtunnel
concept as welltest section.
as the designInprocedures.
Figure 8b,
the achieved
Figure 8a shows extent
theof laminar
model flow, asindetermined
mounted by infrared
the windtunnel imaging,
test section. is shown
In Figure 8b,in pink.
the Encouraged
achieved extent
by the results
of laminar flow,of as
thedetermined
wind tunnel by test, a flight
infrared demonstration
imaging, is shown in is pink.
currently preparedbywithin
Encouraged the EU
the results of
project AFloNext.
the wind tunnel test, a flight demonstration is currently prepared within the EU project AFloNext.

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Verification of ALTTA concept by Infrared Imaging in Wind Tunnel
Figure 8. Verification of ALTTA concept by Infrared Imaging in Wind Tunnel.

2.4. Outlook and Next Steps

2.4. Outlook and Next Steps
While NLF and HLFC have been examined in great detail, the logical next step is to investigate
While NLF and HLFC have been examined in great detail, the logical next step is to investigate
full chord laminarization by boundary layer suction. In addition, laminarization of the fuselage
full chord laminarization by boundary layer suction. In addition, laminarization of the fuselage
should be investigated, as the fuselage is also a major contributor to viscous drag. As described above,
should be investigated, as the fuselage is also a major contributor to viscous drag. As described above,
detailed analysis of the flow on full configurations including transonic effects and the influence of
detailed analysis of the flow on full configurations including transonic effects and the influence of
wing sweep induced crossflow on the boundary layer is complex and expensive in terms of scientific
wing sweep induced crossflow on the boundary layer is complex and expensive in terms of scientific
work, computational effort and experiments. The large effort for taking this approach to the next level
work, computational effort and experiments. The large effort for taking this approach to the next
must be justified by a thorough study of potentials, using lower order methods. Assuming that cross
level must be justified by a thorough study of potentials, using lower order methods. Assuming
flow and attachment line instability can be controlled by passive means as shown in the LamAiR
that cross flow and attachment line instability can be controlled by passive means as shown in the
(Laminar Aircraft Research) project, the second part of this paper focusses on controlling 2D
LamAiR (Laminar Aircraft Research) project, the second part of this paper focusses on controlling 2D
Tollmien-Schlichting-instabilites by boundary layer suction on wing sections and the fuselage.
Tollmien-Schlichting-instabilites by boundary layer suction on wing sections and the fuselage.
3. Low-Order
3. Low-Order Methods
Methods for
for 2D
2D Suction Design and
Suction Design and Airfoil
Airfoil Analysis
Analysis

3.1. XFOIL
3.1. XFOIL and
and XFOILSUC
XFOILSUC
XFOIL is
XFOIL is aacode
codeforforthe design
the and
design analysis
and of 2D
analysis of subsonic
2D subsonic airfoils, first released
airfoils, in 1986
first released in by Drela
1986 by
[24]. At
Drela the At
[24]. TUthe Delft
TUFaculty of Aerospace
Delft Faculty Engineering,
of Aerospace several several
Engineering, students, in the framework
students, of their
in the framework
master
of theirthesis
master and supervised
thesis by Boermans,
and supervised contributed
by Boermans, to the implementation
contributed in XFOIL of
to the implementation in boundary
XFOIL of

layer suction
boundary for suction
layer laminarization and van Ingen’s
for laminarization vaneIngen’s
and full methodfullfor
e the
N calculation
method of transition
for the calculation[12],
of
which is the
transition same
[12], method
which is theused
sameformethod
the higher-order simulation
used for the codessimulation
higher-order developed codes by DLR and Airbus.
developed by
DLR Inand 2002, Ferreira implemented boundary layer suction for laminarization as well as van Ingen’s
Airbus.

full eIn 2002,
method for the
Ferreira calculation of
implemented transition
boundary [25].suction
layer The latter implementationaswas
for laminarization wellneeded
as vanbecause
Ingen’s
Drela’s
N envelope method for the calculation of transition was derived for self-similar
full e method for the calculation of transition [25]. The latter implementation was needed because Falkner-Skan
laminar boundary velocity profiles and cannot cope with damping of TS instability. In 2004, R.S.W.
Broers extended XFOIL for the design of an initial suction distribution, followed by an iterative fine-
tuned suction distribution in order to obtain a boundary layer development with prescribed shape
factor [26]. Finally, in 2006, Bongers [27] implemented the improved version of the full e method
for the calculation of transition, elaborated by van Ingen [28], in XFOIL version 6.93, called from then
on XFOILSUC. The improved version offered greater speed and better convergence and calculates
Energies 2018, 11, 252 8 of 28

Drela’s envelope method for the calculation of transition was derived for self-similar Falkner-Skan
laminar boundary velocity profiles and cannot cope with damping of TS instability. In 2004, R.S.W.
Broers extended XFOIL for the design of an initial suction distribution, followed by an iterative
fine-tuned suction distribution in order to obtain a boundary layer development with prescribed shape
factor [26]. Finally, in 2006, Bongers [27] implemented the improved version of the full eN method
for the calculation of transition, elaborated by van Ingen [28], in XFOIL version 6.93, called from8then
Energies 2018, 11, 252 of 27
on XFOILSUC. The improved version offered greater speed and better convergence and calculates
damping of the TS
XFOILSUC haswaves.
been verified by Boermans with the results of detailed boundary layer surveys
XFOILSUC has
performed by van Ingen on been verified by Boermans
the upper surface ofwith the results
a NACA of detailed
642-A-215 boundary
airfoil section layer
in the lowsurveys
speed
performed by van Ingen on the upper surface of
low turbulence wind tunnel of TU Delft, Faculty of Aerospacea NACA 64 2 -A-215
Engineering [28]. The program has low
airfoil section in the low speed not
turbulence wind tunnel
yet been released to theof TU Delft, Faculty
scientific of Aerospace
community, but was Engineering [28]. Theby
kindly provided program
Boermanshas not
to yet
TU
been released
Braunschweig. to the scientific community, but was kindly provided by Boermans to TU Braunschweig.
For
For the
the studies
studies presented
presented in in this
this paper,
paper, the
the investigated
investigated airfoils
airfoils were
were discretized
discretized with
with aa total
total of
of
201
201 points,
points,resulting
resultinginin 100100
panels on the
panels on upper and the
the upper andbottom side, respectively,
the bottom which were
side, respectively, clustered
which were
at the noseattothe
clustered account
nose to foraccount
the higher gradients
for the higherofgradients
pressureof distribution and boundary
pressure distribution andlayer parameters.
boundary layer
N
The improved
parameters. Theversion of theversion
improved full e of method
the fullwase used for transition
method was usedprediction for all
for transition cases, with
prediction forand
all
without suction. As there was no need to replicate any wind tunnel test, but
cases, with and without suction. As there was no need to replicate any wind tunnel test, but rather rather provide realistic
free-flight data, the
provide realistic critical N-factor
free-flight data, thewas set to
critical 13.
N-factor was set to 13.

3.2. Auxiliary Software

3.2. Auxiliary Software
AA set
set of
of auxiliary
auxiliaryprograms
programswas waswritten
writtenininMatLab
MatLab at at
Technical
TechnicalUniversity
University (TU) Braunschweig
(TU) Braunschweig for
semi-automatic or manual suction design, data handling and calculation of properties,
for semi-automatic or manual suction design, data handling and calculation of properties, that are that are not part
of
notthe XFOIL
part dataset,
of the XFOIL such as thesuch
dataset, permeability and pressureand
as the permeability losspressure
of the suction
loss ofskin,
thethe pressure
suction of the
skin, the
internal plenums, the data related to the suction pump, and the calculation of total
pressure of the internal plenums, the data related to the suction pump, and the calculation of total drag as described
in Section
drag 4.3. Figure
as described 9 gives 4.3.
in Section an overview of thean
Figure 9 gives program
overview structure
of the and the data
program flow for
structure and automatic
the data
suction design. Input and output data is saved on disk for every iteration of the suction
flow for automatic suction design. Input and output data is saved on disk for every iteration of the distribution,
allowing an easy re-start
suction distribution, if XFOILSUC
allowing gets hung
an easy re-start up. It alsogets
if XFOILSUC allows
hungtoup.
retrieve
It alsoa allows
case from the dataa
to retrieve
archive
case fromto the
use data
as a starting
archive topoint
usefor
as afurther design
starting pointsteps.
for further design steps.

Figure 9. XFOILSUC and auxiliary software.

Figure 9. XFOILSUC and auxiliary software.

4. Components and Parameters of the LFC System

4.1. General Layout and Components

The main components of a suction system are shown in Figure 10. Air is sucked through the
porous skin into a plenum. The plenum pressure has to be lower than the external pressure given by
the pressure distribution to overcome the flow resistance of the skin. From the plenum, air is sucked
via a system of ducts to a pump, which increases the total pressure of the suction air, before it is
Energies 2018, 11, 252 9 of 28

4. Components and Parameters of the LFC System

4.1. General Layout and Components

The main components of a suction system are shown in Figure 10. Air is sucked through the
porous skin into a plenum. The plenum pressure has to be lower than the external pressure given by
the pressure distribution to overcome the flow resistance of the skin. From the plenum, air is sucked
via a system of ducts to a pump, which increases the total pressure of the suction air, before it is
expelled from a nozzle at the velocity Ujet . To improve efficiency, a suction system may have several
segments with different plenum pressures. The system shown here has two plenums, one each for the
upper
Energiesand
2018,lower
11, 252 side. 9 of 27

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Components of Suction System.
System.

The key
The key component
component of of the
the suction
suction system
system is is the
the porous
porous wingwing skin.
skin. From
From aa purely
purely aerodynamic
aerodynamic
point of view, the optimum skin would have a continuous and homogenous
point of view, the optimum skin would have a continuous and homogenous porosity. Lachmann [29] porosity. Lachmann [29]
has used sintered metal and resin-impregnated glass fibre fleece as surface
has used sintered metal and resin-impregnated glass fibre fleece as surface material in wind tunnel material in wind tunnel
experiments, which
experiments, which showed
showed good
good performance.
performance. However,
However, such such skin
skin materials cannot carry
materials cannot carry anyany
structural loads and tend to get clogged with atmospheric dust. The other type
structural loads and tend to get clogged with atmospheric dust. The other type of suction skin that has of suction skin that
has been
been researched
researched is sheetismetal
sheetwithmetal withnumber
a large a largediscrete
number discrete
small holes orsmall
slots.holes
Most or slots. Most
experimenters
experimenters
in the past haveinused the past
skinshave
withused skins grid
a uniform withof a uniform grid of
suction holes of suction
constantholes of constant
diameter, which diameter,
results in
which results in a constant permeability of the suction skin. The actual
a constant permeability of the suction skin. The actual suction rate is then a function of suction rate is thenthea pressure
function
of the pressure
difference acrossdifference across in
the skin, which the skin,
turn which on
depends in turn depends
the outer on the
pressure outer pressure
distribution and thedistribution
pressure
and the pressure inside the wing. In order to provide chordwise tailoring of
inside the wing. In order to provide chordwise tailoring of the suction distribution, systems with the suction distribution,
systems with
multiple multiple
plenums have plenums have been
been suggested, suggested,
as well as well
as internal as internal
structures with structures with throttling
throttling properties [22].
properties [22]. However, with todays’ CNC machining possibilities, including
However, with todays’ CNC machining possibilities, including laser beam, electron beam or mechanical laser beam, electron
beam oritmechanical
drilling, might even drilling, it might
be possible even abe
to produce possible
skin with a to produceand
chordwise a skin with avariation
spanwise chordwise and
of hole
spanwise variation of hole spacing and hole diameter, so that the suction rate can
spacing and hole diameter, so that the suction rate can be optimized locally with just a single or very be optimized locally
withplenum
few just a single or very
chambers few
with plenum chambers
a constant with a Of
inside pressure. constant
course,inside
changespressure.
in angleOfof course,
attackchanges
change
in angle of attack change the outer pressure distribution, so the system
the outer pressure distribution, so the system must provide a certain level of robustness and must provide a certain level
versatility
of robustness
(this is looked and
at inversatility
more detail(this is looked
in Section 5).at in more detail in Section 5).

4.2. Suction
4.2. Suction &
& Skin
Skin Parameters
Parameters
Within XFOILSUC,
Within XFOILSUC, the the suction
suctiondesign
designfor
fora asingle
singleoperating
operatingpoint
pointdefined by by
defined lift lift
coefficient, Re
coefficient,
and Mach number involves only the non-dimensional suction velocity
Re and Mach number involves only the non-dimensional suction velocity v0 /U∞ as the design ⁄ as the design
parameter and
parameter and requires
requires nono consideration
consideration of of the
the suction
suction skin
skin properties
properties or
or any
any internal
internal pressures.
pressures.
However, these
However, these are
are relevant
relevant for
for the
the assessment
assessment of of the
the suction
suction compressor
compressor system,
system, it’s it’s power
power
consumption, and the thrust produced by the discharged suction air. In addition, the permeability
consumption, and the thrust produced by the discharged suction air. In addition, the permeability of of
the skin is a mechanical feature that does not change, which means that instead the suction
distribution changes with the pressure distribution, when or are varied. To calculate such off-
design cases, it is also necessary to include the skin properties in the design chain.
The porosity is the fraction of flow-through area, i.e., the cross-sectional area of holes or
slits per unit of skin area. If is the mean flow velocity inside the suction holes, then the nominal
 Energies 2018, 11, 252 10 of 28

the skin is a mechanical feature that does not change, which means that instead the suction distribution
changes with the pressure distribution, when CL or α are varied. To calculate such off-design cases,
it is also necessary to include the skin properties in the design chain.
The porosity por is the fraction of flow-through area, i.e., the cross-sectional area of holes or slits
per unit of skin area. If vh is the mean flow velocity inside the suction holes, then the nominal suction
velocity becomes v0 = vh · por, which is identical to the volume flow per unit skin area. The direction of
v0 is defined positive in direction of the surface normal vector and consequently, v0 is negative when
suction is applied. The nondimensional volumetric suction coefficient is the total volume flow through
the skin, Q, divided by reference area and free stream velocity. It can also be obtained by integrating
the nondimensional suction velocity v0 /U∞ along the 2D profile contour (Equation (1). The contour
coordinate s runs from the trailing edge along the upper side of the airfoil to the nose and then back to
the rear
Energies 2018,end along the bottom side (Figure 11):
11, 252 10 of 27
Energies 2018, 11, 252 10 of 27
Q 1 v0
I
CQ = = 1− ds (1)
= S re f · U =− 1
∞ l s U∞ (1)
= ∙ =− (1)
∙

Figure 11. Airfoil Contour Cordinate System.

Figure 11. Airfoil Contour Cordinate System
Figure 11. Airfoil Contour Cordinate System
Figure
Figure 1212 gives
gives anan overview
overview of of
thethe most
most important
important pressure
pressure definitions. cis
definitions. p is
thethe wall
wall pressure
pressure
Figure
distribution 12 gives
created an
by overview
the external of the
flow, most important
nondimensionalized pressure
by definitions.
the free stream
distribution created by the external flow, nondimensionalized by the free stream dynamic pressure: is the
dynamic wall pressure
pressure:
distribution created by the external flow, nondimensionalized by the free stream dynamic pressure:
pw−− p∞= p− −p
cp = = − = ∙ 1 w∙ − ∞ (2) (2)
= q∞ =2 ·$∞ ·U∞2
(2)
∙ ∙
To obtain the skin pressure coefficient , , the pressure drop across the suction skin is also
To
Toobtain
obtainthe skin
skinpressure
thewith pressure coefficient
coefficient c p,skin
,
, ,the
thepressure
pressuredrop
dropacross
acrossthe
thesuction
suctionskin
skinisisalso
also
made dimensionless free stream dynamic pressure:
made dimensionless with free stream dynamic
made dimensionless with free stream dynamic pressure: pressure:
Δ −
= Δ = p − (3)
pl − pw
,
∆pskin
, ==
c p,skin == (3)
(3)
q∞ q∞

Figure 12. Cp, Cp,pl & Cp,skin.

Figure 12. Cp, Cp,pl & Cp,skin.
Figure 12. cp , cp,pl & cp,skin .
The plenum pressure coefficient is defined similarly to the wall pressure coefficient, except that
The plenum
the pressure inside pressure coefficient
the suction plenumis is defined
used. similarly to the coefficient
The pressure wall pressure coefficient, exceptorthat
can be positive
The plenum pressure coefficient is defined similarly to the wall pressure coefficient, except that
the pressure inside the suction plenum is used. The pressure coefficient
negative, depending on the pressure distribution on the profile. When suction is applied, , is or can be positive
the pressure
negative, inside
depending the suction plenum
on the pressure is used. The pressure coefficient c can be positive or
p suction is applied, negative,
always less than the minimum , anddistribution on the profile.
in consequence, ,
When
, though not constant, is always , is
always less than the minimum
negative: , and in consequence, , , though not constant, is always
negative: −
, = − = , + (4)
, = = , + (4)
The plenum pressure coefficient , for each plenum segment is found by inserting the
maximum The plenum
, (thepressure coefficient
least negative) and the for each plenum
, minimum for that segment
segment is into
found by inserting
Equation (4). Thethe
Energies 2018, 11, 252 11 of 28

depending on the pressure distribution on the profile. When suction is applied, c p,pl is always less
than the minimum c p , and in consequence, c p,skin , though not constant, is always negative:

p pl − p∞
c p,pl = = c p,skin + c p (4)
q∞

The plenum pressure coefficient c p,pl for each plenum segment is found by inserting the maximum
c p,skin (the least negative) and the minimum c p for that segment into Equation (4). The minimum c p
is taken from the pressure distribution, while the maximum c p,skin must be defined by setting the
minimum absolute skin pressure loss. Several researchers have attempted to derive the flow resistance
of a suction skin as a function of geometrical and flow parameters, either from first principles or
experimental data, but invariably without success [23]. While the main driver is known to be the
porosity, too many other parameters were found to be of relevance, some of which can not be properly
measured or reproduced during manufacturing. For the purpose of this paper, a simple relationship
typical for problems of internal flow is assumed, in which the pressure drop is proportional to the
dynamic pressure of the suction velocity, qs , and a pressure loss coefficient ζ:

1
∆ps = −ζ ·qs = −ζ · ·$w ·v20
2
By defining the skin permeability as the inverse of the pressure loss coefficient, we can express
the suction velocity as function of the skin pressure drop, the wall density, and the permeability:

1
ϕ=
ζ

−∆ps
v20 = 2· ϕ· (5)
$w
The pressure differential is expressed by the skin pressure coefficient and free stream
dynamic pressure:
$∞ 2
∆ps = c p,skin · ·U∞ (5)
2
Combining Equations (5) and (6) and some rearrangement results in the nondimensional suction
velocity v0 /U∞ and eliminates U∞ from the right hand side of the equation:

v20 $∞
2
= −c p,skin · ϕ·
U∞ $w

The wall density ratio $w /$∞ is equal to the pressure ratio multiplied by the inverse of the
temperature ratio, which can both be expressed as functions of Mach number and wall pressure
coefficient using basic gas dynamic relationships for boundary layers [3,30]:

$w pw T∞ 0.16055· M∞ 2 +1
= · = 1 (6)
$∞ p∞ Tw 2
2 · c p · κ · M∞ + 1

Inserting the densitiy ratio $w /$∞ given by Equation (7) leads to an expression for the
nondimensional suction velocity containing only quantities known from XFOIL output, and the
skin permeability distribution:

1 2
v20 2 · c p · κ · M∞ + 1
2
= − c p,skin · ϕ · 2 +1
(7)
U∞ 0.16055· M∞

By solving Equation (8) for ϕ, we can extract the permeability distribution of the skin from a given
case, which in turn allows us to compute the suction velocity distribution for other operating points.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 12 of 28

4.3. Drag and Thrust Bookkeeping

The 2D profile drag is the sum of all forces parallel to free stream velocity caused by external
pressure and wall shear stress. It can be determined by integrating pressure and shear stress over the
profile contour. Another classical approach to profile drag identification is to integrate the momentum
deficit in the wake of the profile. The underlying assumption is that any portion of air influenced
by the airfoil also passes through the wake plane, which is not true if the boundary layer is partially
sucked into the wing. For airfoils with suction, the remaining wake drag is only a small portion of
the total drag. It can be shown by momentum analysis that the profile drag is equal to the sum of the
wake drag and the momentum intake of the suction system [26], which in turn can be shown to be
exactly twice the suction coefficient CQ :

CDp f = CDp + CD f = CDw + 2·CQ

As can be seen from this equation, the amount of suction should be kept as low as possible,
just enough to ensure laminar flow. Any additional suction will not reduce drag further, but leads to
increased profile drag. The drag that has to be overcome by engine thrust is the profile drag minus the
thrust produced by the jet thrust of the expelled suction air. In terms of total energy, the aircraft power
system also has to deliver the power to drive the suction compressor. We therefore define a total drag
coefficient CDtot , on which calculations of drag savings in this paper will be based:

CDtot = CDp f − CTjet + CDC

The pressure difference that must be overcome by the suction pump has four components:

1. Difference of local static pressure on outer contour to p∞ ;

2. Flow resistance through porous skin;
3. Flow resistance through ducting;
4. Dynamic pressure of discharge velocity.

Components #2 and #3 can be small for a well-designed suction system, component #1 depends on
the body geometry and the angle of attack. If the suction air is simply spilled overboard at a negligible
discharge velocity, the #4 component is zero. The pressure components can be made dimensionless by
introducing pressure coefficients. The first component is simply the wall pressure coefficient defined
in Equation (2), the second is the skin pressure coefficient defined in Equation (3), and their sum is the
plenum pressure coefficient defined in Equation (4). This simplifies the calculation of pump power,
as c p,pl is constant per segment of the suction system. The flow resistance of the ducting from the
plenum to the pump is expressed by the duct pressure loss coefficient c p,duct , which depends on the
design of the ducting and the mass flow. As the internal design of the LFC system is beyond the scope
of this paper, c p,duct is also assumed to be a constant. The pressure at the pump inlet then becomes:

p pump,in = (c p,pl + c p, duct )·q∞ + p∞

The temperature at the pump inlet is identical to the outer skin temperature, as the skin and
the duct can be considered adiabatic throttling devices. Two outlet properties, the static pressure
p∞ and the jet velocity Ujet , are given. For the dynamic pressure component, the density must be
determined from static pressure and the pump outlet temperature, which is a function of the pressure
ratio and the pump efficiency. The correct values are determined by iterative calculations, and the final
compressor power is equal to the change in specific enthalpy of the suction air multiplied by the mass
flow. In incompressible flow, the mass flow could be calculated from CQ and free stream quantities.
.
However, for compressible flows, m is not proportional to volumetric CQ , and we need to define a
Energies 2018, 11, 252 13 of 28

mass flow dependent suction coefficient. Using the previously defined wall densitiy ratio, $w /$∞ , this
can also be calculated from non-dimensional 2D quantities, analogous to Equation (1):
.
m 1 v0 $ w
I
CQm = =− · ds
Sre f ·U∞ ·$∞ l s U∞ $∞

Dividing pump power by flight speed results in the equivalent compressor drag DC , which can
be converted to a nondimensional compressor drag coefficient:

DC PC
CDC = 1
= 1
2 3
2 · $∞ ·U∞ · Sre f 2 · $∞ ·U∞ · Sre f

Finally, the jet of expelled suction air produces thrust, which is expressed by the thrust coefficient:
.
m ·Ujet
CTjet = 1 2
2 · ρ ·U∞ · Sre f

Obviously, compressor power and jet thrust both increase with jet velocity. If the design goal is to
minimize pump power, the jet velocity should be kept as low as possible, while the optimum from
a total energy point of view is found by minimizing CDC − CTjet . It can be shown that the optimum
discharge velocity is equal to flight velocity for ηC = 1 and decreases with compressor efficiency. The jet
thrust is generated with very high propulsive efficiencies (η prop > 1), because the inlet momentum or
sink drag is already contained in the profile drag. Correct matching of the jet velocity to the compressor
efficiency is important for the overall system efficiency. For the calculation of pump drag and suction
air jet thrust, a compressor efficiency of ηC = 0.7 was assumed and the jet velocity set to Ujet = 0.7·U∞ .
These rather conservative values are similar to those reported for the Northrop X-21, the only large jet
plane with full chord LFC flown [31]. The minimum skin pressure loss coeffcient and the duct pressure
loss coefficient were both set to a value of 0.1.

4.4. Strategies for Suction Design

For very simple cases such as the flat plate at zero incidence, theoretical solutions exist for suction
velocities and shape factors that will ensure laminar flow in incompressible flow. For real world
cases with varying pressure gradients, high Reynolds numbers and compressability effects, suction
designs must be made by iteratively running the boundary layer solver, checking the solution and
adaptation of the suction where certain target values are not met. As the primary objective is the
transition location, one could start out with a small constant suction and simply scale it up until the
target transition location is achieved. However, this would lead to oversucking on much of the wing
surface, which results in unwanted additional skin friction and can even cause early transition rather
than delaying it. As the local shape factor H12 , which is the ratio of the displacement thickness to the
momentum thickness, has been shown to be a good design parameter for suction design, the method
used for automatic suction design was to increase or decrease suction locally, depending on wether
the shape factor was under or over target. Because the boundary layer flow at a given location is a
result of the flow “history”, rather than just the suction at that point, back stepping of the suction
adaptation is necessary. Applying moving average smoothing to both the shape factor and the adapted
suction distribution provided sufficient chordwise propagation and also proved helpful in damping
out numerical oscillations. For flat plates in incompressible natural laminar flow, H12 is known to
be 2.6, and this has been successfully used as the target value for the suction design of sailplane wing
sections, which operate at low speeds. H12 must be kept below 2.6 for higher Reynolds numbers in
incompressible flow, while higher Mach numbers provide damping of the TS waves, which permits
running higher shape factors, in excess of 3, without unwanted transition. For cases with both, high
Reynolds and Mach numbers, a varying target shape factor was used for some cases, decreasing
Energies 2018, 11, 252 14 of 28

linearly from LE to TE. It was also tried to use the N-factor calculated by XFOILSUCs transition
prediction module as target parameter, the idea being that a steady increase towards the TE might
lead to a good suction design. However, the N-factor turned out to be too sensitive to small changes
in suction for use in an automated design routine. For some cases, where no good solution could be
found by automatic design, the suction was adapted manually. It must be pointed out that neither the
perfect target criterion nor its optimum value have been reliably identified and that further research
on this subject is necessary.

5. Results for a Supercritical Airfoil

The effect of boundary layer suction shall be demonstrated for the example of the DLR F15 (see
Figure 13), which is a generic supercritical airfoil developed during the FNG project [32]. Although
this airfoil was not designed for laminar flow, and no modifications to the shape were made, it shows
a certain extent of natural laminar flow in 2D calculations, as can be seen from the jump in the skin
friction coefficient C f shown in Figure 14. At Mach 0.7, a Reynolds number of 30 million and CL = 0.5,
natural transition (NT) occurs around 5% chord length on the upper side, while the lower surface stays
laminar almost up to 50%. With suction (LFC) up to 80% of chord length, the transition is delayed to
85% on both sides. Also shown in Figure 14 are the amplification factor, N, and the shape factor, H12 ,
together with the applied non-dimensional suction velocity, v0 /U∞ , and the necessary permeability,
ϕ, for the same operating point, which is typical of cruise conditions for a midrange jet aircraft or
Energies 2018, 11, 252 14 of 27
regional turboprop.

Figure
Figure 13.
13. Investigated
Investigated Airfoils.
Airfoils.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 15 of 28
Energies 2018, 11, 252 15 of 27

Figure 14. Boundary Layer and Suction Parameters; DLR-F15; = 30 ∙ 10 ; = 0.7; = 0.5.
Figure 14. Boundary Layer and Suction Parameters; DLR-F15; Re = 30·106 ; Ma = 0.7; CL = 0.5.

For off-design operating points, the performance and boundary layer data must be computed in
three For off-design
steps. First, theoperating points, thegiven
skin permeability, performance
implicitlyand boundary
by the suctionlayer data must
and pressure be computed
distribution, is
in three steps. First, the skin permeability, given implicitly by the suction and pressure
extracted from the initial design case. The pressure distribution is obtained by running the new case distribution,
is extracted
with the oldfrom the initial
suction design
velocity case. The pressure
distribution throughdistribution
XFOILSUC. is obtained
The upper by running
and lower the new case
plenum
with the old suction velocity distribution through
pressures are adjusted to comply with the maximum , XFOILSUC. The upper and lower plenum
—condition, and the new suction pressures
are adjusted to comply with the maximum c
velocities are determined using Equation (8), before the case isand
p,skin —condition, the new
re-run suction
in XFOIL to velocities are
get the final
determined using Equation (8), before the case is re-run
solution. When this is done for an angle-of-attack-sequence, a = in XFOIL to get the final solution. When
-polar can be plotted.Two this
is done for an angle-of-attack-sequence, a ϕ = const-polar
examples are shown in Figure 15, for permeabilites designed at can be plotted.Two examples
= 0.4 and 0.6. are shown
The polars in
have the
Figure 15,
typical for permeabilites
shape of NLF profiles designed at CReynolds
at lower L = 0.4 and 0.6. The polars
numbers, with ahave the typical
pronounced shape of
laminar NLF
bucket
covering a certain span of lift coefficients around the design point. The laminar bucket can be
Energies 2018, 11, 252 16 of 28

Energies 2018, 11, 252 16 of 27

profiles at lower Reynolds numbers, with a pronounced laminar bucket covering a certain span of lift
coefficients
extended byaround
loweringthethe
design point.
plenum The laminar
pressure bucket
and thus can be extended
increasing by as
the suction, lowering
can be the plenum
seen in the
pressure and thus increasing the suction, as can be seen in the
dashed curve, for which the minimum skin pressure loss was increased from ,dashed curve, for which the minimum
= −0.1 to −0.2.
skin
It canpressure loss was
also be seen thatincreased from c p,skin
for lift coefficients = −0.1
above the to −0.2. Itbucket,
laminar can also be seen
drag that for
increases lift coefficients
quickly and even
above the laminar bucket, drag increases quickly and even surpasses that of the unsucked
surpasses that of the unsucked base airfoil, which is due to the increased skin friction induced base by
airfoil,
the
which is due to the increased skin friction induced by the now obsolete suction. The
now obsolete suction. The data for the natural transition reference are represented by the dash-dotted data for the
natural
line, transition
while the solidreference areisrepresented
black line the minimum bydrag
the dash-dotted line, while
envelope obtained the solidthe
by adjusting black line is the
permeability
minimum
for drag envelope
each individual obtained
operating point.by adjusting the permeability for each individual operating point.

Figure
Figure15.
15.Polars
Polarswith
withfixed
fixedand
andadjusted
adjustedpermeability; DLR-F15; Re =
permeability;DLR-F15; = 30
30·∙10
106 ; ; Ma ==0.7.
0.7.

One of the questions that arise when designing suction systems is what portion of the wing
One of the questions that arise when designing suction systems is what portion of the wing chord
chord should be sucked. Extension of the suction area will of course increase the technical complexity
should be sucked. Extension of the suction area will of course increase the technical complexity and
and the weight and power consumption of the suction system, which have to be compensated by the
the weight and power consumption of the suction system, which have to be compensated by the
drag saved.
drag saved.
In Figure 16, a variation of the suction length for the DLR F15 and the resulting drag components
In Figure 16, a variation of the suction length for the DLR F15 and the resulting drag components
are shown. As can be seen in Figure 16a, both the profile and the total drag decrease over the entire
are shown. As can be seen in Figure 16a, both the profile and the total drag decrease over the entire
interval, which means the increase in pump drag is more than compensated by the decrease in
interval, which means the increase in pump drag CDc is more than compensated by the decrease in
profile drag up to the maximum suction length. In Figure 16b, the relative drag reduction is shown,
profile drag up to the maximum suction length. In Figure 16b, the relative drag reduction is shown,
along with the ratio of drag reduction and resulting pump drag. In conclusion, the suction length is
along with the ratio of drag reduction and resulting pump drag. In conclusion, the suction length is
only limited by technical feasibility of the suction system integration. As provision must be made for
only limited by technical feasibility of the suction system integration. As provision must be made
trailing edge movables for lateral control and high lift, it was decided to limit suction to 80% of chord
for trailing edge movables for lateral control and high lift, it was decided to limit suction to 80% of
length for the investigations in this paper, which results in transition at approximately 85% on both
chord length for the investigations in this paper, which results in transition at approximately 85% on
sides.
both sides.
Energies 2018,
Energies 11,252
2018,11, 252 17 of
17 of 27
28
Energies 2018, 11, 252 17 of 27

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure16.
16.Variation
Variationofofsuction
suctionlength; DLR-F15; Re =
length;DLR-F15; = 30
30·∙10
106 ; ; Ma =
= 0.7.
0.7.
Figure 16. Variation of suction length; DLR-F15; = 30 ∙ 10 ; = 0.7.
Profile drag in general depends on Reynolds and Mach number, which remains true for airfoils
Profile drag in general depends on Reynolds
Reynolds and and Mach
Mach number,
number, which remains true
true for airfoils
with Profile
laminardrag flowincontrol,
generalwhere
dependsalsoon the necessary suction to preventwhich remains
transition changes. for
As airfoils
can be
with laminar
with inlaminar flow control, where also the necessary suction to prevent transition changes. As can bebe
seen the leftflow
graph control,
in Figurewhere 17,also
in thetheinterval
necessary suctionReto=prevent
between transition
10–40 million, the changes.
profile drag As can
of the
seen in the left graph
seen in thesupercritical in Figure
left graph inairfoil 17,
Figurestays in
17, in the interval
the interval between
between Re = 10–40
Re = 10–40 million,
million, the profile
the profile drag of
drag of thethe
unsucked almost constant. The reason for this is the mutual compensation
unsucked supercritical
unsucked supercritical airfoil
airfoil stays
stays almost
almost constant.
constant. The
Thereason
reason for this
for is is
this the
themutual
mutual compensation
compensation of
of two effects: Skin friction for either laminar or turbulent boundary layer decreases, while at the
two
same effects:
of twotime, Skin
effects: friction
the Skin for
friction
transition either laminar
for either
location on thelaminaror turbulent
lowerorside boundary
turbulent
moves boundary layer decreases,
layer decreases,
forward, increasing while at the
while of
the portion same
at the
the
time,
same the transition
time, the location
transition on the
location lower
on theside moves
lower side forward,
moves increasing
forward, the portion
increasing
airfoil that has a turbulent boundary layer. For the LFC cases, the transition position does not move, of
the the airfoil
portion of that
the
has a
airfoil turbulent
that has aboundary
turbulent layer. For
boundary the LFC
layer. cases,
For the the
LFC transition
cases, the position
transition
and hence, the profile drag decreases with Re. The amount of suction air, as well as the pump power, does not
positionmove,
does and
not hence,
move,
the profile
and hence,
decrease asdrag
the
well. decreases
profile dragwith
The right handRe.
decreases The
graph with amount
in Re. The
Figure of17suction
amount
showsofair, as wellair,
suction
the influence asas the pump
ofwell
Mach power,
as number
the pump decrease
power,
for Re =
as well.
decrease The
as right
well. hand
The rightgraph
hand in Figure
graph in 17 shows
Figure 17 the influence
shows the of Mach
influence
const. The profile drag stays nearly constant up to a Mach number of 0.6, beyond which a significant of number
Mach for
number Re =
for Re =
const.
const.rise
The
drag profile
Thecan drag
profile stays nearly
drag stays
be observed, constant
nearly
both with up
constant to
and without a Mach number
up to asuction.
Mach numberof 0.6,
The suction beyond which
of 0.6,requirements
beyond whicha significant
and drag
a significant
the pump
rise can
drag also
drag be observed,
rise increase
can be observed, both
with Mach with
both and without
with and
numbers suction.
without
above The suction requirements and
0.6. suction. The suction requirements and the pump the pump drag
also increase
drag with Mach
also increase numbers
with Mach aboveabove
numbers 0.6. 0.6.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 17. DLR F15, Sensitivity to (a) Reynolds and (b) Mach number.
Figure
Figure 17.
17. DLR
DLR F15,
F15, Sensitivity
Sensitivity to
to (a)
(a) Reynolds
Reynolds and
and (b)
(b) Mach
Mach number.
number.
6. Results for NLF- and BWB-Airfoils
6. Results for NLF- and BWB-Airfoils
In the previous section, total drag reduction by a factor of three was shown on a supercritical
airfoilInwhich
the previous section,
normally total drag
is mostly reduction
turbulent. by a designed
Airfoils factor of three was shown
for natural on aflow
laminar supercritical
employ
airfoil which normally is mostly turbulent. Airfoils designed for natural laminar flow
extended areas with negative pressure gradients in the front part to keep the flow laminar on employ
both
extended areas with negative pressure gradients in the front part to keep the flow laminar on both
Energies 2018, 11, 252 18 of 28

6. Results for NLF- and BWB-Airfoils

In the previous section, total drag reduction by a factor of three was shown on a supercritical airfoil
which
Energies normally
2018, 11, 252is mostly turbulent. Airfoils designed for natural laminar flow employ extended18areas of 27
with negative pressure gradients in the front part to keep the flow laminar on both sides without suction,
followed
sides withoutby a suction,
short and strong by
followed pressure
a shortrise
andonstrong
the rear part, which
pressure rise oncauses
the rearimmediate
part, which transition.
causes
The low drag characteristics are only achieved for a limited window around
immediate transition. The low drag characteristics are only achieved for a limited window around the design lift coefficient.
Below or above
the design the so-called
lift coefficient. Belowlaminar bucket,
or above transition
the so-called movesbucket,
laminar forward on at least
transition one forward
moves side of the
on
airfoil,
at least causing
one sidedragof thecoefficients similar
airfoil, causing to those
drag of fully
coefficients turbulent
similar wing
to those ofsection.
fully turbulent wing section.
The DLR-LC2B also shown in Figure 13 is a NLF NLF airfoil
airfoil originally
originally developed for use on
commuter planes. To To investigate
investigatethe thepotential
potentialfor forfurther
further drag
drag reduction,
reduction, suction
suction waswas applied
applied to
to the
the region
region behind
behind thethe pressure
pressure minimum.
minimum. TheThe laminar
laminar flowlength
flow lengthcould
couldbe beextended
extended almost
almost to the
trailing edge, inducing a relative drag reduction on the order of of 40%.
40%. Compared to the supercritical
airfoil with
withsuction,
suction,the theresulting
resulting total
total drag
drag is lower
is lower by 16%.
by 16%. The lowest
The lowest values observed
values observed were were =
0.0015
C Dtot = 0.0015 for the total drag coefficient. Outside the laminar bucket, a sharp
for the total drag coefficient. Outside the laminar bucket, a sharp suction peak builds up atsuction peak builds up
at
thethe leading
leading edge,
edge, causing
causing instanttransition
instant transitionthat
thatrequires
requiresadditional
additionalsuction
suctionat atthe
thenose
nose toto suppress,
suppress,
which explains the jump in CDtot near nearthe
theupper
upperand andlower
lowerlimits
limits of
of the
the laminar
laminar region,
region, asas shown in
Figure 18.

Figure
Figure18.
18.Effect
Effectof
ofadditional
additionalsuction
suctionon
onaaNLF
NLFairfoil;
airfoil;DLR LC2B; Re =
DLRLC2B; = 30
30·∙10
106 ; ;
Ma ==0.7.
0.7.

While the minimum thickness of wing sections is limited by strength and weight consideration,
While the minimum thickness of wing sections is limited by strength and weight consideration,
blended wing body (BWB) configurations require airfoils also optimized for internal volume. One
blended wing body (BWB) configurations require airfoils also optimized for internal volume.
example is the NASA SC(2)-0518, also shown in Figure 13, that was used by Lyu and Martins [33] for
One example is the NASA SC(2)-0518, also shown in Figure 13, that was used by Lyu and Martins [33]
the center section in their study of a BWB configuration. It features a very blunt nose and a high
for the center section in their study of a BWB configuration. It features a very blunt nose and a high
thickness-to-cord ratio of 18%, resulting in a fairly high profile drag coefficient between 0.007 and
thickness-to-cord ratio of 18%, resulting in a fairly high profile drag coefficient between 0.007 and
0.008 for Re = 30 million and Ma = 0.7, shown by the dash-dotted curve in Figure 19. Application of
0.008 for Re = 30 million and Ma = 0.7, shown by the dash-dotted curve in Figure 19. Application of
suction can reduce the total drag coefficient to just above 0.003, which is larger than the minimum
suction can reduce
drag coefficient the total
found drag
for the coefficient
much thinnertosupercritical
just above 0.003, which
and NLF is larger
airfoils, butthan the minimum
represents drag
a reduction
coefficient found for
of 60% compared to the
the much thinner
turbulent basesupercritical
airfoil. Theseand NLF airfoils,
numbers must be buttreated
represents
with asome
reduction
care, of
as
60% compared to the turbulent base airfoil. These numbers must be treated with
most BWB configurations presented today have strong leading edge sweep and higher Reynolds some care, as most
BWB
numbersconfigurations presented here.
than those examined todayNevertheless,
have strong leading edge sweep
the application of BLand higher
suction toReynolds
very thicknumbers
profiles
than those examined here. Nevertheless, the application of BL suction to
promises significant drag reductions and is surely worth a closer look, using more very thick profiles promises
sophisticated
significant
simulationdragtools.reductions and is surely worth a closer look, using more sophisticated simulation tools.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 19 of 28
Energies 2018,
Energies 2018, 11,
11, 252
252 19 of
19 of 27
27

Figure19.
Figure
Figure 19.Effect
19. Effect of
Effectof Suction
ofSuction on
onaaahigh-thickness
Suctionon high-thickness BWB
high-thicknessBWB airfoil;
BWBairfoil; NASA
airfoil;NASA SC(2)-0518; ==30
SC(2)-0518; Re=
NASASC(2)-0518; 30
30∙∙·10
106 ;;; Ma =
10 = 0.7.
= 0.7.
0.7.

7. Application
7. Application of
of Suction
Suction to
to Fuselages
Fuselages

7.1. Design
7.1. Design of
of Fuselage
Fuselage Suction
Suction
Natural laminar
Natural laminar
laminarflow flow
flowonononthe
the front
the 30%
front
front 30% of aaof
30%
of business
a business
business jetfuselage
jet fuselage has been
jet fuselage
has been investigated
hasinvestigated by Holmes
been investigated
by Holmes by
et
et al.
Holmes [34],
al. [34],et al.and
and potential
[34], AC
and potential
potential level
AC level drag
ACdrag savings
levelsavings of
drag savings 7%
of 7% were were reported.
of 7%reported.
were reported. However,
However, the
However, much
the much larger
the larger
much
Reynolds
larger
Reynolds Reynolds numbers
numbers of passenger
numbers
of passenger
of passenger planes
planes
planes make
makemake significant
significantNLF
significant NLF impossible.
NLFimpossible.
impossible. Active Active fuselage
Active fuselage
laminarization has been suggested by Lachmann [29], including
laminarization has been suggested by Lachmann [29], including re-laminarization behind a turbulent re-laminarization behind a turbulent
cockpit section
cockpit section by
section by complete
bycomplete boundary
completeboundary
boundarylayer layer removal,
layerremoval,
removal,as asasearly
early
earlyasasas1962,
1962,
1962, and
and and later
later
later byby
by Pfenninger
Pfenninger
Pfenninger [35]
[35] in
[35]
in
1987.
in 1987.
1987. Of
Of Of course,
course,
course, suction
suction
suction on
onon a fuselage
a fuselageskin
a fuselage skin poses
skinposes a number
posesa anumber of technical
numberofoftechnical challenges.
technicalchallenges.
challenges. While While windows
While windows
can in
can intheory
theorybe
theory bereplaced
be replacedby
replaced byartificial
by artificial
artificial vision
vision
vision using
using
using cameras
cameras
cameras and
andand monitors,
monitors,
monitors, some some
somedoorsdoors and
and and
doors hatches hatches
will
hatches
will
always always
be be required.
required. However,
However, these these problems
problems may may
be be
overcomeovercome
will always be required. However, these problems may be overcome by minimizing gaps and steps by by minimizing
minimizing gaps gaps
and and
steps steps
and
and installation
and installation
installation of suction
of suction
of suction
skin onskin
door
skin onpanels.
on door panels.
door panels.
As theAsAsaim the
the aim
ofaim of this
this of
paperthisis paper is an
an all-out
paper is aneffort
all-out
all-out effort
toeffort
reduce todrag
to reduce
reduce by
drag
laminar
drag by laminar
flow control,
by laminar flow
flow thecontrol, the
potential
control, potential
of fuselage
the potential of fuselage suction
suction issuction
of fuselage is
investigated investigated
on an isolated
is investigated on an isolated
on an simplified simplified
fuselage
isolated simplified
fuselage
body.
fuselage body.
Thebody.geometry The geometry
The geometry
was derived wasfrom
was derived from the
the LamAiR
derived from the[20]LamAiR
LamAiR [20] configuration
configuration
[20] configuration
mentionedmentionedmentioned
in Section 2.3,in Section
in Section
which
2.3, which
is very
2.3, which is
similar very
is very similar
tosimilar to
the fuselage the fuselage shape
shape ofshape
to the fuselage of
the Airbus the Airbus
A320. A320.
of the Airbus A320.
The waist The waist
line was
The waist line was projected
projected
line was projected onto
ontoontothe
the XY-Plane,
XY-Plane, and and
an an axisymmetric
axisymmetric body body
of of revolution
revolution was was
generated generated
the XY-Plane, and an axisymmetric body of revolution was generated from the resulting 2D-curve, from from
the the
resulting resulting
2D-curve,2D-curve,
shown
shown
in Figure
shown in20.
in Figure 20.
Figure 20.

Figure 20. LamAiR

Figure LamAiR Fuselage Geometry.
Geometry.
Figure 20.
20. LamAiR Fuselage
Fuselage Geometry.

For the
For the design
design ofof the
the fuselage
fuselage suction
suction distribution,
distribution, aa slice
slice through
through thethe fuselage
fuselage geometry
geometry was was
For the
imported in design of the
XFOILSUC. fuselage
The suction
thickness was distribution,
scaled down a obtain
to slice through
a thedistribution
pressure fuselage geometry
with was
similar
imported in XFOILSUC. The thickness was scaled down to obtain a pressure distribution with similar
imported
gradientsin toXFOILSUC.
those obtainedThe from
obtained thickness was scaled
3D RANS
RANS down to obtain
computations. Machaand pressure
and distribution
Reynolds numberwith
weresimilar
set to
to
gradients to those from 3D computations. Mach Reynolds number were set
gradients to those
cruise conditions
conditions for obtained
for an
an A320 from
A320 class 3D RANS
class aircraft, computations.
aircraft, which
which resulted Mach
resulted in and Reynolds
in aa Reynolds
Reynolds number number
number based were
based on set
on fuselage
fuselageto
cruise
cruise
length conditions
of 166 for an
million and A320
a Machclass aircraft,
number of which
0.8. resulted
Without in a Reynolds
suction, natural number based
transition was on fuselage
predicted by
length of 166 million and a Mach number of 0.8. Without suction, natural transition was predicted by
XFOILSUC at 10% relative length. Suction was applied from 7% to 70% fuselage
XFOILSUC at 10% relative length. Suction was applied from 7% to 70% fuselage length, up to the end length, up to the end
Energies 2018, 11, 252 20 of 28

length 2018,
Energies of 166
11,million
252 and a Mach number of 0.8. Without suction, natural transition was predicted
20 ofby
27
XFOILSUC at 10% relative length. Suction was applied from 7% to 70% fuselage length, up to the end
of the cylindrical part, and adjusted manually until the transition location was significantly aft of the
end of the suction region, beyond 80%.

7.2. Numerical
7.2. Numerical Setup
Setup
To analyze
To analyze the influence of
the influence suction on
of suction on the
the drag
drag coefficient
coefficient ofof aa fuselage,
fuselage, three-dimensional
three-dimensional RANS RANS
simulations were performed on a quarter section of the fuselage body
simulations were performed on a quarter section of the fuselage body geometry described above, geometry described above,
using the
using the DLR
DLR TAU-code
TAU-code [36,37],
[36,37], release
release 2016.2.0.
2016.2.0. Two
Two computational
computational grids grids of
of different
different fineness
fineness werewere
created, both with symmetry planes at 0 ◦ and 90◦ in circumferential direction. The boundary layer and
created, both with symmetry planes at 0° and 90° in circumferential direction. The boundary layer
the wake
and downstream
the wake downstreamof theoffuselage were resolved
the fuselage with structured
were resolved with structuredhexahedral cells, while
hexahedral cells,the farfield
while the
grid wasgrid
farfield madewasupmade
fromup unstructured prism and
from unstructured tetrahedral
prism cells. Within
and tetrahedral cells. the structured
Within part, thepart,
the structured fine
gridfine
the has 1005
grid points
has 1005in streamwise direction, 45
points in streamwise points in45
direction, circumferential direction anddirection
points in circumferential 81 points and in wall
81
normal direction. The y+ -values are below 1 along the nose and the cylindrical part of the fuselage.
points in wall normal direction. The y -values are below 1 along the nose and the cylindrical part of
+

Only
the at the conical
fuselage. Only atpart at the end,
the conical part aty+the
-values
end, slightly
y+-valueslarger than
slightly 1 occur.
larger than 1The boundary
occur. layer is
The boundary
resolved with more than 30 cells globally. In total, the fine grid consists of
layer is resolved with more than 30 cells globally. In total, the fine grid consists of 7.75 million 7.75 million grid points.
grid
To checkTothe
points. influence
check of the grid
the influence of resolution, a coarse grid
the grid resolution, was grid
a coarse derived wasfrom the fine
derived fromgrid,
the with grid
fine grid,
point spacing
with grid doubled
point spacingindoubled
all three in
dimensions in the structured
all three dimensions in the part of the grid
structured part(500 × grid
of the 23 × (500
41 points).
× 23 ×
The
41 points). The unstructured part was adapted accordingly, resulting in 1.24 million grid Figure
unstructured part was adapted accordingly, resulting in 1.24 million grid points in total. points 21 in
gives an
total. impression
Figure 21 gives of the
an structure
impression of the computational
of the structure ofgrids. For a better illustration,
the computational grids. Forthe a coarse
better
grid is shown.
illustration, the coarse grid is shown.

Figure 21. Details of the grid structure (coarse grid displayed) at the nose (left) and at the rear end
Figure 21. Details of the grid structure (coarse grid displayed) at the nose (left) and at the rear
(right).
end (right).

The TAU-code solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations. Turbulence was

The TAU-code
modeled solves the Reynolds-averaged
by the Menter-SST eddy viscosity model Navier-Stokes equations.
[38,39], which Turbulencefor
is widely-used wasindustrial
modeled
by the Menter-SST eddy viscosity model [38,39], which is widely-used for
applications. For time stepping, the implicit lower-upper symmetric Gauss-Seidel (LU-SGS) scheme industrial applications.
For time
was used.stepping, theturbulent
First, fully implicit lower-upper
simulations symmetric Gauss-Seidel
were performed, aimed (LU-SGS) scheme wasofused.
at the identification First,
a suitable
fully turbulent
numerical setupsimulations were performed,
for the simulations aimed
including at the identification
suction and providing of athe
suitable
drag numerical
coefficientsetup
of a
for the simulations including suction and providing the drag coefficient
turbulent fuselage as a baseline for the evaluation of LFC. Finally, two simulations includingof a turbulent fuselage as
suction
a baseline for the evaluation of LFC. Finally, two simulations including suction
show the potential of drag reduction due to the delay of transition, preserving the laminar boundary show the potential
of drag
layer. reduction
For due to thethe
these simulations, delay of transition,
suction preserving the
velocity distribution laminar
designed inboundary
XFOILSUC layer. For these
was projected
simulations, the suction velocity distribution designed in XFOILSUC was
onto the RANS surface grid. For the simulations presented here, the transition position was projected onto the RANSset
surface grid. For the simulations presented here, the transition position was
manually slightly downstream of the area where suction was applied, assuming the boundary layer set manually slightly
downstream
to be laminarof the the
from areanose
where suction
of the was up
fuselage applied,
to the assuming
transition the boundary
position. Tablelayer to be
1 gives anlaminar
overviewfromof
the nose of the fuselage up to the transition position. Table 1 gives an overview of the
the cases simulated, including the results of the drag calculations. For the drag coefficients, the wetted cases simulated,
including
surface wastheused
results
as of
thethe drag calculations.
reference area. DragFor the drag coefficients,
is predicted similarly onthe wetted
both surface wasgrids,
computational used
indicating that the boundary layer development is well resolved on the fine grid. To ensurethe
as the reference area. Drag is predicted similarly on both computational grids, indicating that a
boundary layer development is well resolved on the fine grid. To ensure a sufficient
sufficient resolution of the suction distribution, the simulations including suction were performed on resolution of
the suction
the fine grid. distribution,
For the fullytheturbulent
simulations including
case, suction were
a drag estimation as performed
in Subsection on the
7.4, fine
usinggrid. For the
handbook
methods for preliminary aircraft design, confirmed the drag results for the turbulent case.
 Suction Transition Drag Area
Flow Condition Grid ,
(x/c)Start–(x/c)End (x/c)Transition (m²)
Fine - 0.0 0.845 0.00204
Turbulent
Coarse - 0.0 0.849 0.00205
Energies 2018, 11, 252 21 of 28
Suction 53% Fine 0.07–0.53 0.550 0.449 0.00108
Suction 70% Fine 0.07–0.70 0.776 0.235 0.00057
fully turbulent case, a drag estimation as in Subsection 7.4, using handbook methods for preliminary
aircraft design, confirmed the drag results for the turbulent case.
7.3. Results
In Figure 22, the boundaryTable layer1. parameters
RANS Calculationsof thefor2D XFOILSUC
Fuselage Drag. and 3D TAU simulations are
shown in comparison. Note that the skin friction coefficient is identical for the part were suction
is applied, whichFlow is in accordance
Grid with Suction layer Transition
boundary theory and Drag that the data import from
proves CDFF, swet
Condition (x/c)Start –(x/c)End (x/c)Transition Area (m2 )
XFOIL to TAU was implemented correctly. Also shown is the development of the shape factor ,
Fine - 0.0 0.845 0.00204
which is consistently
Turbulentsmaller for the 3D case than for the 2D data. At the same time, transition is
Coarse - 0.0 0.849 0.00205
assumed earlier than predicted by XFOILSUC, which means that the calculated drag reduction can
Suction 53% Fine 0.07–0.53 0.550 0.449 0.00108
be considered conservative.
Suction 70% Fine 0.07–0.70 0.776 0.235 0.00057
To show the effect of suction length, a case with reduced fuselage suction length was also
calculated, with the suction velocity set to zero aft of 53% relative fuselage length. The reduction of
7.3. Results
total drag for both suction lengths is shown in Figure 23a, while the relative drag reduction and the
In Figure
ratio of pump 22, to
drag thedrag
boundary layer parameters
reduction are shownofinthe 2D XFOILSUC
Figure 23b. Note and 3D the
that TAUdifference
simulationsbetween
are
shown
pressure in comparison.
and friction dragNote( that the skin
) and totalfriction
drag coefficient
( c f is identical
) is almost for the
neglibile. part
The were suction
fuselage pressure
is applied, which is in accordance with boundary layer theory and proves that the data import from
distribution is very flat, and only very little suction mass flow is needed to ensure a laminar boundary
XFOIL to TAU was implemented correctly. Also shown is the development of the shape factor H12 ,
layer.which
In addition, the compressor power for the static pressure increase is also small, and so the
is consistently smaller for the 3D case than for the 2D data. At the same time, transition is
pump drag isearlier
assumed almost completely
than predicted compensated
by XFOILSUC, by themeans
which jet thrust. Thecalculated
that the total fuselage drag reduces
drag reduction can beby a
factorconsidered
of four, and the necessary compressor power is only around 7% of the saved drag.
conservative.

Figure
Figure BLBLand
22.22. andSuction
Suction Parameters
Parameters for
forFuselage.
Fuselage.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 22 of 28

To show the effect of suction length, a case with reduced fuselage suction length was also
calculated, with the suction velocity set to zero aft of 53% relative fuselage length. The reduction of
total drag for both suction lengths is shown in Figure 23a, while the relative drag reduction and the ratio
of pump drag to drag reduction are shown in Figure 23b. Note that the difference between pressure and
friction drag (CDp f ) and total drag (CDtot ) is almost neglibile. The fuselage pressure distribution is very
flat, and only very little suction mass flow is needed to ensure a laminar boundary layer. In addition,
the compressor power for the static pressure increase is also small, and so the pump drag is almost
completely compensated by the jet thrust. The total fuselage drag reduces by a factor of four, and the
necessary compressor power is only around 7% of the saved drag.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 22 of 27

(a) (b)
Figure 23. Results
Figure 23. Results for
for Fuselage
Fuselage Drag
Dragwith
withand
and without
without suction;
suction; DLRDLR LamAiR;
LamAiR; = 166
Re f us = 166 ·106∙;
10Ma
; = 0.8;
= 0.8;
α=0 . ◦= 0°.

7.4. Estimation of Fuselage Drag by Handbook Methods

7.4. Estimation of Fuselage Drag by Handbook Methods
To validate the RANS results for the turbulent reference case, the drag was was estimated using
To validate the RANS results for the turbulent reference case, the drag was was estimated using
handbook methods. Gur [40] presents a methodology commonly used for preliminary aircraft design,
handbook methods. Gur [40] presents a methodology commonly used for preliminary aircraft design,
were the friction and form drag coefficient of each component is the product of the equivalent flat
were the friction and form drag coefficient of each component is the product of the equivalent flat
plate skin friction coefficient, a form factor, and the ratio of the components’ wetted surface area to
plate skin friction coefficient, a form factor, and the ratio of the components’ wetted surface area to the
the reference area, which is usually the wing area:
reference area, which is usually the wing area:
= ∙ ∙Swet
CDFF = CFe · FF ·
Sre f
The form factor accounts for the pressure drag due to boundary layer effects. Because the wing
The
area is form factor
undefined for accounts forfuselage,
an isolated the pressure drag
we use thedue to boundary
wetted surface aslayer effects.
reference Because
area. the wing
This results in
area⁄is undefined
= 1, andfor
consequently:
an isolated fuselage, we use the wetted surface as reference area. This results in
Swet /Sre f = 1, and consequently:
, = ∙
CDFF, swet = CFe · FF
For the fuselage form factor, an estimate is given by Gur and Raymer [40,41] as a function of the
For the fuselage form factor, an estimate is given by Gur and Raymer [40,41] as a function of the
fuselage slenderness:
fuselage slenderness:
L f us
60
60 D f us
FFf us ==1 1++ 3
+
+ 400
L f us 400

D f us

For the equivalent skin friction coefficent, Raymer [41] recommends a formula taken from
DATCOM [42]:
0.455
= . .
( ) ∙ 1 + 0.144 ∙

The main parameters and the results of the handbook and numerical calculations are
Energies 2018, 11, 252 23 of 28

For the equivalent skin friction coefficent, Raymer [41] recommends a formula taken from
DATCOM [42]:
0.455
CFe = 2.58 0.65
[log10 ( Re)] ·[1 + 0.144· Ma2 ]
The main parameters and the results of the handbook and numerical calculations are summarized
in Table 2. The drag area values estimated by handbook methods and integrated from CFD data differ
by less than 0.5%, which indicates that the CFD method is sufficiently accurate to predict the potential
drag reduction by laminar flow control.

Table 2. Comparison of Drag Results from RANS and Handbook Methods.

Geometry
Lfus 38 m
Dfus 4m
Swet 414.5 m2
Flight Conditions
HCR 13,000 m
MaCR 0.8
ReFUS 166,240,000
Handbook
FFfus 1.094
CFe 0.00187
CDFF,swet,HB 0.00205
RANS Data
CDFF,swet,CFD 0.00204 (Upwind, fine grid)

8. Drag Reduction on AC Level

For a medium-range jet with top level aircraft requirements similar to an A320, a reference
configuration and an optimized design, taking into account LFC on wings, tails and fuselage,
were evaluated using methods for preliminary aircraft design [43]. To simplify the process, the suction
system was not modeled in detail. The power of the suction pump and the jet thrust of the expelled
suction air were included in the total drag coefficients, as explained in Section 4.3. No weight penalty
for the suction system is considered, assuming that for future aircraft, new weight-saving structural
technologies will compensate for the additional components. The relative drag reductions for wing
sections were determined for 2D profiles at Ma = 0.7, which corresponds to a medium range jet aircraft
flying at Ma = 0.8, with a sweep angle in the order of 20◦ to 30◦ . In Section 2.3, it was shown that sweep
induced transition can be avoided with forward swept wings and moderate sweep angles, and the
suction system only has to suppress the amplification of TS instabilities on the rear part of the wing.
The relative effect of viscous drag reduction on absolute drag is illustrated in Figure 24. The first
column shows the drag breakdown for the reference aircraft. The major contributors are induced
drag and viscous drag on wings, tail surfaces and the fuselage. Smaller portions such as nacelle
drag, interference and wave drag are summed up in the miscellaneous fraction. For wings and tails,
a drag reduction of 56% is applied. The assumptions are a relative reduction of profile drag by 68%,
as shown in Section 5, from which a deduction was made to account for junction areas which can not
be laminarized. For the fuselage, a reduction of 65% was assumed, based on the 72% reduction for the
isolated fuselage shown in Section 7, and again making a deduction for junction areas. The immediate
result is a reduction in viscous drag by 60%, and in consequence a reduction of absolute AC drag
by 30%. This changes the balance of viscous and induced drag, recommending a re-design of the wing
layout, with the optimum aspect ratio increased from 9.5 to 15. The intermediate result is an aircraft of
roughly the same size, but with significantly increased range. Resizing for the original mission leads
Energies 2018, 11, 252 24 of 28

to a reduction in wing area from 124 to 109 m2 , an according change of tail plane area, plus a reduction
in MTOW, from 75 down to 66 tons. This results in further reduction of total drag, even for fractions
of the drag not directly affected by laminar flow control or wing design. Due to the reduced mass,
the energy required for climb to altitude and take-off acceleration is also reduced. The resulting cruise
drag, represented by the right column in Figure 24, is only 50% of the reference value. Mission fuel
burn is reduced from 15.9 to 8.3 tons, a remarkable reduction by 47%.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 24 of 27

Figure 24. Viscous Drag Reduction and Effect on Total Aircraft Drag.
Figure 24. Viscous Drag Reduction and Effect on Total Aircraft Drag.

9. Conclusions and Outlook

9. Conclusions and Outlook
Laminar flow control by boundary layer suction holds potential for great reductions in drag. For
Laminar flow control by boundary layer suction holds potential for great reductions in drag.
wing sections, the lowest drag values were achieved by applying LFC on the rear part of airfoils
For wing sections, the lowest drag values were achieved by applying LFC on the rear part of airfoils
originally designed for NLF, to further delay the TS-induced transition towards the trailing edge.
originally designed for NLF, to further delay the TS-induced transition towards the trailing edge.
Compared with today’s turbulent supercritical airfoils, profile drag can be reduced by more than
Compared with today’s turbulent supercritical airfoils, profile drag can be reduced by more than 70%.
70%. Application of suction to supercritical airfoils results in slightly higher total drag values, but
Application of suction to supercritical airfoils results in slightly higher total drag values, but with
with better adaptability to changes in lift coefficient. It seems reasonable to assume the same drag
better adaptability to changes in lift coefficient. It seems reasonable to assume the same drag reduction
reduction potential also for tail surfaces. Wing sections with increased thickness, designed for use on
potential also for tail surfaces. Wing sections with increased thickness, designed for use on future
future blended wing body configurations, also showed significant potential for drag reduction with
blended wing body configurations, also showed significant potential for drag reduction with the
the application of BL suction. In the future, integrated design of airfoil shape and suction distribution
application of BL suction. In the future, integrated design of airfoil shape and suction distribution may
may lead to even lower total drag coefficients.
lead to even lower total drag coefficients.
Next to wings and tails, the fuselage is a great contributor to viscous drag. For a simplified
Next to wings and tails, the fuselage is a great contributor to viscous drag. For a simplified generic
generic contour, drag could be reduced to one fourth of the fully turbulent fuselage by applying
contour, drag could be reduced to one fourth of the fully turbulent fuselage by applying suction from
suction from near the nose to the beginning of the tailcone.
near the nose to the beginning of the tailcone.
The technical assumptions made in this study are believed to be rather conservative. Chordwise
The technical assumptions made in this study are believed to be rather conservative. Chordwise
extent of suction on wing sections was limited to 80%, leaving room for full span trailing edge
extent of suction on wing sections was limited to 80%, leaving room for full span trailing edge
movables. For the fuselage, suction up to 70% of fuselage length was investigated. The efficiency of
movables. For the fuselage, suction up to 70% of fuselage length was investigated. The efficiency of
the suction compressor was set to = 70%, based on flight tests performed in the 1960s, and none
the suction compressor was set to η = 70%, based on flight tests performed in the 1960s, and none of
of the investigated geometries was coptimized or modified for the application of suction.
the investigated geometries was optimized or modified for the application of suction.
By using the knowledge gained by the DLR during research on NLF and HLFC for the integrated
By using the knowledge gained by the DLR during research on NLF and HLFC for the integrated
design of wing and fuselage contours and suction systems, and application of state-of-the art suction
design of wing and fuselage contours and suction systems, and application of state-of-the art suction
compressor technology including electric drive systems, fuel burn reductions of 47%, as claimed in
compressor technology including electric drive systems, fuel burn reductions of 47%, as claimed in
Section 8, appear feasible.
Section 8, appear feasible.
Apart from further development of methods and numerical tools for aerodynamic design and
Apart from further development of methods and numerical tools for aerodynamic design and
analysis, a number of additional issues need to be addressed and solved in order to achieve the
analysis, a number of additional issues need to be addressed and solved in order to achieve the
necessary technological maturity:
necessary technological maturity:
• Structural concepts for porous skins with high surface quality, good mechanical robustness, low
weight and long term stability, possibly employing multiple-shell designs with function
integration into the sandwich core,
• Integration of BL suction design concepts with design of propulsion integration, high-lift and
anti-ice system,
Energies 2018, 11, 252 25 of 28

• Structural concepts for porous skins with high surface quality, good mechanical robustness,
low weight and long term stability, possibly employing multiple-shell designs with function
integration into the sandwich core,
• Integration of BL suction design concepts with design of propulsion integration, high-lift and
anti-ice system,
• Treatment of surface imperfections such as door gaps, possibly by gap suction or
downstream re-laminarization.

Acknowledgments: We would like to acknowledge the support of the Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower
Saxony, Germany (Grant No. VWZN3177) for funding the research project “Energy System Transformation
in Aviation” in the initiative “Niedersächsisches Vorab”. We also thank the North-German Supercomputing
Alliance (HLRN) for providing computational resources. Finally, the authors are grateful for the many helpful and
productive discussions and the cooperation with other members within the Energy System Transition in Aviation
project team. Special thanks go to the project leader, Jens Friedrichs, for defining and clarifying the concepts.
Author Contributions: Nils Beck performed the XFOILSUC calculations, coded the auxiliary MatLab software,
analyzed the airfoil and fuselage data with respect to suction requirements and total drag, estimated the fuselage
drag by handbook methods, and was responsible for the overall editing of the paper. Tim Landa prepared and
executed the RANS simulations of the isolated fuselage and wrote the respective part of the paper. Arne Seitz
compiled the review of laminar flow research presented in chapter 2. Loek Boermans contributed the XFOILSUC
software, gave valuable advice on it's application, and reviewed the chapters on XFOIL, suction design and
total drag. Yaolong Liu analyzed the effect of the drag reduction on overall aircraft level presented in chapter 8.
Rolf Radespiel initiated and coordinated the work, gave valuable guidance, reviewed the complete paper and
contributed to the introductory and outlook chapters.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
CD ; CDtot Drag coefficient; total drag coefficient including suction system
CDp ; CD f ; CDp f ; CDc ; CDi CD due to: pressure; friction; profile drag; compressor power; lift induced
CDw Wake drag coefficient, calculated from momentum deficit
CL ; α Lift coefficient; angle of attack
CP Pressure coefficient
CP,pl ; CP,skin ; CP,duct CP of: plenum pressure; skin pressure loss; duct pressure loss
Ma Mach number
U∞ ; p∞ ; $∞ ; T∞ ; q∞ Free stream velocity; pressure; density; temperature; dynamic pressure
pw ; $w ; Tw Wall pressure; density; temperature
p pl Suction plenum pressure
Ujet Jet velocity of suction air exhaust
Sre f ; Swet Reference areas; wetted surface area
Re; Re f us Reynolds number based on: airfoil chord length; fuselage length
v0 ; Uv∞0 Absolut; nondimensional suction velocity
.
Q; m Volume flow; mass flow of suction system
CQ ; CQm Suction coefficient based on volume flow; mass flow
x, z; s; l Cartesian airfoil coordinates; airfoil contour coordinate; chord length
ϕ; ζ Permeability; flow resistance of suction skin
H12 ; N Shape factor; growth factor
NT; NLF Natural transition; natural laminar flow
LFC; HLFC Laminar flow control; hybrid laminar flow control
TS; CF; ATL Tollmien-Schlichting; cross flow; attachment line
TLAR Top Level Aircraft Requirements
DLR Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahr (German Aerospace Research Center)
TU BS Technische Universität Braunschweig (Technical University Braunschweig)
TU Delft Delft University of Technology
Programming language for technical and mathematical problems by MathWorks,
MatLab
3 Apple Hill Drive, Natick, Massachusetts, 01760 USA
Energies 2018, 11, 252 26 of 28

References
1. Peeters, P.M.; Middel, J.; Hoolhorst, A. Fuel Efficiency of Commercial Aircraft: An Overview of Historical
and Future Trends; NLR-CR-2005-669; Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium: Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 2005.
2. Tollmien, W. Über die Entstehung der Turbulenz. In Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften
zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse; Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Göttingen,
Germany, 1929; pp. 21–44.
3. Schlichting, H. Boundary-Layer Theory, 4th ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1960.
4. Pfenninger, W. Some Results from the X21 Program: Part I: Flow Phenomena at the Leading Edge of Swept
Wings. In Recent Developments in Boundary Layer Research. Part IV. AGARDograph 97; NATO Research and
Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, 1965.
5. Pfenninger, W. Laminar Flow Control, Laminarization: Special Course on Concepts for Drag Reduction; AGARD
Report; NATO Research and Technology Organization: Neuilly-sur-Seine, France, 1977.
6. Poll, D.I.A. Some Aspects of the Flow Near a Swept Attachment Line with Particular Reference to Boundary Layer
Transition; COA Report No. 7805; Cranfield Institute of Technology: Cranfield, UK, 1978.
7. Gregory, N.; Stuart, J.T.; Walker, W.S. On the Stability of Three-Dimensional Boundary Layers with
Application to the Flow due to a Rotating Disk. Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 1952. [CrossRef]
8. Dagenhardt, J.R. Amplified Crossflow Disturbances in the Laminar Boundary Layer on a Swept Wing with Suction;
NASA Technical Report No. 1902; NASA Langley Research Center: Hampton, VA, USA, 1982.
9. Arnal, D.; Coustols, E.; Juillen, J.C. Experimental and Theoretical Study of Transition Phenomena on an
Infinite Swept Wing. Rech. Aerosp. 1984, 39–54. [CrossRef]
10. Pfenninger, W. Flow problems of Swept Low-Drag Suction Wings of Practical Contruction at High Reynolds
number. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1968, 154, 672–703. [CrossRef]
11. Van Ingen, J.L. A Suggested Semi-Empirical Method for the Calculation of the Boundary Layer Transition Region;
VTH No. 74; Delft University of Technology: Delft, The Netherlands, 1956.
12. Van Ingen, J.L. Theoretical and Experimental Investigations of Incompressible Laminar Boundary Layers with
and without Suction. VTH No. 124. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 1965.
13. Redeker, G.; Horstmann, K.H. Die Stabilitätsanalyse als Hilfsmittel beim Entwurf von Laminarprofilen;
DGLR-Bericht 86-03; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Luft- und Raumfahrt: Bonn, Germany, 1986.
14. Horstmann, K. Wing Design for Laminar Flow (Invited). In Proceedings of the 38th AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference and Exhibit, Seattle, DC, USA, 23–26 June 2008.
15. Redeker, G.; Horstmann, K.H.; Köster, H.; Thiede, P.; Szodruch, J. Design for a Natural Laminar Flow Glove
for a Transport Aircraft. AIAA-90-3043-CP. In Proceedings of the AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies
Conference and Exhibit, Dayton, OH, USA, 17–19 September 1990.
16. Voogt, N. Flight Testing of a Fokker 100 Aircraft with Laminar Flow Glove on a Transport Aircraft. In World
Aviation Congress & Exposition; SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2000; pp. 2–14.
17. Schrauf, G.H. Evaluation of the A320 Hybrid Laminar Fin Experiment. In European Congress on Computational
Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering; ECCOMAS: Barcelona, Spain, 2000.
18. Williams, G. Progress and Achievements in CleanSky SFWA. Available online: http://www.forum-ae.eu/
system/files/5-cleansky_sfwa_forum-ae.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2018).
19. Geyr, J.F.; Hatzbach, F.K.z.; Seitz, A.; Streit, T.; Wichmann, G. Wing Design Based on a Tapered Wing
Natural Laminar Flow Airfoil Catalogue. In New Results in Numerical and Experimental Fluid Mechanics IX;
Contributions to the 18th STAB/DGLR Symposium, Stuttgart, Germany, 6–7 November 2012; Dillmann, A.,
Heller, G., Krämer, E., Kreplin, H.P., Nitsche, W., Rist, U., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014;
pp. 183–191.
20. Kruse, M.; Wunderlich, T.; Heinrich, L. A Conceptual Study of a Transonic NLF Transport Aircraft with
Forward Swept Wings. AIAA 2012-3208. In Proceedings of the 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics
Conference, New Orlean, LA, USA, 25–28 June 2012.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 27 of 28

21. Seitz, A.; Kruse, M.; Wunderlich, T.; Bold, J.; Heinrich, L. The DLR Project LamAiR: Design of a NLF Forward
Swept Wing for Short and Medium Range Transport Application. AIAA 2011-3526. In Proceedings of
the 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Honolulu, HI, USA, 27–30 June 2011.
22. Schrauf, G.H.; Horstmann, K.H. Simplified Hybrid Laminar Flow Control. In Proceedings of the European
Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, ECCOMAS 2004, Jyväskylä,
Finland, 24–28 July 2004.
23. Rohardt, C.H.; Seitz, A.; Geyr, H.F.v.; Streit, T.; Schrauf, G.H.; Stuke, H. Simplified HLFC: Entwurf eines
Seitenleitwerks mit Hybrid-Laminarhaltung für den Airbus A320. In Proceedings of the Deutscher Luft-
und Raumfahrtkongress 2011, Bremen, Germany, 27–29 September 2011.
24. Drela, M. XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds Number Airfoils. In Low Reynolds
Number Aerodynamics, Proceedings of the Conference Notre Dame, Indiana, USA, 5–7 June 1989; Mueller, T.J., Ed.;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1989; pp. 1–12.
25. Ferreira, C. Implementation of Boundary Layer Suction in XFOIL and Application of Suction Powered
by Solar Cells at High Performance Sailplanes. Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft,
The Netherlands, 2002.
26. Broers, R.S.W. Extending XFOIL and xSoaring for Suction-Type Boundary Layer Control Calculations.
Master’s Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2004.
27. Bongers, J. Implementation of a New Transition Prediction Method in XFOIL. Master’s Thesis, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2006.
28. Van Ingen, J.L. 50 years eˆN. Historical Review 1956–2006 of Work at Delft Aerospace Low Speed Laboratory
Including a New Version of the Method: Delft, The Netherlands. 2006. Available online: https://surfdrive.
surf.nl/files/index.php/s/JNqoleDxl1ZREMP (accessed on 18 January 2018).
29. Lachmann, G.V. Aspects of Design, Engineering and Operational Economy of Low Drag Aircraft. In Boundary
Layer and Flow Control; Lachmann, G.V., Ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1962; pp. 1123–1165.
30. Risse, K. Preliminary Overall Aircraft Design with Hybrid Laminar Flow Control. Ph.D. Thesis, RWTH,
Aachen University, Aachen, Germany, 2016.
31. Kosin, R.E. Laminar Flow Control by Suction as applied to the X-21 Airplane. J. Aircr. 1965, 2, 384–390.
[CrossRef]
32. Wild, J. Mach and Reynolds Number Dependencies of the Stall Behavior of High-Lift Wing-Sections. J. Aircr.
2013, 50, 1202–1216. [CrossRef]
33. Lyu, Z.; Martins, J.R.R.A. Aerodynamic Design Optimization Studies of a Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft.
J. Aircr. 2014, 51, 1604–1617. [CrossRef]
34. Holmes, B.J.; Croom, C.C.; Hastings, E.C., Jr.; Obara, C.J.; Vandam, C.P. Flight Research on Natural Laminar
Flow. N88-14950; In Langley Symposium on Aerodynamics; NASA Langley Research Center: Hampton, VA,
USA, 1986; Volume 1, pp. 461–474.
35. Pfenninger, W. Long Range LFC Transport. In Research in Natural Laminar Flow and Laminar-Flow Control;
Hefner, J.N., Frances, E.S., Eds.; NASA Langley Research Center: Hampton, VA, USA, 1987.
36. Schwamborn, D.; Gerhold, T.; Heinrich, R. The DLR TAU-Code. Recent Applications in Research and
Industry. 2006. Available online: https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/uuid%3A59162917-d24d-
4f11-955f-feaeaa21e2c1/datastream/OBJ/download (accessed on 18 January 2018).
37. Schwamborn, D.; Gardner, A.; Geyr, H.F.v.; Krumbein, A.; Lüdeke, H.; Stürmer, A. Development of the
TAU-Code for Aerospace Applications. In Proceedings of the 50th NAL International Conference on
Aerospace Science and Technology, Bangalore, India, 26–28 June 2008.
38. Menter, F.R. Zonal Two Equation k-w Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows. In Proceedings of the
23rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics, Plasmadynamics, and Lasers Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 6–9 July 1993.
39. Menter, F.R. Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications. AIAA J. 1994,
32, 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
40. Gur, O.; Mason, W.H.; Schetz, J.A. Full-Configuration Drag Estimation. J. Aircr. 2010, 47, 1356–1367.
[CrossRef]
41. Raymer, D.P. Aircraft Design. A Conceptual Approach, 2nd ed.; American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics: Washington, DC, USA, 1992.
Energies 2018, 11, 252 28 of 28

42. Hoak, D.E. The USAF Stability and Control DATCOM; TR-83-3048; Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories:
Dayton, OH, USA, 1978; Available online: https://www.abbottaerospace.com/wpdm-package/afwal-tr-83-
3048-usaf-stability-and-control-datcom?wpdmdl=35165&ind=1495549840450 (accessed on 18 January 2018).
43. Liu, Y.; Elham, A.; Horst, P.; Hepperle, M. Exploring Vehicle Level Benefits of Revolutionary Technology
Progress via Aircraft Design and Optimization. Energies 2018, 11, 166. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).