This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
1
Section 6(iv)
Initial Sizing & Analysis
Techniques
PD340 TRADE STUDY AND FINAL CONFIGURATION SELECTION
(WILLIAMS FJ442 ENGINES)
20500
20600
20700
20800
20900
21000
21100
21200
21300
21400
21500
21600
21700
21800
21900
22000
310 315 320 325 330 335 340 345
Reference Wing Area (sq.ft)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
a
k
e
O
f
f
G
r
o
s
s
W
e
i
g
h
t
(
l
b
)
W/S
TTC
V
opt
Range 1
V
S
BFL
FEASIBLE SOLUTION
λ=0.40
λ=0.35
λ=0.30
b=54 ft
b=54 ft
b=50 ft
b=58 ft
Range 2
W/S=65 lb/sq.ft (317 kg/m
2
)
VS=90 kts @ MLW
BFL=3900 ft (1189 m)
TTC=18 min.
Vopt=375 KTAS or M0.65 @ FL 350
Range 1=700 nm (232 lb/PAX) & 850 nm (200 lb/PAX)
Range 2=800 nm (232 lb/PAX) & 950 nm (200 lb/PAX)
Aerodynamic Prediction, Devices &
Setting Requirements
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
2
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction
The importance of predicting lowspeed and highspeed
aerodynamic qualities of aircraft cannot be understated
Vehicular definition relates to an initial appreciation of how the flight
envelope will look
It is one of the integral components in formulating airplane operational
performance attributes
Prediction of lowspeed and highspeed aerodynamic attributes
covers the following categories
Lowspeed aerodynamics
Clean wing lift characteristics and maximum lift
Maximum lift generated by trailing and leading edge highlift devices
Highspeed aerodynamics
Zerolift drag
Vortexinduced drag at subsonic speeds
3D effects, trim and ancillary drag contributors
Total incremental drag due to OEI condition
Compressibility or wave drag due to volume and lift
Aerodynamic impact of winglets
Buffeting qualities
J
a
n
0
5
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
–
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
i
z
i
n
g
&
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
©
2
0
0
5
b
y
A
s
k
i
n
T
.
I
s
i
k
v
e
r
e
n
A
l
l
R
i
g
h
t
s
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
3
T
i
e
r
I
I
L
o
w

s
p
e
e
d
&
H
i
g
h

s
p
e
e
d
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
Primary and secondary control surfaces and forces on an airplane
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
4
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
C
Lmax
is the maximum lift coefficient the wing can generate
C
Lmax
is dependent upon
Wing sweep
Wing aspect ratio
Wing thicknesstochord
Flapping span and flap deflection angle
Highlift device configuration
In conceptual design, C
Lmax
is often predicted by inspecting other
aircraft of similar configurations; as a general rule
Empirical methods are well suited to giving results with an adequate
level of accuracy for conventional aircraft configurations and technology
levels
The primary goals are for highest (L/D)
TO
and (D/L)
LD
Predictions should not exceed approximately C
Lmax
= 3.50 unless
suitable justification has been established
Parametric analysis techniques can be utilised to confirm the validity of
prediction results
α α, angle of attack , angle of attack
C C
L L
, Lift Coefficient , Lift Coefficient
C C
Lmax Lmax
clean clean
C C
Lmax Lmax
landing landing
C C
Lmax Lmax
takeoff takeoff
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
5
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
An expedient method to establish clean wing C
Lmax
and liftcurve
geometry
First identify the 3D C
Lα
using the VortexLattice method; closedform
Helmbold method is good enough as well
Predict the zerolift angleofattack; can read off 2D test data results as
an initial guess; nonlinear lift is predicted to commence at α
oL
+ 10°
Use the algorithm C
Lmax
= 14 dC
L
/dα to estimate the maximum lift
coefficient for 1g stall
α
oL
L
i
f
t
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
C
L
Angle of Attack, α (deg.)
43 − 2AR
ref
3
4° x dC
L
dα
dC
L
dα
∆α = 10°
VortexLattice Calculations
Empirical Algorithm
1
2
3
4
α
stall
Predicting the lift characteristics of a clean finite wing
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
6
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Examples showing distinction between 1g and minimum
aerodynamic stall definitions
R
e
f
:
S
o
m
e
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
O
b
e
r
t
,
1
9
9
6
Ref: AGARD CP102
F28 Mk 4000
Boeing 747
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
7
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Note the reference configuration
Use fractional change theory
to predict the ∆C
Lmax
of
alternative layouts
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
8
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Lifttodrag ratio during takeoff manoeuvers
Instantaneous OEI climb gradient at V
2
speed can be predicted using
the parametric correlation below
Increasing the incremental lift with highlift devices has a tendency of
reducing the available lifttodrag ratio, hence, is detrimental to climb
Ref: Delft University Press
Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design
Torenbeek, 1982
Method to estimate lifttodrag ratio of design candidates with
highlift devices deployed
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
9
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Ref: 19816 – No. 91
L’Aeronautique et L’Astronautique, 1981
Details of wing planform, airfoil section and twist distribution
geometry for A310 transport
J
a
n
0
5
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
–
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
i
z
i
n
g
&
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
©
2
0
0
5
b
y
A
s
k
i
n
T
.
I
s
i
k
v
e
r
e
n
A
l
l
R
i
g
h
t
s
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
1
0
T
i
e
r
I
I
L
o
w

s
p
e
e
d
&
H
i
g
h

s
p
e
e
d
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
Itemized breakdown of total drag and physical explanation of origins
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
11
Predicting zerolift drag
Basis is modified Eckert’s equation for skin friction incorporating a
Reynolds number adjustment parameter
Mixed (laminar) flow adjustment can be incorporated thereafter
Component buildup method is used to generate reference condition
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
0.002000
0.002500
0.003000
0.003500
0.004000
0.004500
0.005000
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Vehicle Wetted Area (sq.ft)
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
E
q
u
i
v
a
l
e
n
t
S
k
i
n
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(

)
Unacceptably
Excessive
Advanced Passive
or Active Methods
Mean Line
Large Regionals & Large Business Jets
Small Regionals & Small Business Jets
Narrowbodies
Widebodies
( )    
d
2
b
R act
f
M c 1 N log
A
c
+ η
=
equiv. sand roughness,
pressure & interference
Mach number
Survey of wetted areas and equivalent skin friction coefficients
Reynolds
number
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
12
δ
R
L
R
l
vt
T
op
D
wm
y
eng
y
eng
Predicting vortexinduced drag
Obert’s empirical method is suitable for subsonic analysis (M>0.4)
Reduction in dC
D
/dC
L
2
due to sloteffect needs to be modeled as well
Incremental drag due to 3D effects and ancillary drag contributors
Most common method is form factors that account for
3D effects
Ancillary interference
Excrescences
Trim (goal should be keep it small)
These values are computed based on thicknesschord ratios of the
wing, horizontal and vertical tails, and, the fineness ratios of the
fuselage, nacelle and other appendages
OEI asymmetric drag estimation
Windmilling drag estimated using “imaginary cutoff Reynolds number”
It is an imaginary skin roughness (l/k) independent of engine size
Assuming this roughness level an equivalent skin friction is computed using
the PrandtlSchlichting form of Eckert’s equation
Drag due to asymmetry is then based
on equilibrium of moments
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
007 . 0
AR
05 . 1
C d
C d
clean
2
L
D
+
π
=


.

\

vortexinduced
drag factor
ref. aspect ratio
 
w
R
vt
eng
op wm wm
DOEI
S q
tan
l
y
T D D
C
δ + +
= ∆
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
13
Predicting wave drag
Difference in zerolift drag coefficient between the fastest Mach number
(less than M =1.0) & Critical Mach is defined as transonic wave drag
Can produce reasonable initial estimate of Critical Mach using modified
Korn’s equation
Empirical exponential equation is then utilised to model the geometric
increase in drag within the drag rise and divergence regimes
Supersonic wave drag accounts for contributions due to volume
displaced by the vehicle as well as lift distribution
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
( )
M
cos
c t
cos
C
10
1
M
cos
1
M
Qchd
m
2 / 3
Qchd
2
L
REF
Qchd
CR
∆ −
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
Λ
−


.

\

Λ
−
Λ
=
ref. wing quarter chord sweep
airfoil technology operating lift coefficient
margin to divergence Mach
mean wing thickness
Mach number
C
D
Constant C
L
Constant C
L
increasing C
L
M
CR
M
DD
∆C
D
= 0.0020
J
a
n
0
5
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
–
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
i
z
i
n
g
&
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
C
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t
©
2
0
0
5
b
y
A
s
k
i
n
T
.
I
s
i
k
v
e
r
e
n
A
l
l
R
i
g
h
t
s
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
1
4
T
i
e
r
I
I
L
o
w

s
p
e
e
d
&
H
i
g
h

s
p
e
e
d
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
(
c
o
n
t
.
)
Suggested target design and offdesign characteristics
Ref: Some Aspects of Aircraft Design
and Aircraft Operation
Obert, 1996
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
15
Buffet Envelop
It is an additional en route limitation to the aircraft flight envelop
Defines an upper threshold of flight level after an appreciation of climb
and cruise specific excess power residuals, and, maximum cabin
pressure differential are considered
Buffeting is characterized by
Breaks in C
L
α, c
m
α or c
x
α curves and emergence of pressure divergence
on any of the lifting surfaces or fuselage
The derivation of these boundaries are commonly performed using
extrapolated wind tunnel data to fullscale and subsequently verified with
flight testing
Initial prediction methods can become mathematically quite extensive which
do not easily lend themselves to simplification
In reaching and surpassing the threshold for buffeting the aircraft must
permit full controllability
This means flow separation on a swept wing at high Mach number should not
initiate too far outboard to prevent strong roll or pitchup tendencies
Airworthiness rules stipulate cruise flight has to be limited to lift
coefficients where n = 1.30 can be reached without encountering buffet
Free from buffet within the operationally expected envelop is desirable
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Explanation of buffeting envelop for transport aircraft
Ref: AIAA 882043
The Integration of CFD and
Experiment: An Industry Viewpoint
Bengelink, 1988
Ref: AIAA20020002
Design of the BlendedWingBody
Subsonic Transport
Liebeck, 2002
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
16
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Buffet boundary for MD80 transport
Predicted and flight test derived buffet boundary for L1011
R
e
f
:
S
o
m
e
A
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
O
b
e
r
t
,
1
9
9
6
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
17
Aerodynamic Devices
These are appendages that either enhance performance or fix
problems, i.e. either lead to successful operation and/or
certificated airworthiness
Winglets
With greater emphasis being placed on improving aircraft cruise
efficiency winglet devices offer the most attractive drag reduction
Another reason for selecting winglets is the aesthetic appeal
There are two categories
The conventional winglet; AR=1.5
Blended winglets typified by a high aspect ratio (AR=3.5) and integrated by
way of pronounced filleted transition geometry between the wing and winglet
structures
Benefits of winglets can be itemized as follows
Decreased fuel burn and increased payload range attributes – achieved
through an aerodynamic performance improvement, i.e. net vehicular drag
reduction
Higher cruise altitude and OEI driftdown ceiling –
due to a net vehicular drag reduction enabling a
greater amount of specific excess power at given
altitude and speed
Improved takeoff performance – higher effective
OEI lifttodrag and therefore higher second
segment climb gradient for given reference speed;
allows for higher TOGWs
Reduced engine maintenance – the option of
retaining the original takeoff performance levels
prior to installation of winglets promotes a reduced
thrust concept
Lower airport noise levels –
exploiting the reduced thrust concept
Vortex Generators
Flow over a lifting surface may tend to separate prematurely leading to
stall, diminished control authority, greater drag or even noise
The separation can be either chordwise or spanwise
Separation can occur at lowspeed or highspeed (transonic flow)
BBJ with Aviation
Partners’ winglet
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
18
To correct this situation a series of vortex generators or vortilons near
the wing or control surface leading edge are usually installed
These energize the airflow over the surface and thereby assist in delaying the
onset of flow separation
This is a common solution to imperfections like poor manufacturing tolerance
Thin plates attached to engine nacelles or along the forward portion of
the fuselage body are called strakes – also shed vortices to energize
local flow or even correct directional stability at high angles of attack
Not a desirable solution
Can be avoided for the wing if thoughtful consideration is given to wing
thickness, section contour distribution and washout
Measure of insufficient upfront work done on a new design if artificial devices
are employed to fix problems during flight testing
Perpetual strides in CFD capabilities will have a tendency to minimise use of
vortex generators, or, at least establish a rationale that employing them is the
best compromise
Aerodynamic Devices (cont.)
Examples of vortex generators for highspeed (GV left) and low
speed (Legacy right)
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
19
Aerodynamic Devices (cont.)
Stall Strips
Are spanwise strips added to the wing
leading edge to ensure stall begins at
that location first
They provide more docile (acceptable)
stall characteristics
It is an effective method to ensure
proper stall progression, however,
may also lead to unacceptable
highspeed drag penalty
Do not require these when leading edge highlift device is used
Wing Fences
Act as barriers to deter crossflow, thereby possible separation which
could lead to tip stall
Highspeed drag penalty
Ventral Fins
Are surfaces that protrude from the
underside of the aft fuselage in an
inverted “V” configuration
They improve stall protection by
scooping up air under the tail helping
to push the nose down at high alpha
Another benefit is enhanced
directional stability at
sideslip and higher angles
of attack
Ancillary benefit
Can avoid the need of a
stability augmentation
system through inherent
improved directional stability
at high Mach numbers and
altitudes, and, increased
Dutchroll damping
Generates drag through greater wetted area and interference
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
20
Setting Requirements for Lowspeed &
Highspeed Aerodynamics
Whenever an initial technical assessment is undertaken a
preliminary list of wing aerodynamic design requirements needs to
be generated
Primary considerations include
Aircraft performance and handling
Aircraft certification
The list constitutes a roadmap and is formulated by collaborative efforts
between conceptual design, aerodynamics and operational
performance functions
The most important component is the wing design
It is an iterative process and requires input from all three groups mentioned
above
Issues concerning design philosophy generate fundamental questions about
how the goals are to be achieved
Requisite number of development wings
Requisite number of production wings (if a family concept)
Scope of tradeoff analysis and declaration of optimisation parameters
Lowspeed requirements and targets that need to be defined are
All speed targets are with respect to 1g stall concept
Max expected L/D for each flap and/or slat angle
Expected L/Ds at 1.13V
S
and 1.23V
S
for respective takeoff and landing
configurations
Stable L/D versus CL at 1.13V
S
and 1.23V
S
and V
FE
Expected C
D
at
V
2
(1.13Vs) for each permissible takeoff flap configuration
MidAUW, typical descent speed (e.g. 250 KCAS) in the clean configuration
(idle power)
V
APP
(1.3V
S
), in the clean configuration
V
REF
(1.23V
S
) in the landing configuration
Alpha = 0.0 in ground effect for each takeoff flap configuration
Expected C
Lmax
for each flap and/or slat angle assuming both clean and
with icing contamination
Number of unprotected (antiice or deice) slat panels should be taken into
account
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
21
Setting Requirements for Lowspeed &
Highspeed Aerodynamics (cont.)
Small Runback Ice behind ribs and edges of protected slat panels
DoubleHorn (3 in.) shapes on winglet (if applicable), wingbody fillet and
landing lights
Takeoff ice on all forward facing aerodynamic surfaces including protected
slat panels should not result in stall speed increase of more than 3 KCAS
Landing ice on all forward facing aerodynamic surfaces including protected
slat panels should not result in stall speed increase of more than 5 KCAS
Delayed Turnon ice on all slat panels should not advance stall onset ahead
of stall warning (Plus 1 sec., if applicable)
Expected C
Lmax
in the landing configuration
Expected C
LMU
(in ground effect at aircraft tipback geometry limit minus
1° is approximately C
Lshaker
in free air) with no wing tip separation
Special relationships and guidelines gathered through experience are
C
Lmax
lowest takeoff flap > C
Lmax
landing / 1.21
C
Lmax
clean > C
Lmax
landing / 1.50
No significant lift loss due to residual deicing fluids in aerodynamic critical
zones during lift off in ground effect
Acceptable stall characteristics, uncontaminated and with icing assumptions
Number of unprotected (antiice or deice) slat panels should be taken into account
Small Runback Ice behind ribs and edges of protected slat panels
DoubleHorn (3 in.) shapes on winglet (if applicable), wingbody fillet and landing
lights
Takeoff ice on all forward facing aerodynamic surfaces including protected slat panels
Delayed Turnon ice on all slat panels
DoubleHorn (1.5 in.) ice on all slat panels
No winglet separation up to V
2
– 5 KCAS for all takeoff flaps
No significant buffeting up to VFE for all flap and/or slat configurations
Wing Stall Progression
Should be preceded by trailing edge separation and/or buffeting of the inboard/mid
wing
Onset should not be defined by leading edge separation
Should initiate on the inboard/midwing at the trailing edges
For underwing podded engines, flow over the wing behind the nacelles should remain
attached and be adequately energised up to higher angles of attack
Outboard wing leading edge should be adequately protected to higher angles of
attack with no significant losses in roll control effectiveness
Approach and Landing Phase
Pitch attitudes of 02° at V
REF
in the landing configuration
Pitch attitudes at touchdown (V
REF
– 10 KCAS at 50 ft), in the landing configuration,
is less than the aircraft tipback geometry limit by at least 2°
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
22
Setting Requirements for Lowspeed &
Highspeed Aerodynamics (cont.)
Pitch attitudes of less than 4° at V
APP
in the clean configuration
No abrupt changes in pitch stability with increasing alpha up to maximum
alpha
Dihedral stability for all low speed configurations
Wing tip, flaps, underwing podded engine ground clearances up to 10° in roll,
geometry limit in pitch or combination of both
Highspeed requirements and targets that need to be defined are
Expected maximum M*L/D at design cruise speed
Expected L/D at
High AUW, maximum climb speed, initial cruise altitude
MidAUW, typical climb speed, intermediary cruise altitude
αMAX
Range
No unnacceptable handling characteristics up to
αMAX
(rolloff, sudden pitchup, severe buffetting, etc.)
Performance Requirements @ Shaker
CL
α
CL
MAX (no ice)
CL
Shaker (no ice)
Manoeuvre
Margin
2
0
1
0
Refer ence Speed
CL
REF
3 % or 5% Mar gin
No Ice
With Ice
Definition of target CLα characteristics; note stickpusher needs
to be accounted for aftfuselage mounted engine configuration
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
23
Setting Requirements for Lowspeed &
Highspeed Aerodynamics (cont.)
Expected C
D
at
High AUW, typical climb speed, initial cruise altitude
MidAUW, maximum climb speed, intermediary cruise altitude
High AUW, typical cruise speed, initial cruise altitude
High AUW, maximum cruise, initial cruise altitude
M
DD
number at midAUW and initial cruise altitude
Buffet boundaries margin of 1.4 g at
High AUW, intermediate speed, initial cruise altitude
MidAUW, M
MO
, intermediary cruise altitude
Special relationships and guidelines gathered through experience are
Speed stability (slope of L/D versus C
L
) assured at low AUW, M
FC
/V
FC
kink
(thrust lapse rate included)
C
D
always increases with Mach and C
L
particularly for intermediate to high
speeds
Shock waves strength and movement should not be abrupt with increasing
Mach up to M
MO
or alpha (C
L
) up to 1.5g
Typical aircraft pitch angles during cruise
Should not exceed +1.52.0° for most cases within the typical operations envelop
Good design practise to ensure +0° for all operations
Wing loading to ensure passenger comfort and operational efficiency
Stable dihedral and weathercock characteristics up to M
MO
/V
MO
Gradual degradation in stability derivatives up to M
FC
/V
FC
No aileron aerodynamic reversal up to M
FC
/V
FC
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
24
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Additional Reading
Young, A.D., ”The Aerodynamic Characteristics of Flaps”, Aeronautical
Research Council Reports and Memoranda, Ministry of Supply, United
Kingdom, 1953
“Aerodynamics”, Jet Transport Performance Methods, D61420, Seventh
Edition, Boeing Flight Operations Engineering, May 1989
Obert, E., “Forty Years of HighLift R&D – An Aircraft Manufacturer’s
Experience”, AGARD DCP 505, September, 1993
Obert, E., “The Aerodynamic Development of the Fokker 100”, ICAS88
6.1.2, 1988
Schaufele, R.D., Ebeling, A.W., “Aerodynamic Design of the DC9 Wing and
HighLift System”, Douglas Aircraft Div., McDonnell Douglas Corp., AIAA
Paper No. 670846, 1967, pp 25752583
Shevell, R.S., “Aerodynamic Bugs: Can CFD Spray Them Away?”, AIAA85
4067, AIAA 3
rd
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, October 1985
“Getting a Lift Out of Winglets”, Business and Commercial Aviation,
February 1998, pp. 5665
Dees, P., Stowell, M., “737800 Winglet Integration”, SAE Paper 200101
2989, 2001 World Aviation Congress, September 2001
Isikveren, A.T., “Quasianalytical Modeling and Optimization Techniques for
Transport Aircraft Design”, Section 7, “Predicting LowSpeed and High
Speed Aerodynamic Attributes”, Report 200213, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Aeronautics, Sweden, 2002
2001012989
737800 Winglet Integration
Paul Dees
Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Michael Stowell
Aviation Partners Boeing
Copyright © 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.
ABSTRACT
A joint venture called Aviation Partners Boeing
successfully integrated winglets into the NextGeneration
737800 by retaining performance improvements with
minimal weight penalty on the existing 737 wing design.
Program challenges included developing both retrofit
and production configurations using a common winglet
design, causing minimal impact on all customers, and
causing minimal disruption to the 737 production
process. Winglet benefits along with improved
performance include reduced engine wear and
enhanced visual appeal.
INTRODUCTION
The 737800 wing was originally designed and certified
without winglets. The flight testing of winglets for the
Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) indicated the expected gains
in aerodynamic efficiency were real, as also were
increases in flight loads. The technical challenge then
became how to add winglets to the already existing 737
wing design, keeping the improved aerodynamic
efficiency with minimal structural weight penalty and
minimal systems changes. The program challenge then
was how to integrate winglets into both existing fleet
aircraft and into new production aircraft. Another
program challenge was how to minimize cost of the flight
test and certification effort of several distinct wing
configurations, preferably using a common winglet
design. To meet these challenges, a joint venture called
Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) was formed between
The Boeing Company and Aviation Partners, Inc. where
the patented blended winglet technology (Reference 1)
was developed. Boeing has primary responsibility for
production winglets and APB has primary responsibility
for retrofit winglets on inservice airplanes.
AVIATION PARTNERS BOEING BACKGROUND
Aviation Partners Boeing is a limited liability corporation
owned by The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the
principals of Aviation Partners Incorporated (API). API’s
primary business is the application of performance
improvement technology to business jets. The joint
venture company was formed after Boeing Business
Jets contracted API to design and certify winglets on the
737700 IGW business jet. The purpose of the joint
venture is to create a mechanism for an exchange of
data between API and Boeing with the goal of improving
the performance of Boeing products in production and in
the retrofit market. Boeing has access to API’s Blended
Winglet technology for applications on current aircraft in
production as well future airplane programs. The joint
venture allows APB access to Boeing basic airplane
data, which will facilitate design and certification efforts
in the retrofit market.
WINGLET BENEFITS
Figure 1  Blended winglet on 737800
The addition of 8 foot tall Blended Winglets to the 737
800 (see Figure 1) increases the aerodynamic efficiency.
For a given amount of lift, drag is reduced.
Direct economic benefits to the airlines include
combinations of these items (not all are available
simultaneously):
• Decreased fuel burn
• Increased payloadrange
• Improved takeoff performance
• Reduced engine maintenance
• Lower airport noise levels
Figure 2 shows the flighttest derived winglet block fuel
burn improvement, which increases with cruise range. It
is based on an average of eastbound and westbound
missions and is common to both retrofit and production
winglets.
Figure 2 – Winglet block fuel burn improvement
Other less tangible benefits include hightech visual
appearance and airline passenger appeal
(environmentally friendly).
Figure 3 – Blended winglet construction
Figure 3 shows the 737800 Blended Winglet
construction. The winglet is approximately 70%
graphiteepoxy by weight.
RETROFIT WINGLETS
APB has primary responsibility for the retrofit (post
delivery and in service) winglet installations. In the
aircraft retrofit environment many of the challenges to
install winglets on the airplane are different compared to
the production modifications.
Many of the aerodynamic driven changes to the 737800
are the same for the retrofit and production versions.
Changes common between the 737800 retrofit and
production aircraft with winglets are:
• Winglet
• Stabilizer Trim settings
• Autothrottle
• Flight Management Computer (FMC) data
Figure 4 – Retrofit winglet aircraft modifications
Most of the structural changes required differ between
the 737800 retrofit and production aircraft. Figure 4
shows the primary retrofit changes and Figure 5
illustrates the structural modifications required for the
737800 winglet retrofit.
Figure 5 – Retrofit wing modifications
Adding winglets increased both the wing dynamic and
static flight loads significantly. An economically viable
retrofit program minimizes the recurring costs of the
installation. This is difficult because the retrofit
modification is limited by existing parameters in the basic
airplane. For example, increasing skin thickness may be
the most efficient means of increasing the wing bending
strength, however skin replacement is not cost effective
for retrofit. For the Retrofit 737800 the wing strength
was increased by the addition of straps and angles to
the stringers located inside the wingbox as shown in
Figure 5. Modification to the wing was minimized by the
development of a Speedbrake Load Alleviation System.
This system changes the angle of the inflight speed
brakes in critical flight conditions to reduce wing loading.
Wing service life goals were achieved by reworking
existing fasteners in the lower wing skin. The fasteners
were removed and replaced with interference fit, special
fasteners for fatigue life improvement.
The increased pitch inertia at the wingtips by the addition
of winglets aggravated critical flutter modes. A reduction
in the low altitude operating speed was avoided by
adding 90 pounds of ballast per wing in the outboard
leading edge. Also, replacement of the removable outer
2 bay skin panels improved flutter tip modes.
PRODUCTION WINGLETS
Boeing has primary responsibility for the inline
production winglet installations. The winglets are built
within Boeing to the same drawings as the APB retrofit
winglets.
Figure 6 – Production winglet installation modifications
The retrofit configuration used a loadalleviation system
to handle the increased flight loads. The production
winglet installation met the challenge by carefully
designing minimal additional bending and torsional
stiffness into the wing. The structural provisions were
designed to minimize weight impact on customers who
chose not to purchase the optional winglets. They were
also designed to minimize the impact of winglets on the
Boeing production facilities, especially final assembly.
Flutter considerations drove a significant effort to control
wing torsional stiffness and winglet weight and center of
gravity. Systems changes were also required to support
the addition of winglets. An overview of the required
changes for the production winglet installation is shown
in Figure 6.
The wing structural changes are shown in Figure 7. The
primary changes were upper and lower skin panel gage
changes and stringer gage changes over the outboard
2/3 of the wing. To minimize the weight penalty for
customers who do not choose winglets, these changes
stop at rib 25, and the configuration is known as “partial
provisions”. Partial provisions also include new ribs 25
through 27 with additional strength as needed. As with
the retrofit, some specific fastener locations are cold
worked to meet fatigue requirements. Some minor
strengthening is required in the center wing.
Figure 7 – Production winglet structural changes
The customers that choose winglets have new upper
and lower outboard skin panels from ribs 25 to 27 and
75 pounds of flutter ballast per wing that is required to
meet the flutter certification requirements of being flutter
–free at 15% greater airspeeds then Mdive/Vdive. It
would have been possible to trade flutter ballast weight
for greater increases in wing skin panel thickness, but
that was rejected as it would have penalized customers
not choosing winglets.
As with the retrofit, an absolute seal is installed to
prohibit any flammable fuel vapors from the inboard wing
from reaching any potential ignition sources in the
winglet.
Since the winglets improve cruise performance, a new –
800 winglet model engine database (MEDB) for the flight
mission computer (FMC) is required and is selected via
pin select. Likewise, a new Autothrottle is used with
winglets and includes a winglet setting via dipswitch.
These system changes are common with the retrofit
installation. All of the position and navigation lighting is
on the winglet, as with the retrofit configuration (Figure
8). The aft position light installation is in a low drag
streamlined fairing on the inboard portion of the winglet.
The early production winglets have a small light shield
inboard of the forward anti collision lights to prevent
strobe flashing from entering the cockpit. The new –6
stall management yaw damper (SMYD) accommodates
the shield’s impact on stick shaker speeds and is pin
selectable. A retrofittable lighting product improvement
is in development to eliminate the light shield.
Figure 8 – Production winglet lighting
Another small systems change is required due to the
winglet aerodynamics altering the stabilizer trim angles.
This manifests itself as updated stabilizer trim switch
locations and a winglet “greenband” light plate in the
cockpit. Autothrottle, FMC, SMYD, and stabilizer
greenband changes are shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9 – Systems changes
FLIGHT TEST AND CERTIFICATION
Five different 737 aircraft were flight tested from 1998 to
2001 to validate and to certify the winglet installations. A
summary of these flight test programs is shown in Figure
10. Boeing and APB held joint flight test programs
wherever possible to minimize cost and share data.
Prototype winglet performance and loads were flown in
1998 and 1999 on the YC001 (737800) and YG001
(737700 BBJ) airplanes. The BBJ winglet installation
was certified on YG032 in 2000. It is similar but not
identical to the –800 retrofit winglet installation, which
was certified using YC020 flight test data. An example
of cooperation between Boeing and APB is the use of
YC020 flutter flight test data to correlate with Boeing
computational methods in support of the production
winglet flutter certification. This allowed a reduction in
YC714 flight test hours by avoiding additional flutter flight
testing.
Figure 10 – Flight test summary
APB worked with assistance from BCA to achieve
certification for the retrofit installation with the FAA and
JAA and obtained the Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) in May, 2001. Certification of the Boeing
production installation, with assistance from APB,
occurred also in May and was done by Program Letter of
Definition (PLOD).
AIRLINE OPERATIONS
The first flight with certified 737800 winglets was by
Hapag Lloyd on May 8th, 2001.
Initial production winglet customers included South
African Airways through GATX, Air Berlin, ILFC, and
American Trans Air. Initial retrofit winglet customers
included HapagLloyd as launch customer and Air Berlin.
POTENTIAL FUTURE PROGRAMS
APB believes a tremendous interest in winglets exists in
the passenger and freighter market place. Current
committed 737 retrofit programs beyond the 737800 are
the 737700 and the 737300. Figure 12 details the
status of all the 737 winglet programs.
Figure 12 – 737 Winglet program status
CONCLUSIONS
1. APB blended winglets were successfully integrated
and certified onto the Boeing 737800, both as
retrofit and production installations.
2. Properly integrated winglets provide substantial
value to their operators.
3. The expected winglet performance benefit was
maintained with minimal weight penalty despite
increased wing loads.
4. Proper treatment of additional winglet loads and their
impact on flutter were required for a successful
program.
5. A joint development and flight test program was an
important ingredient to support the certification
efforts.
6. A common design approach for both retrofit and
production winglet installations provides maximum
fleet commonality for the winglet customers.
REFERENCE
Gratzer, Louis B., “Blended Winglet”, US Patent
5,348,253, granted September 20, 1994.
CONTACT
Retrofit winglet sales information is available from Tom
VanDerHoeven at 1800winglets.
Production winglet sales information is available from
James Wilkinson at (206) 7661380.
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
75
7 Predicting LowSpeed and HighSpeed Aerodynamic
Attributes
The importance of predicting lowspeed and highspeed aerodynamic qualities of
aircraft cannot be understated. The implication to vehicular definition relates to an initial
appreciation of how the flight envelope will look as well as being one of the integral
components in formulating the aeroplane’s operational performance attributes. The main
aim is to develop methodologies where the designer has an ability to approach the design
solution in a more sophisticated manner; not only in terms of departing from the usual
more simplified approach premise, but an account of the impact a technological decision
makes to the end result. These two primary goals must also be tempered by an appreciation
for reduction in the analysis complexity. This is surmised as being achievable by first of all
soliciting the designer’s philosophical requirements and translating this notion into single
allencompassing algorithms that provide visibility to the designer. Secondly, the
methodologies must be impervious to stoppage when key information required on the part
of the designer is found to be lacking.
7.1 LowSpeed Aerodynamics: Lift
To consistently support design studies of not only quite complex conventional
planforms (with multiple cranks, dihedral, etc.), but also of more exotic layouts such as
multisurface and non planar wings, it was recognised the algorithm to compute maximum
lift attributes adhere to a quasianalytical philosophy. This task can be achieved by
concurrent utilisation of dedicated software to quantify the fundamental parameter of clean
wing liftcurve slope with wellestablished empirical methodologies.
7.1.1 Clean Wing Lift Attributes and Maximum Lift
The clean wing maximum lift can be computed for any original multisurface or non
planar planform geometric definition using a threedimensional VortexLattice Method
93
(VLM), which calculates aerodynamic properties of multiwing designs that are swept
(symmetric or otherwise skewed), tapered, cambered, twisted and cranked with dihedral.
Unlike what is offered by classical VLM approaches, one particular approach models the
wake coming off the trailing edge of every lifting surface as flexible and changing shape
according to the flight state considered. With a distorting wake, nonlinear effects such as
the interaction of multiple surfaces can be simulated more consistently. The source of the
basic theory for the VLM with flexible wake is cited as Moran
94
, and an exemplar of
software embodying these principles is one authored by Melin
95
. Succinctly, the classical
“horseshoe” arrangement of other VLM programs has been replaced with a “vortexsling”
arrangement. It basically works in the same way as the “horseshoe” procedure with the
exception that the legs of the shoe are flexible and consist of seven (instead of three)
vortices of equal strength. Since the primary assumption of any VLM is linearity, two seed
computations are conducted for the lifting surface system at angles of attack (AoA or α)
where collinearity is likely as depicted in Figure 23 and labelled as Step 1; two such
candidates are suggested as α = 0° and +4°.
Following the protocol mapped out in Figure 23, the next step is to identify the zero
lift AoA (α
oL
); this is found by extrapolating the liftcurve slope (dC
L
/dα) back to the point
at which C
L
= 0. The slope dC
L
/dα itself is quantified by comparing the computed VLM
lift at the two seed AoA VLM calculations. Wing lift carryover into the fuselage body can
be accounted for by factoring the original (wing only) dC
L
/dα with a calibrated variation of
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
76
α
oL
L
i
f
t
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
,
C
L
Angle of Attack, α (deg.)
43 − 2AR
ref
3
4° x dC
L
dα
dC
L
dα
∆α = 10°
VortexLattice Calculations
Empirical Algorithm
1
2
3
4
α
stall
Figure 23. Predicting the lift characteristics of a clean finite wing using quasianalytical
techniques (1g stall concept shown).
a method given by Pitts et al
96
wing
L
vehicle
L
d
dC
d
dC
α
ξ =
α
(134)
where
gross
2
h
wing
L gross
net h
S
d
d dC 2 S
S
b
d
1
α
π
+

.

\

ς + = ξ (135)
is related to the fuselage external maximum width (d
h
), the net or exposed wing planform
area (S
net
) and the gross wing planform area (S
gross
). The parameter ς is a calibration
constant and was derived to equal 3.2. As a final point, Pitts et al stipulates that the use of
Eqn. (135) is only applicable for wingbody configurations not violating the constraint of
d
h
/ b < 0.2.
From known data
3,97101
, Step 3 involves an AoA increment of ∆α = 10° to yield an
estimate of the cessation of the linear portion of the curve (usually around α = 8°) or the
beginning of nonlinear lift leading eventually to stall. The final step involves adding 4°
times the vehicular dC
L
/dα to the now corrected C
L
computed for Point 3 in Figure 23 to
predict the clean wing C
Lmax
adhering to a 1g stall concept, or, simply given as
( )
vehicle
L
regs max L
d
dC
064 . 0 1 14 C
α
Φ + =
o
(136)
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
77
When s = 1, the impulse function, Φ
regs
= Φ(s,1), introduces a multiplier derived from
information presented by Obert
3
, otherwise is zero for s < 1. An appropriate parameter
value is invoked in accordance with the analysis being conducted, i.e. under the premise of
a poweroff 1g stall concept (s = 0), or, the minimum speed in a stall manoeuvre in
accordance with FARs (s = 1) respectively.
If the value is of interest, the corresponding AoA for stall (α
stall
) can be estimated as
well. A suggested empirically derived method based on the same data
3,97101
quoted earlier.
Working off the equivalent reference wing aspect ratio as the only independent variable for
analysis, α
stall
is found by incrementing the AoA at Point 3 shown in Figure 23 by (43 
2AR
ref
) / 3, or alternatively put, by combining all the steps detailed above can be simplified
to read
3
AR 2 73
oL stall
−
+ α = α (137)
Eqn. (137) is taken to be applicable for the 1g stall concept only. Since the AoA for
stall will differ between the 1g stall break and minimum speed in a stall manoeuvre, it is
suggested that Eqn. (137) be incremented by an additional ∆α ≈ 1.0° to model the
minimum speed (FARs) in stall manoeuvre AoA.
7.1.2 Maximum Lift Generated by Trailing and Leading Edge
HighLift Devices
Highlift produced by flap and slat deflection is estimated based on methods presented
by Young
102
. This reference uses empirical correlation from assorted accumulated data and
predicts with adequate accuracy the aerodynamic characteristics of high lift devices. The
methods are not explained in great detail here; however, the salient features will be
appropriately noted. A similar and more detailed working account may be found in a
design review done by Pazmany
103
and Isikveren et al
104
.
Making allowances for effective chord, flap incidence and part span, the increment
due to the presence of any trailing edge flap is given by
) ( f ) 1 c c ( C
) 6 ( F
) AR ( F
) c c ( C C
W max L L flaps L
Λ
− ′ + ′ ′ ∆ = ∆ (138)
where (c´/c) is the effective chord ratio; F(AR) is the function relating the vehicular
dC
L
/dα and the aspect ratio, and this is standardised to an AR = 6.0; C
LmaxW
is the
maximum clean wing lift attainable, f (Λ) is a correction to the lift increment for a swept
wing, and
 
 
∆ ′ = +
− − +
C c c c c
b b b b b b b b
L f f
f f f f
λ λ β λ λ β
λ λ λ λ
1 1 2 1 1 2 22 22
3 22 3 21 3 12 3 11
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
(139)
λ
1
(c
f
/c) is a function of effective chords, λ
2
(β) is a function of the flap angle and is
determined from experimental data (varies from one flap to another). The subscript 22
denotes the influence of an auxiliary flap or vane if applicable. The operation [λ
3
(b
fx2
/b) 
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
78
λ
3
(b
fx1
/b)] is a part span correction factor, and, x = 2 and 1 define the outboard and inboard
(due to a central cutout) ends respectively.
The first task is to take Eqn. (138), it’s coupled constituent Eqn. (139), and introduce
not only the fixed functional values related to design intent supplied by Young, but a
parameter to account for the stall concept adopted per chosen airworthiness regulations.
Additionally, by incorporating supplementary simplifications for sake of brevity, i.e. linear
sensitivity to AR, an allpurpose fixed quantity for effective chord, introduction of a
continuous functional form for the f(Λ) correction parameter, the final algorithm describing
change in lift due to trailing edge device deflection is proposed here as
( )
Qchd
3
flap flap geo
fowl dslot
TE
flaps L
cos 1 b 3 AR k
20
5 20
C Λ − β 
.

\
 Φ + Φ +
= ∆
(140)
The two design related impulse functions, Φ
dslot
= Φ(s,1) and Φ
fowl
= Φ(s,1), represent
the relative increase in lift compared to the default singleslotted flap prediction assuming
double slotted of Douglas type and Fowler flapping arrangements respectively. The
constant k
geo
is equal to 2.183 x 10
3
and is universally applicable for all (chord extending)
flaps considered. The flap deflection angle in degrees is denoted by β
flap
with b
flap
defining
the partspan flap including fuselage carrythrough, expressed as fraction of total reference
wingspan.
A series of fixed flap settings corresponding with deflection optima based on
experimental results given in literature
1,35,39
for given highlift device types have been pre
selected for field calculations. Single slotted flaps tentatively have predesignated
deflection optima of 7
o
, 15
o
and 35
o
for intermediate takeoff, maximum takeoff and landing
configurations respectively. For double slotted flaps of Douglas type, initial guesses for
optimal flap deflections have been assumed to be approximately 10
o
, 20
o
for intermediate
and maximum takeoff, and 45
o
for landing. Congruous with the double slotted premise, the
Fowler assumes 10
o
, 20
o
and 45
o
for intermediate takeoff, maximum takeoff and landing
configurations respectively. Although optimal flap deflection is dependent upon a given
vehicular configuration and ambient conditions in which the aircraft operates, these
selected values were found to be very close to actual deflections used on contemporary
aircraft and hence adopted for simplicity. Regardless of this directive, the algorithm used to
determine C
Lmax
given above permits an opportunity to truly optimise flap setting for the
operational performance scenario considered; providing an extension is made to allow
cubic interpolation of C
Lmax
for the given intermediary flap setting.
These trailing edge highlift devices may also be complemented by the introduction of
leading edge slats. Occasions where a slat lift increment is desired, a tentative maximum
deflection of 20
o
is assumed based on experimentation and actual examples
64,97,105
. The
increment in lift due to slat is only introduced for maximum lift prediction, i.e. maximum
optimal flap deflection usually pertaining to landing configuration. Furthermore, an upper
permissible boundary of C
Lmax
= 3.50 which is universally applicable to all devices has
been artificially set in keeping with conclusions drawn from surveys presented by Obert
3
.
Young
102
suggests a rather simplified expression relating lift increment due to slat to the
slat wing chord fraction. In the end, a more consistent approach exhibiting functional
similarity with Eqn. (140) was chosen to be a more accurate model
Qchd
3
flap geo
LE
flaps L
cos b AR k C Λ = ∆ (141)
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
79
where all other parameters retain the previously given definitions, except for k
geo
, now
taken to be 0.0470, and b
flap
is the slat partspan fraction.
To complete the entire prediction exercise, a trimmed lift coefficient needs to be
produced. As outlined by McCormick
34
a complete treatment involves augmenting
untrimmed vehicular lift coefficient according to the relative distance between vehicular
centre of gravity (x
cg
) and aerodynamic centre (x
ac
) locations, and then incrementing
contributions due to generated moment coefficient about the aerodynamic centre and the
moments created because of increase in drag due to trim. Such an approach requires a
detailed array of information; to simplify matters, sufficient accuracy can be achieved by
dropping the terms dependent upon moment coefficient and increase in drag.
( )
− + =
ac cg
t
max L trim L
x x
l
MAC
1 C C (142)
Many aircraft manufacturers adopt the simplified functional form given by Eqn. (142)
in their respective aerodynamic data handbooks. Default values for the nondimensional
relative MAC distance (x
cg
– x
ac
) can be assumed as 0.05 for aftfuselage mounted
vehicles, otherwise equal to approximately 0.15 for all other configurations.
7.1.3 Establishing the Accuracy of Clean Wing and HighLift Prediction
Once each of the analytical and empirical constituents is combined to form the final
algorithm, a wideranging analysis has shown predictions are relatively consistent with
actual aircraft lift data. Using a generic supercritical profile as a basis for this investigation,
namely the MS(1)0313, Figure 24 elucidates this by demonstrating a typical bandwidth of
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
Vehicle Actual C
Lmax
()
E
r
r
o
r
,
ε
.
i
n
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
C
L
m
a
x
(

)
TE (or LE) Flaps Neutral
Max TE (or LE) Flaps
ε = +10%
ε = +5%
ε = 5%
ε = 10%
Figure 24. Prediction accuracy of algorithm to compute C
Lmax
using quasianalytical
techniques. Highlift device set to neutral and maximum deflection shown.
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
80
error (ε = predicted – actual) with respect to manufacturer quoted values falls within a ±5%
splay. More saliently, the study indicates there exists a good likelihood maximum lift
predictions will not exceed an error of around ε = ±0.15 irrespective of flap deflection.
The benchmarking data comprised either known aerodynamic performance or was
derived from vehicular stalling speeds. The aircraft used for this validation exercise were:
Boeing BBJ1
76
; Bombardier Aerospace Learjet 45
78
, Learjet 60
106
, Challenger CL604
51
,
Global Express
64
, CRJ200
79
, CRJ700
80
and CRJ900
81
; Cessna Citation Excel
82
; Dassault
Aviation Falcon 2000
107
and Falcon 900
53
; Embraer ERJ 135
108
, ERJ 140
109
, ERJ 145
84
;
Fokker Aircraft Fokker 70
110
and Fokker 100
111
; Gulfstream Aerospace GIVSP
89
and GV
SP
90
; PD3402 19 PAX regional jet conceptual design study
112
; and, Saab Aerospace Saab
340
113
and Saab 2000
114
. Note that all aircraft assuming maximum flap deflection data
points are displayed in Figure 24; data pertaining to neutral flap deflection is shown where
the original manufacturer information was available.
7.2 ZeroLift Drag Estimation  The Equivalent Length Method
A common method for determining the zerolift drag (C
Do
) of aircraft components is
an assumption that the constituent’s friction drag is equivalent to a flat plate having the
same wetted area and characteristic length. In this way, a very preliminary assessment of
the complete vehicular zerolift drag estimation may be accomplished by summation of
these individual components. By creating a hybrid approach where the component buildup
method is benchmarked against a standardised closed form expression, economy of effort
can be achieved without incurring excessive degradation in predictive powers. A tool for
estimating zerolift drag is the friction coefficient equation based on experimentation done
by Eckert
115
, which accounts for fully turbulent flow and compressibility effects. By
assuming an appropriate reference condition of Mach number and flight level, the
component buildup method may be employed and a characteristic equivalent length for
the entire vehicle can be derived from its equivalent skin friction coefficient  a quantity
commonly used for aircraft comparison exercises. This equivalent characteristic length
may in turn be reintroduced into Eckert’s equation and solved for any other Mach number
and flight level combinations the aeroplane encounters.
7.2.1 Derivation of The Equivalent Characteristic Length Method
Assuming the boundary layer is fully turbulent and accommodating effects due to
compressibility on skin friction, the friction coefficient (c
f turb
) according to Eckert based
on wetted area is given by
( ) ( )
d
2 b
R
turb f
M c 1 N log
A
c
+
= (143)
where M is the instantaneous Mach number, constants A = 0.455, b = 2.58, c = 0.144 and d
= 0.58 are coefficients of proportionality derived by Eckert, and, the Reynolds number
(N
R
) in atmospheric flight at given speed and flight level can be expressed as
b
sls sls
sls
R
l V N
u u
σ
u
ρ
= (144)
The identity ρ
sls
/u
sls
is approximately equal to approximately 6.9x10
4
s/m
2
, and l
b
is
any specified representative length of the body.
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
81
The results obtained by an approximate turbulent theory such as the one given by Eq.
(143) assumes a smooth adiabatic flat plate. In actual flight conditions, typical values of
skin friction exceed the predicted value significantly. This circumstance does not
necessarily invalidate the use of Eckert’s equation, but rather, raises the requirement of
additional adjustments to reflect actual physical observations. The first correction calls for
account of an equivalent sand roughness. The traditional method utilises the concept of a
cutoff Reynolds number
4
, which is determined using the characteristic length and skin
roughness derived from a table of values presented for different surfaces. Other sizable
contributions to the final value of skin friction includes dissimilar boundary layer
development and velocity profiles between streamlined shapes and the flat plate analogy,
and, pressure effects due to frontal area. Instead of relying on a sequence of discretised
computations, the aim here is to formulate a singlestep prediction procedure for skin
friction coefficient that can incorporate these adjustments.
Examination of Eq. (143) reveals the theoretical turbulent skin friction coefficient is
primarily a function of Reynolds number with a supplementary account of compressibility
effects. In view of this situation, any adjustment that takes into account actualflight
corrections should be expressed as being proportional to Reynolds number, or,
algebraically incorporated into the (log N
R
)
b
term. With this idea in mind, Eq. (143) would
be modified to read as
( )    
d
2 b
R act
f
M c 1 N log
A
c
+ η
= (145)
where the parameter η
act
= 1 produces a skin friction result synonymous with Eckert’s
original theory, otherwise, for values η
act
≠ 1 constitutes an additional correction to
represent equivalent sand roughness, pressure and interference effects. Based on an
elaborate amount of experimentation done in wind tunnel and flighttesting, Poisson
Quinton
116
was able to quantify the difference between actual values of skin friction and
theoretical turbulent friction assuming a smooth adiabatic flat plate. The results showed a
simple linear proportionality between c
f
and c
f turb
, namely,
turb f act f
c c τ = (146)
By initially equating Eq. (145) with a factorised Eq. (146) using the binomial
construct, solving for the constant of proportionality, τ
act
, and then rearranging the interim
result such that η
act
becomes the subject, the Reynolds number adjustment parameter
becomes
( )
R
b 1
act
N log 1
act
10
− τ
−
= η (147)
Assuming an actual flight Reynolds number of around 20 x 10
6
where τ
act
was found
to equal approximately 1.45 as cited in PoissonQuinton’s results
116
, produces a correction
of η
act
= 0.105, which would then be introduced into the modified Eckert’s equation given
by Eq. (145). The Reynolds correction coefficient of η
act
= 0.105 can be thought of as a
“mean curve” adjustment, representative of conventional technology/manufacturing
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
82
levels
‡‡
, and therefore has been presented as the basis for establishing predictions at the
very initial design stage. Consideration must also be given to the fact a practical lower
limit of τ
act
= 1.30 (or potential C
Do
reduction of up to 10% from the mean curve) has been
derived when analysing some narrow bodies and larger aircraft types from data supplied by
Obert
3
, and this factor is in turn synonymous with a Reynolds correction coefficient of η
act
= 0.197.
Eq. (143) represents a condition where fully turbulent flow exists. It would be prudent
to give scope in accommodating mixed laminar and turbulent flow, hence permit the
designer to set a minimum goal of what proportion laminar flow shall occur over the
characteristic length of the body constituent in question. Since an algorithm to quantify a
realistic turbulent skin friction coefficient has been established with Eq. (143), this can be
used as a basis to formulate an extension such that a realistic skin friction assuming mixed
flow is produced. Working off a basic assumption that momentum thickness at given
transition point is synonymous for both laminar and turbulent flows (see Figure 25), the
final skin friction can be produced by summing the friction coefficients for partly laminar
and turbulent flow
2
.
l
b
Figure 25. The premise of mixed laminar and turbulent flow used to derive an
augmented realistic skin friction coefficient
2
.
Matching the momentum thickness of the laminar and fully turbulent boundary layer
at transition point T gives
x c x c
turb f T lam f
∆ = (148)
where c
f lam
is the skin friction coefficient for laminar flow, x
T
is the point along the body
characteristic length where flow transition occurs and ∆x is a distance ahead of the
transition point where fictitiously the onset of fully turbulent flow takes place. It can be
shown
34
the total flat plate friction coefficient for a mixed laminar and turbulent flow is
calculated from
( )
lam f turb f
b
T
turb f f
c c
l
x
c c − − = (149)
In this equation, c
f turb
is computed assuming a Reynolds number based on a body
characteristic length starting from the fictitious onset of turbulent flow to the end of the
‡‡
The aircraft surface can have many irregularities. These include gaps and steps, protruding flush rivet
heads, and, surface waviness due to airframe construction, dynamic distortion and cabin pressurisation.
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
83
body, and, c
f lam
is calculated based on the entire length of assumed laminar flow, or
distance x
T
. Substitution of Eq. (148) into Eq. (149) can produce an alternate form
turb f
b
T
f
c
l
x x
1 c


.

\
 ∆ +
− = (150)
Since c
f turb
also depends on ∆x, an iterative procedure is required to solve for ∆x in
Eq. (150). A valid form of simplification is in order here. Introducing a presumption the
fictitious distance ∆x consistently exhibits linear proportionality with x
T
for low to mid
range values of ∆x / l
b
, scope can be given to dispense with the transcendental nature of
Eq. (150), hence permit a reduction in complexity. Investigations found that for x
T
/ l
b
values less than approximately 0.40, the total skin friction coefficient for mixed laminar
and turbulent flow can alternatively be expressed as
turb f
b
T
mf f
c
l
x
1 c


.

\

χ − = (151)
The constant of proportionality, χ
mf
, assists in ascertaining what proportion of the
completely turbulent flow premise imparts an influence on the mixed flow result.
Experimentation has found a useful value for this parameter is approximately χ
mf
= 0.74
for all x
T
/ l
b
< 0.40. The upper boundary of assumed laminar flow fraction is a reasonable
one for design prediction purposes since an example of the most successful flight testing of
combined passive and active laminar flow control technology achieved laminar flow up to
30% of wing chord
117
. In addition, experimentation conducted in a more operationally
pragmatic sense commonly produces transition at 15% wing chord
117
.
The component buildup method for zerolift drag at given Mach number and flight
level is given as
W
I
1 i
i
wet
i
f
h , M
Do
S
S c
C
∑
=
= (152)
where the product
i
wet
i
f
S c is the drag area of each component i. By choosing an appropriate
reference condition of Mach number and altitude
§§
, an equivalent skin friction coefficient
representative of the entire vehicle can be produced with the congruent relation
∑ ∑
= =
ε
≡
I
1 i
i
wet
i
f
I
1 i
i
wet f
S c S c (153)
The parameter
ε
f
c is the equivalent skin friction for the sum of all constituent wetted
areas produced using the equivalent flat plate analogy representing the entire aeroplane. It
§§
The reference condition for Mach and flight level is open to the designer’s willingness to trade larger errors
in low speed for more accurate highspeed zerolift drag or visa versa. Experimentation has found that a
speed near the final vehicle MRC or LRC at an altitude 4000 ft lower than the intended certified ceiling are
good reference conditions for a balanced error distribution.
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
84
is now proposed that this notion of equivalence can be extended to quantify a characteristic
length as well. Since the entire vehicle has been replaced by the flat plate premise with a
corresponding value for
ε
f
c , by rearranging Eckert’s equation, Eq. (143) can be solved for
an equivalent characteristic length (l
ε
) given by the identity
 
V
10
l
sls sls
sls
M c 1
c
A b / d
2
b / 1
f
u u
σ
u
ρ
=
−
ε
+


.

\

ε
(154)
Reintroducing this relation to Eckert’s equation, and assuming the error in N
R
due to a
now fixed equivalent characteristic length (i.e. independent of Mach number or flight level
effects) is small, a general zerolift drag equation, designated hereon as the Equivalent
Characteristic Length Method (ECLM), which accounts for all variations of Mach number
and flight level can be given approximately as
 
W
wet
d
2
b
sls sls
sls
h , M
Do
S
S
M c 1 l V log
A
C
+
)
`
¹
¹
´
¦
u u
σ
u
ρ
≅
ε
(155)
For a detailed analytical treatment of en route performance, drag is an integral
parameter and has the primary requirement of being differentiable with respect to the
airspeed V for all cases. Eq. (155) appears to be in a form that is quite complex, and more
poignantly, not configured for a more indepth calculus treatment. It was identified that this
problem may be avoided via the use of logarithmic differentiation. By utilising the relation
x = e
ln x
, Eq. (155) can be alternatively expressed as
 
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦


.

\

θ
+ −
)
`
¹
¹
´
¦
u u
σ
u
ρ
− =
ε
ε
2
sls
2
sls sls
sls
b
f
a
V
c 1 ln d l V ln ln b exp 10 ln A c (156)
which is in a form ready for differentiation albeit the complexity has not been reduced.
7.2.2 Gauging the Robustness of the Equivalent Characteristic Length Method
An interesting question is to what extent the equivalent characteristic length
assumption is compatible to the exact component buildup method, and, more importantly
what is the upper threshold of relative errors the designer may expect. In an effort to
theoretically gauge the magnitude of inherent errors produced by this approach, the ECLM
expression was reconfigured as an error function with respect to the exact component
buildup method. The most expedient way to observe this would be the comparison of
resultant equivalent skin friction errors analytically and do so for a range of contemporary
regional transport and business jet Reynolds number regimes based on complete vehicular
characteristic lengths. If Eckert’s general equation is partitioned into Reynolds number and
compressibility dependent constituents, in conjunction with some algebraic manipulation,
Eq. (143) then becomes
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
85
b
2
b
2
1
f
l log
1
c
ϖ
+ ϖ
ϖ
= (157)
where the compressibility term is described by
 
d
2
1
M c 1
A
+
= ϖ (158)
and the Reynolds number dependent constituent is defined as
u u
σ
u
ρ
= ϖ V log
sls sls
sls
2
(159)
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5
Reynolds Number Based on Vehicular Characteristic Length (x10
6
)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
E
r
r
o
r
o
f
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
Z
e
r
o

L
i
f
t
D
r
a
g
(

)
+40%
+20%
+30%
+10%
10%
40%
30%
20%
0%
+70%
+60%
+50%
Error in l
ε
Error in l
ε
Figure 26. Resilience of ECLM accuracy for a given error in vehicular characteristic
length and en route Reynolds number based on vehicular characteristic length.
Now, by introducing the notion of error factor defined as the ratio of the fixed
vehicular characteristic length quantity derived from a reference Mach and flight level to
the exact value of vehicular characteristic length, or ε
l
= l
ε
/l
exact
, the relative error of an
equivalent characteristic length assumption can be gauged by considering deviations from
the exact value of
exact
f
c through a fractional comparison
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
86
b
R
l
f
f
N log
log
1
c
c
exact
−
ε
ε
+ = (160)
Figure 26 (previous page) shows the variation of resultant prediction error compared
to the exact vehicular equivalent skin friction of zerolift drag with Reynolds number based
on vehicular characteristic length whilst assuming various errors in the ε
l
ratio. To put
Reynolds number based on vehicular characteristic length into context, small business jets
typically operate at around N
R
= 10
6
, regional aircraft and larger business jets between N
R
= 1.5 x 10
6
and 2.0 x 10
6
, and larger regional and narrowbody aircraft from N
R
= 3.0 x 10
6
and higher. For a typical en route Reynolds number of 1.5 x 10
6
based on vehicular
characteristic length for regional transports, an error of 24% in l
ε
compared to l
exact
corresponds to a +5% overestimation of equivalent skin friction or total zerolift drag.
Conversely, for the same Reynolds number, a 5% underestimation of zerolift drag is
tolerated by a +33% error in equivalent characteristic length from the exact value. This
result demonstrates the resilience of ECLM.
7.3 VortexInduced Drag at Subsonic Speeds
Many methods exist in quantifying this phenomenon and the most simplest of them is
the Oswald Span Efficiency Method which assumes the vortexinduced drag coefficient of
three dimensional wings with an elliptical lift distribution equals the square of the lift
coefficient divided by the product of the aspect ratio and π. Additional drag produced by
nonelliptical lift distributions is made by using the Oswald Span Efficiency Factor (e),
which effectively reduces the aspect ratio. The vortexinduced drag factor
35
is given as
e AR
1
C d
C d
2
L
D
π
=


.

\

(161)
Numerous estimation methods for e have been developed but they mostly tend to
produce optimistically high values compared values of real aircraft. Obert
3
offers an
empirically derived equation for the vortexinduced drag factor applicable for Mach
numbers greater than about 0.40, based on actual aircraft regardless of power plant
installation, assuming typical centre of gravity locales, inclusion of wing twist effects, and
compressibility effects neglected.
007 . 0
AR
05 . 1
C d
C d
clean
2
L
D
+
π
=


.

\

(162)
Eq. (162) does not appear to account for the distinction of power plant installation
philosophy, i.e. clean wing, underwing podded or onwing nacelle configurations, and the
direct impact this has on span loading distribution. As an exercise, Eq. (162) was compared
to Eq. (161) and Oswald span efficiency factor solved for a variety known e values of
equipment with different power plant installation philosophies not covered by the
statistical survey. Interestingly, the continuous functional form offered by Obert seemed to
match the values for these known examples with an adequate degree of accuracy. This
leads the author to believe a correlation between aspect ratio and power plant installation
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
87
philosophy must exist, hence Obert’s regression analysis inherently accounted for this
association.
For field performance where Mach numbers typically range between 0.150.25, it is
apparent that a change in vortexinduced drag factor will take place due to a change in the
spanwise lift distribution due to flaps extending and deflecting
118
. Literature demonstrates
this variation is proportional to wing geometry, nonellipticity of the spanwise lift
distribution of the basic wing, the effect of flap cutout and lift carry over by the fuselage
1
.
Concurrent to this circumstance, there is also an additional physical effect that needs to be
addressed. There is a reduction in the vortexinduced drag factor with increasing flap
deflection, or alternatively, as flap deflection is increased, a reduction in the vortex
induced drag for given C
L
occurs. This is attributable to an increasing benefit generated by
the sloteffect at greater deflections and amounts to a measure of boundary layer control
thus preventing separation. In order to acknowledge these known phenomena, the
implication is an incremental change in the vortex induceddrag factor needs to be
introduced to Eq. (163). Such a model is proposed here to be
007 . 0 000487 . 0
AR
271 . 0 05 . 1
C d
C d
C d
C d
C d
C d
C d
C d
flap
flap
2
L
D
flaps
2
L
D
clean
2
L
D
2
L
D
+ β −
π
Φ +
=


.

\



.

\

∆ +


.

\

=


.

\

(163)
The impulse function, Φ
flap
= Φ(β
flap
,1), invokes a correction to the vortexinduced
drag factor to signify an irregularity in the lift distribution due to deployment of highlift
devices. Studies comparing the vortexinduced drag estimate generated using Eq. (163) to
lowspeed drag polars of the Saab 340
113
and Saab 2000
114
aircraft found the correlation to
be quite adequate. This means the maintenance of sufficient accuracy can be expected
using the one algorithm in predicting the vortexinduced drag regardless of flaps neutral or
extended.
7.4 Three Dimensional Effects and Ancillary Drag Contributors
Five form factors that account for threedimensional effects, ancillary interference, and
excrescences are reviewed here. These values are computed based on thicknesschord
ratios of the wing, horizontal and vertical tails, and, the fineness ratios of the fuselage and
nacelle. All of the form factors itemised below were derived from original expressions
developed for GASP
39
and subsequently modified to suit known data more appropriately.
The modified wing form factor reads as

.

\

+

.

\

+ = ϕ
4
m m
wing
c
t
240
c
t
4 2 421 . 0 (164)
with the horizontal tail surface redefined to be
( )

.

\

+

.

\

+ ξ − + = ϕ
4
m m
ht htail
c
t
240
c
t
4 2 893 . 0 1 1 . 0 1 (165)
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
88
The ξ
ht
parameter represents horizontal tail placement nondimensionalised by d
v
with
respect to the vertical tail tip and FRP waterline. Similarly with the wing, the vertical tail
form factor was amended to read as

.

\

+

.

\

+ = ϕ
4
m m
vtail
c
t
240
c
t
4 2 5 . 0 (166)
The fuselage form factor is predicated by body slenderness ratio. Assuming a
streamlined fuselage without a blunt nose
3
fuse
v
v
fuse
fuse
l
d
60
d
l
0025 . 0 1


.

\

+


.

\

+ = ϕ (167)
and finally, the nacelle form factor is based on the premise of slenderness as well


.

\

+ = ϕ
nac
nac
nac
l
d
35 . 0 1 17 . 1 (168)
The prediction of a lowspeed drag polar for field performance requires account of
contributions due to extended undercarriage and highlift devices. In the absence of
detailed undercarriage sizing, the drag due to extension of undercarriage can be quantified
with adequate accuracy using statistical correlation from known data. Based on
information gleaned from McCormick
34
, a useful linear regression equation was derived to
be
( ) 294 . 0 W 10 x 85 . 2
S
1
C
TO
5
W
LG D
+ = ∆
−
(169)
The total aircraft drag of a configuration geared for field operation is also affected by a
profile drag contribution from extended flaps and slats. Assuming a given trailing edge
(and/or accompanying leading edge) highlift device has been deployed, an approximation
for the incremental drag is suggested as
( )
flap
2
flap
f
flap
2
flap
4
W
flap Do
cos
b b
MAC
c
c
0416 . 0 005339 . 0 10 x 268 . 5
S
1
C β


.

\


.

\

+ β − β = ∆
−
(170)
and typical values for the relative flap chord fraction of c
f
/ c = 0.26 and c
f
/ c = 0.15 for
trailing edge and leading edge devices respectively are suggested as initial estimates.
7.5 Total Incremental Drag due to One Engine Inoperative
Condition
The One Engine Inoperative (OEI) condition appears to be mostly disregarded in
conceptual design literature. It is usually classified as a preliminary design problem
1,4
because yawing and rolling considerations become rather complex in nature since these
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
89
must be trimmed out by primarily the rudder and then aileron. Drag due to engine wind
milling, airframe sideslip, incremental changes in normal force vortexinduced and profile
drag from control surface deflection, asymmetric slipstream effects and lift distribution
reconfiguration producing independent vortexinduced contributions all combine to
complicate matters. By examining the exact approach, a number of valid simplifications
may be incorporated in order to reduce the scope of detailed information required whilst
retaining strong predictive powers and objective function sensitivity with respect to the
design variables. Studies have shown that many of these constituent contributors can be
neglected with the exception of vortexinduced and profile drag generated by rudder
deflection.
7.5.1 The General One Engine Inoperative Drag Constituent
If one considers the OEI asymmetric condition, studies have shown that many of these
constituent contributors can be neglected with the exception of vortexinduced and profile
drag generated by rudder deflection. Figure 27 demonstrates the pertinent forces and
moments once this simplification is introduced. By assuming the vertical tail utilises a
symmetric profile and all rudder deflections during asymmetric flight will be below stall,
equilibrium is achieved via,
δ
R
L
R
l
vt
T
op
D
wm
y
eng
y
eng
Figure 27. Simplifications of forces and geometric considerations during the asymmetric
thrust condition.
( )
op wm eng vt R
T D y l L + = (171)
where y
eng
is the moment arm from fuselage centre line to the critical and windmilling
engines, D
wm
is the drag produced by the windmilling engine, T
op
is the instantaneous
available thrust produced by the critical engine at instantaneous velocity V and l
vt
is the
vertical tail moment arm. The instantaneous lift (L
R
) generated by the flapped vertical tail
is
34
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
90
R vt , L vt R
C S q L δ η τ =
α
(172)
with q denoting the dynamic pressure, S
vt
the vertical tail reference area, τ a flap
effectiveness factor, and η, a correction which accounts for the effects of viscosity.
The functions τ and η are generally derived empirically since they behave in a non
linear fashion with chord fraction (c
f
/ c) and rudder deflection angle (δ
R
). If a
simplification is sought, McCormick
34
demonstrates that thin airfoil theory can be utilised
to produce adequate results but the functions are still represented by dependent variables.
Assuming a typical c
f
/ c value for the flapped vertical tail of around 0.3, an estimate of τ =
0.66 may be derived using Weissinger’s approximation
34***
. Furthermore, McCormick
shows at an upper deflection of δ
R
= 30°, a value of η = 0.74 would be appropriate. By
assuming some level of conservatism for smaller deflections, an overall flap effectiveness
of τη = 0.49 applicable to the complete range of angles would result. This figure can be
substantiated against Torenbeek’s
1
presentation of overall effectiveness factors derived
from experimental data for plain flaps.
The liftcurve slope characteristics (C
Lα.vt
) can be estimated by the Helmbold
equation
34
based on an approximate lifting surface theory with the effects of sweep
(Λ
vt,Qchd
) accounted for by a first order cosine relation given by Torenbeek
1
.
Qchd , vt
2
vt
vt
vt , l vt , L
cos
AR 4 2
AR
C C Λ


.

\

+ +
=
α α
(173)
Assuming a thin airfoil, section liftcurve slope of C
lα.vt
= 0.110 per deg. (2π per rad)
is given theoretically, however, it was found an average of 0.088 per deg. (5.04 per rad)
taken from Abbott and Von Doenhoff
69
yields more realistic predictions. Thus, from linear
thin airfoil and lifting surface theory, the rudder deflection required for equilibrium of the
OEI asymmetric condition is given by
( )
vt vt , L vt
op wm eng
R
l C S q
T D y
η τ
+
= δ
α
(174)
From this basis, the possibility of accounting for the influence of minimum control
speed limitations on field length and initial climb performance can be introduced at the
conceptual level, and, methods to predict these quantities with respect to operational
performance will be addressed in the takeoff field performance discussion of this report.
Since the geometric characteristics for equilibrium of asymmetric thrust has been
quantified, the next step should be an appreciation of to what extent performance shall be
degraded. By summing the forces and moments in Figure 27, and equating these to
represent contributions of vortexinduced and profile drag due to rudder deflection, the
total incremental drag contribution produced by an OEI asymmetric condition (∆C
DOEI
) is
approximated by
39
 
w
R
vt
eng
op wm wm
DOEI
S q
tan
l
y
T D D
C
δ + +
= ∆ (175)
***
Two point vortices represent the airfoil and this function is dependent upon c
f
/ c ratio.
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
91
This relation is not only applicable for low speed field performance, it can also be
utilised for climb out analysis as well; specifically in relation to OEI maximum attainable
flight level and driftdown net level off height proficiency trade studies at ISA and more
importantly offISA conditions.
7.5.2 Drag Generated by Windmilling Engine
For multiengine aircraft with engines not buried in the fuselage, the OEI performance
will be influenced by additional drag due to a windmilling engine during the equilibrium
condition of asymmetric flight. Torenbeek
1
proposes a conceptual method to estimate the
magnitude of the drag increment by considering this quantity to be a function of engine
frontal area, bypass ratio and internal configuration. Unfortunately, the method is rather
esoteric because the procedure employs the momentum theorem, which requires an
estimation of mean flow velocity in the nozzle exit together with the windmilling mass
flow. Typical values for the ratio of these speeds are offered but they are specific to engine
type thus not allowing for a continuous function concept. As an alternative, a more
simplified approach is proposed which assumes the windmill drag component can be
accounted for by representing it as an equivalent flat plate problem with an associated skin
friction value which is imaginary and independent of Reynolds number variation or
associative compressibility effects.
The notion of a “cutoff Reynolds number” can be useful in helping to quantify the
drag produced by a windmilling engine in this respect. Raymer
4
discusses the merits of
employing a cutoff Reynolds number parameter to account for expected higher skin
friction coefficients in conventional zerolift drag estimation when the surface of a body is
relatively rough. By comparing the ratio of characteristic length and a skinroughness value
(l/k), the cutoff Reynolds number (N
R cutoff
) is then determined by
b
off cut R
k
l
a N

.

\

=
−
(176)
where a and b are constants of proportionality and N
R cutoff
varies monotonically with l/k
for subsonic speeds.
Assuming a windmilling engine is essentially the nacelle but influenced by some
degree of imaginary roughness on the body in this condition, i.e. analogous to an internal
drag contribution, then a predesignated cutoff Reynolds number would be independent of
Mach number variation for subsonic flight
†††
and atmospheric conditions because as
indicated by Raymer, there is a strong correlation to relative roughness alone. It is evident
that the internal drag generated is related to maximum static engine thrust potential, which
also may be postulated to be a function of engine size. This would mean the imaginary
value for k would increase proportionately with nacelle physical dimensions, therefore, the
imaginary relative roughness can be taken as approximately constant. In view of this, the
imaginary cutoff Reynolds number can be considered independent of nacelle size or
characteristic length as well. When the imaginary cutoff Reynolds number is quantified
empirically and substituted into Eckert’s equation for skin friction given by Eq. (143),
neglecting compressibility effects and hence adopting the PrandtlSchlichting form, the
equivalent flat plate skin friction that simulates an imaginary roughness condition for a
windmilling engine would be given as
†††
OEI flight regime is considered predominately as a subsonic problem. This premise may not hold true for
extended range and in some instances driftdown operations.
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
92
 
b
wm
off cut R
wm
f
N log
A
c
−
= (177)
where A is equal to 0.455 and b = 2.58. Once the windmilling engine representative skin
friction is quantified, an incremental contribution to drag in the OEI asymmetric condition
is therefore given by
W
nac , wet
wm
f wm
D
S
S c
C = ∆ (178)
In order to derive the value for imaginary skin friction, known windmill drag
properties for the BAe 146200
119
were used and the results were tested against other
installed aircraft engines. The suggested values for conceptual analysis were found to be
wm
off cut R
N
−
= 9.3x10
4
, or corresponding imaginary skin friction of
wm
f
c = 0.007274. Using this
information in conjunction with the nacelle wetted area estimation methodology described
previously, predictions of
wm
D
C ∆ were computed and subsequently compared to known
windmill drag data for both the Williams International FJ442A
120
small turbofan rated at
10.2 kN (2400 lb.f) and the CFM567B26
121
engine rated at 118 kN (26400 lb.f) used on
the B737800 narrowbody commercial transport. Figure 28 demonstrates the level of
accuracy generated using the imaginary skin friction method; the results were found to be
quite encouraging, more so due to the fact the nacelle wetted area was not calibrated to any
known data before computing the final result.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Mach number ()
W
i
n
d
m
i
l
l
D
r
a
g
(
N
)
Williams FJ442 Actual Data
Williams FJ442 Prediction
CFM567B28 Actual Data
CFM567B28 Prediction
Figure 28. Benchmarking predicted windmilling drag using the imaginary skin friction
method against actual engine windmilling data; ISA, sea level conditions.
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
93
Additionally, it is recommended that the drag contribution for turboprop engines using
this method should be obtained by factoring the equivalent turbofan result by 3. This
accounts for a simulated bypass ratio increase due to the presence of propeller or larger
fan diameter contribution for given maximum static thrust rating or nacelle size. One
should recall the method is based upon the generic pitot nacelle, therefore, the actual
nacelle wetted area for a turboprop (or even Sduct and straights ducts) power plant
installation must be disregarded and the generic pitot introduced into the prediction
process. Inspection of the Saab 2000’s one engine inoperative drag assuming a propeller in
the autofeathered condition
114
produced an estimation error of –2.8%.
7.6 Compressibility or Wave Drag
Compressibility is a drag increment caused by an increase in free stream Mach number
above a critical point where locally accelerated speeds increase sufficiently to reach Mach
numbers of unity and above. The free stream Mach number at which this first occurs is
called the critical Mach number, denoted here as M
CR
, and can be thought of as the lower
limit of the transonic flow regime. Steadily increasing values of free stream Mach number
above M
CR
are characterised by regions of supersonic flow terminated by normal shock
waves shifting aft and increasing in strength. The formation of shocks in the transonic flow
condition affects the drag up to the drag divergent Mach number (M
DD
), thereafter the drag
rise rate increases substantially as shown in Figure 29.
Mach number
C
D
Constant C
L
Constant C
L
increasing C
L
M
CR
M
DD
∆C
D
= 0.0020
Figure 29. Definitions for the transonic mixed flow regime and indication of speed
thresholds for certain drag escalation attributes.
The definition of what particular Mach number constitutes M
DD
is open to several
options. The most common is the Boeing definition where M
DD
is the speed at which an
incremental increase in viscous drag influenced by drag rise is equal to 20 counts (or ∆C
DD
= 0.0020). Additionally, M
DD
is a function of lift coefficient since shock formation and
strength directly relates to increases in airflow velocity. Typically, for an initial analysis
the drag rise is graphically estimated using a few rules of thumb rather than a more
comprehensive appreciation of the dependence of M
DD
on parameters like instantaneous
operating lift coefficient, quarter chord sweep, mean wing thickness ratio and type of
airfoil geometry employed as exemplified by Raymer
4
. Notwithstanding, this assumption
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
94
does not necessarily invalidate this first order estimate’s predictive powers  but a wide
range of information exists which aid in predicting compressibility drag characteristics for
given set of design parameters adequately. Therefore, it would be deemed prudent in
attempting to derive a closed form expression that describes the mixed flow regime
simultaneously neglecting highly nonlinear terms but having a stronger basis to set more
realistic goals.
7.6.1 Derivation of the Incremental Drag due to Compressibility
Much of what is known about this flow regime are largely experimental hence are
described by many different empirical models. Torenbeek
122
offers a variation of Korn’s
equation
123
to quantify the limits of wing section performance for given vehicle wing
thickness, sweep and typical operating lift coefficient envelope
( )
Qchd
m
2 / 3
Qchd
2
L
Qchd DD REF
cos
c t
cos
C
10
1
cos M M
Λ
+


.

\

Λ
+ Λ = (179)
where M
REF
is a wing section technology factor. Torenbeek suggests values of M
REF
=
0.935 for supercritical aft loaded, and, M
REF
= 0.87 for conventional peaky sections. Here,
a modification of this premise with an empirical fit more akin to the actual performance
produced by contemporary regional and business jet vehicles is proposed: a customary
technology factor of M
REF
= 0.850 for supercritical aft loaded sections is suggested as a
more pragmatic value with an occasional upper limit not exceeding M
REF
= M0.90.
By rearranging Torenbeek’s version of the modified Korn’s equation so that M
DD
is
the subject
( )
Λ
−


.

\

Λ
−
Λ
=
Qchd
m
2 / 3
Qchd
2
L
REF
Qchd
DD
cos
c t
cos
C
10
1
M
cos
1
M (180)
Torenbeek
1
offers an arbitrary mathematical representation of the condition where
drag rise is terminated (at speed M
DD
) and an increased drag rise rate begins
n
DD
DD Dcomp
M
M M
1 C C

.

\

∆
−
+ ∆ = ∆ (181)
where the symbols n = 2.5 and ∆M = 0.05 are given by Torenbeek; they have no physical
significance but are derived from experimental data. As a consequence, Eq. (181)
implicitly relates M
CR
to M
DD
as
M M M
CR DD
∆ + = (182)
This information can be used in conjunction with Eq. (180), thereby, allowing the
definition of M
CR
to be given as
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
95
( )
M
cos
c t
cos
C
10
1
M
cos
1
M
Qchd
m
2 / 3
Qchd
2
L
REF
Qchd
CR
∆ −
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
Λ
−


.

\

Λ
−
Λ
= (183)
Now, by introducing the concept of an impulse function or approximate unit step that
is critical Mach number dependent, i.e. Φ
Mcr
= Φ(M,M
CR
), and incorporating Eq. (182) and
Eq. (183) into Eq. (181) yields
n
CR
M DD M Dcomp
1
M
M M
1 C C
CR CR

.

\

−
∆
−
Φ + ∆ Φ = ∆ (184)
which then leads to a closed form expression for the total compressibility drag contribution
including the concept of initial and supplementary drag rise and the final equation
conforms to the presupposed condition of differentiability with respect to airspeed V.
7.6.2 Quantifying Wave Drag due to Volume and Lift
As expounded by Torenbeek
124
, the wave drag of wings and slender bodies is
frequently related to the theoretical minimum wave drag of pointed optimum bodies. Even
though the implicit assumption involves smooth bodies in inviscid flow, by utilising
linearised theory as Mach number tends to unity from below
125
, the relative merits of
differing configurations can be compared as a guide to dragrise behaviour. These optimum
bodies can be represented by the von Karman ogive, SearsHaack or Adams optimum
either in isolation, as composite area distributions in pairs, or even all three in consort.
Correcting for deviations from the optimum by a factor, K
o
, as stipulated by Kuchemann
126
and introducing an empirical wave drag efficiency factor
4
, η
opt
, representing the ratio
between actual wave drag and that of the optimum body, the wave drag due to volume for
given body volume V
b
reads as
4
b
2
b
W
o opt
M
Dcomp
l
V
S
128
K C
sREF
π
η = ∆ (185)
The product η
opt
K
o
can be estimated from values quoted by Raymer
4
and
Torenbeek
124
. This is accomplished by initially choosing a reference Mach number that is
slightly faster than sonic speed; and one suggested reference is M
sREF
= 1.05. Raymer and
Torenbeek indicate a combined factor of approximately 2.5 for η
opt
K
o
is adequate.
Although this value reflects supersonic designs displaying a relatively poor volume
distribution, analysis of actual subsonic aircraft (even those catering to M
MO
speeds up to
M0.90) found η
opt
K
o
= 4.0 is more appropriate. Once the wave drag due to volume has
been quantified for the reference condition, the next step is to build the wave drag model
according to the operating parameters dictated by given flight conditions. Taking the
logarithm on both sides of Eq. (181) and solving for the exponent n produces
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
96

.

\

∆
−



.

\

∆
∆
=
M
M M
log
C
C
log
n
CR sREF
DD
M
Dcomp
sREF
(186)
Eq. (186) is then substituted back into Eq. (181), hence, an estimate of the wave drag
due to volume can be computed dynamically for an instantaneous operating lift coefficient,
or alternatively, for a given critical Mach number premise.
The drag due to lift of surfaces at supersonic speeds (∆C
Di wave
) with streamwise and
spanwise elliptical pressure load distributions is quantified by Jones’
127
classical though
not universally accepted relation describing the lower bound
cbox
2
L W wave Di
r C K C λ
π
β
= ∆ (187)
where the working dimensions are shown in Figure 30. K
W
is a deviation from the
theoretical minimum and recommended as being equal to 1.25
124
, β = (M
2
 1)
1/2
, r = S
W
/
(b l
W
) is a shape parameter, and, the socalled corrected box ratio is defined as λ
cbox
= β b /
(2 l
W
). The fundamental assumption here is that the fuselage nose and tail do not contribute
to lift.
Figure 30. Definition of working parameters to compute drag due to lift in supersonic
flight
124
.
7.7 Quantifying the Aerodynamic Impact of Winglets
With greater emphasis being placed on improving aircraft cruise efficiency winglet
devices appear to offer the most attractive combination of drag reduction and aesthetic
appeal. It is therefore not surprising many existing aircraft types have been outfitted with
winglets as part of an overall enhancement package and many kits are offered to retrofit in
service aircraft. The conventional winglet (AR
WL
≅ 1.5) approach is now being replaced by
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
97
socalled blended winglets
128
; typified by a high aspect ratio (AR
WL
≅ 3.5) and integrated
by way of pronounced filleted transition geometry between the wing and winglet
structures.
Regardless of the design philosophy, the known benefits of winglets can be itemised
as follows:
• Decreased fuel burn and increased payload range attributes – achieved through an
aerodynamic performance improvement, i.e. net vehicular drag reduction;
• Higher cruise altitude and OEI driftdown ceiling – due to a net vehicular drag
reduction enabling a greater amount of specific excess power at given altitude and
speed;
• Improved takeoff performance – higher effective OEI lifttodrag and therefore
higher second segment climb gradient for given reference speed; allows for higher
TOGWs;
• Reduced engine maintenance – the option of retaining the original takeoff
performance levels prior to installation of winglets promotes a reduced thrust
concept;
• Lower airport noise levels – exploiting the reduced thrust concept.
All of these enhancements may not necessarily come to fruition concurrently; the
designer should expect a combination of a few at best. Nonetheless, it is evident if
appropriately designed and integrated with the main wing, the devices will translate into a
some sort of a direct economic benefit for the operator.
Many examples of winglet performance prediction and design optimisation is
available in literature
34,70,71,129131
. In general, winglet configurations are analysed using the
VLM to establish optimal planform attributes, cant, camber and twist in achieving
maximum reduction of vortexinduced during cruise. A nonplanar, threedimensional
potential flow panel method is subsequently employed to evaluate the configuration under
takeoff and landing operating conditions, thereby gauging the possibility of adverse low
speed characteristics. The revised span load is examined referenced to the ultimate wake in
a Trefftz plane analysis in order to determine the induced drag and bending moment
distribution. The final step in the design cycle is to weigh the economic feasibility of
adding winglets to the aircraft; ideally, a revised (and reoptimised) performance estimate
would entail consideration of the change in aerodynamic qualities and the change in
aircraft empty weight. To alleviate the need for excessive effort, only a relative drag is
quoted at given operating lift coefficient and change in OWE due to a wing bending
moment increase. For conceptual design studies, one suggestion is to adopt these
percentages and empirically adjust the design prediction accordingly with no due regard
given to winglet design variable sensitivity. Unfortunately, as one would intuitively expect
this approach is susceptible to inconsistencies. Therefore, a requirement now arises for a
quasianalytical method to quantify the change in vehicular drag due to winglets.
7.7.1 Quantifying the Drag Reduction of Winglet Devices
As depicted in Figure 31, by summing the forces in the direction of freestream and
adhering to the sense convention indicated, the total force of the local system can be
quantified to be
∑
α − α =
ind WL ind WL x
sin L cos D F (188)
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
98
where α
inc
is the winglet representative incidence and α
ind
is the spanwise induced angle of
attack instantaneously generated by the wing.
α
ind
α
inc
Forward
Inboard
Wing
L
WL
D
WL
α
ind
V
∞
L
W
L
s
i
n
α
i
n
d
D
WL
cos α
ind
+
α
eff
Figure 31. Resolving local lift and drag forces generated by the winglet into the direction
of freestream.
A key requirement is to now formulate a semiempirical expression for α
ind
.
Fundamentally, the trailing vortex shed at each wingtip induces not only a downward
velocity in the region of the wing itself, but the circulatory motion also generates induced
velocities in a spanwise direction. When the freestream velocity is vectorially added to the
spanwise induced velocity component in planview, the resulting vector produces an angle
of attack α
ind
. Prandtl’s liftingline theory stipulates the downward induced angle of attack
generated by finite wings is proportional to the operating C
L
and inversely proportional to
the wing AR
132
. Working off this premise and introducing a coefficient of proportionality
(η
ind
) to represent a scaling factor between the downward and spanwise induced velocities
towards the tips, then
AR
C
L
ind ind
π
η = α (189)
A suggested scaling factor η
ind
= 7.2 was empirically derived from flow visualization
experiments undertaken by Head
133
.
Since the true goal is to quantify a relative vehicular drag, Eq. (188) should be
examined in the nondimensionalised form, i.e. divided by qS
W
. To this end, the
instantaneous lift coefficient produced by the winglet (C
L WL
) is given by
( )
oL eff WL L WL L
C C α − α =
α
(190)
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
99
where the effective angle of attack α
eff
is found by taking the difference between α
ind
and
the winglet representative incidence angle α
inc
. An account of the zero lift angle of attack
α
oL
is assumed here to be approximately α = –3° for 3% cambered aerofoil sections
commonly used for winglet devices. The liftcurve slope characteristics (C
Lα WL
) can be
estimated using the Helmbold equation
34
modified for compressibility correction as given
by Eq. (88).
The total winglet drag is determined by summing the winglet zerolift (C
Do WL
) and
vortexinduced (C
Di WL
) drag. The C
Do WL
contribution is derived using the component
buildup method with an adjustment for interference as outlined earlier. It is highlighted
that the incremental zerolift drag due to presence of winglets must be considered in
isolation from the vehicular characteristic length and the ECLM drag prediction algorithm.
In this context, the winglet device is taken to be an addon to an existing vehicle wing
planform, and therefore, is not deemed to be a constituent in deriving the vehicular
characteristic length.
Upon substitution of Eq. (189) and Eq. (190) into Eq. (188) now expressed in an
equivalent nondimensionalised form, the total incremental drag due to presence of
winglets is determined by summing the resolved local winglet lift and drag force
components, the change in drag due to compressibility if the winglet preempts the wing in
generating supervelocities, and a reduction in the wing vortexinduced drag. Recognising
an adjustment required to conform to the reference wing convention
( )
( )
Di comp D M ind WL L ind WL Di ind WL Do
W
WL
Di comp D ind WL i ind WL o ind WL
W
D
C C sin C cos C cos C
S
S
2
C C cos D cos D sin L
qS
2
C
CR
∆ + ∆ Φ + α − α + α =
∆ + ∆ + α + α + α − = ∆
(191)
with the ∆C
D comp
component considered to be greater than zero if the winglet M
CR
has
been exceeded by the freestream Mach number. By virtue of attaching winglets to the tips
of a wing, one would expect an alteration to the spanwise lift distribution and the trailing
vortex system downstream since circulation along the wingspan changes accordingly. In an
attempt to quantify the relative reduction in vortexinduced drag due to presence of
winglets (∆C
Di
) in the flow field, a useful basis is to refer to the fractional change in the
vortexinduced drag factor used to augment the original ∆C
Di
denoted by the subscript
“orig”
orig
Di 2
L
D
Di
C
dC
dC
C O = ∆ (192)
The fractional change operator for the vortexinduced drag factor, namely
OdC
D
/dC
L
2
, is quantified by comparing the original wing planform and an equivalent
wing planfom with winglets canted as some angle Γ
WL
off the vertical. By incorporating
the vortexinduced drag factor derived by Obert
3
and given by Eq. (162) the operator
becomes
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
100
( )
( )

.

\
 π
+
−
=
∆
=
orig rev
rev orig
orig
2
L D
2
L D
2
L
D
AR
150
1 AR
AR AR
dC dC
dC dC
dC
dC
O (193)
where for winglet span (or height) and root chord of h
WL
and c
WL
respectively the revised
aspect ratio (AR
rev
) is defined purely on the basis of geometry
( )
( )
WL WL WL R WL W
2
WL WL
rev
tan 1 c h S
tan h 2 b
AR
Γ λ + +
Γ +
= (194)
7.7.2 Proficiency of Drag Reduction due to Winglet Prediction
Figure 32 shows a comparison of the calculated and actual improvement in block fuel
for a Boeing B737800 narrowbody transport. Actual data derived from flighttesting was
taken from results published by Dees and Stowell
71
. With regards to the exercise of
predicting a change in block fuel due to presence of winglets, a calibrated drag model
assuming no wing tip device was created from information generated by Boeing
121
and
subsequently contrasted against an assumption of winglets installed. Some precision is lost
for shortrange missions, i.e. 500 nm and less, which are characterised by lower operating
lift coefficients (C
L
< 0.5); nonetheless, the agreement for the B737800 appears to be
mostly a good one.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Stage Length (nm)
B
l
o
c
k
F
u
e
l
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
(

)
737800 Winglet Actual
737800 Winglet Predicted
Brochure OEW
Typical Mission Rules
LRC Mach
Figure 32. Comparison between flighttest derived
71
and predicted improvement in block
fuel for B737800 commercial transport.
One undesirable feature of this method is the fact ∆C
Di
approaches zero with
decreasing Γ
WL
; this analytical sensitivity does not parallel the winglet parametric study
results presented by Ishimitsu
70
. The problem can be allayed by stipulating an accepted
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
101
design protocol of winglet integration not violating a minimum cant angle or lower
threshold of Γ
WL
. Cant angles less than approximately 15° are not permissible because it is
indicative of a less pronounced rate change improvement in C
Di
with respect to wing root
bending moment, and of equal importance, it gives less scope to provide aerodynamic
interference relief between wing and winglet and is detrimental in delaying the formation
of shock waves on the winglet upper surface.
7.8 Validation of the Total Aerodynamic Drag Model
The aerodynamic performance characteristics of known contemporary aircraft were
available to validate the predictive powers of the methods discussed – henceforth referred
to as the Combined Drag Model (CDM). Figure 33, Figure 34, Figure 35 and Figure 36
show the agreement between predictions using CDM and flight test drag polars for the
Saab Aerospace AB Saab 2000
114
, Bombardier Aerospace Learjet 60
134
, Bombardier
Aerospace Global Express
135
and Boeing B737800
121
respectively. Each chart indicates
two zones of prediction effectiveness: “Infrequent Excursions” alludes to operating points
within the certified aircraft flight envelope that are seldom impinged during typical
operation, i.e. very low and very high operating lift coefficients, whereas, the inner
boundary labelled “Core Predictions” are points that will always need to be considered
during the course of examining the viability of a design candidate from an operational
performance perspective. By virtue of conducting a validation exercise that encompasses
aircraft of varying size, mission role and even power plant installation philosophy, the
results indicate there exists a good likelihood that CDM will produce predictions well
within ±10%, and it is discernable that core predictions will stay within an acceptable ±5%
error bandwidth.
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0%
Prediction Error for Total Drag
M
a
c
h
n
u
m
b
e
r
(

)
Core Predictions
Infrequent Excursions
M
mo
Boundary
LRC Speed
Figure 33. CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the Saab 2000 highspeed
turboprop regional transport.
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
102
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0%
Prediction Error for Total Drag
M
a
c
h
n
u
m
b
e
r
(

)
M
mo
Boundary
Core Predictions
Infrequent Excursions
LRC Speed
Figure 34. CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the Learjet 60 midsize turbofan
business aircraft.
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0%
Prediction Error for Total Drag
M
a
c
h
n
u
m
b
e
r
(

)
Core Predictions
Infrequent Excursions
M
mo
Boundary
LRC Speed
Figure 35. CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the Global Express ultra long
range turbofan business aircraft.
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
103
0.60
0.65
0.70
0.75
0.80
10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0%
Prediction Error for Total Drag
M
a
c
h
n
u
m
b
e
r
(

)
Core Predictions
Infrequent Excursions
M
mo
Boundary
LRC Speed
Figure 36. CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the B737800 narrowbody
commercial transport; note that τ
act
= 1.30 used in generating the reference
condition.
CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS
104
intentionally blank
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS
105
Jan 05
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Copyright © 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
25
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed
Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
End of Additional Reading
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction
The importance of predicting lowspeed and highspeed aerodynamic qualities of aircraft cannot be understated
Vehicular definition relates to an initial appreciation of how the flight envelope will look It is one of the integral components in formulating airplane operational performance attributes
Prediction of lowspeed and highspeed aerodynamic attributes covers the following categories
Lowspeed aerodynamics
Clean wing lift characteristics and maximum lift Maximum lift generated by trailing and leading edge highlift devices
Highspeed aerodynamics
Zerolift drag Vortexinduced drag at subsonic speeds 3D effects, trim and ancillary drag contributors Total incremental drag due to OEI condition Compressibility or wave drag due to volume and lift Aerodynamic impact of winglets Buffeting qualities
Jan 05
Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
2
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
Jan 05
Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
Primary and secondary control surfaces and forces on an airplane
3
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
CLmax is the maximum lift coefficient the wing can generate
CL, Lift Coefficient
CLmax landing CLmax takeoff CLmax clean
α, angle of attack
CLmax is dependent upon
Wing sweep Wing aspect ratio Wing thicknesstochord Flapping span and flap deflection angle Highlift device configuration
In conceptual design, CLmax is often predicted by inspecting other aircraft of similar configurations; as a general rule
Empirical methods are well suited to giving results with an adequate level of accuracy for conventional aircraft configurations and technology levels The primary goals are for highest (L/D)TO and (D/L)LD Predictions should not exceed approximately CLmax = 3.50 unless suitable justification has been established Parametric analysis techniques can be utilised to confirm the validity of prediction results
Jan 05
Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques
4
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.)
An expedient method to establish clean wing CLmax and liftcurve geometry
First identify the 3D CLα using the VortexLattice method; closedform Helmbold method is good enough as well Predict the zerolift angleofattack; can read off 2D test data results as an initial guess; nonlinear lift is predicted to commence at αoL + 10° Use the algorithm CLmax = 14 dCL/dα to estimate the maximum lift coefficient for 1g stall
Lift Coefficient, CL
4 4° x dCL dα 3 αstall 43 − 2ARref 3 1
dCL dα
VortexLattice Calculations Empirical Algorithm
αoL
2 ∆α = 10° Angle of Attack, α (deg.)
Predicting the lift characteristics of a clean finite wing
Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 5
Jan 05
Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved
1996 6 .Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.) Ref: AGARD CP102 Boeing 747 F28 Mk 4000 Examples showing distinction between 1g and minimum aerodynamic stall definitions Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques Ref: Some Aspects of Aircraft Design and Aircraft Operation Obert.
) Note the reference configuration Use fractional change theory to predict the ∆CLmax of alternative layouts Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 7 .Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont. Isikveren All Rights Reserved 8 . 1982 Method to estimate lifttodrag ratio of design candidates with highlift devices deployed Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. hence. is detrimental to climb Ref: Delft University Press Synthesis of Subsonic Airplane Design Torenbeek.) Lifttodrag ratio during takeoff manoeuvers Instantaneous OEI climb gradient at V2 speed can be predicted using the parametric correlation below Increasing the incremental lift with highlift devices has a tendency of reducing the available lifttodrag ratio.
Isikveren All Rights Reserved 9 . airfoil section and twist distribution geometry for A310 transport Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. 1981 Details of wing planform.Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.) Ref: 19816 – No. 91 L’Aeronautique et L’Astronautique.
Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.) Itemized breakdown of total drag and physical explanation of origins Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 10 .
002500 Advanced Passive or Active Methods 0.ft) Survey of wetted areas and equivalent skin friction coefficients Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.004500 Large Regionals & Large Business Jets Narrowbodies 0.) Predicting zerolift drag Basis is modified Eckert’s equation for skin friction incorporating a Reynolds number adjustment parameter cf = [log(ηactNR )]b [1 + cM2 ]d Reynolds number Mach number A equiv.003500 Mean Line 0.005000 Small Regionals & Small Business Jets Vehicular Equivalent Skin Friction Coefficient () 0. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 11 .004000 Unacceptably Excessive Widebodies 0.003000 0.002000 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 Vehicle Wetted Area (sq. sand roughness. pressure & interference Mixed (laminar) flow adjustment can be incorporated thereafter Component buildup method is used to generate reference condition 0.Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.
007 dC 2 πAR L clean vortexinduced drag factor ref. aspect ratio Reduction in dCD/dCL2 due to sloteffect needs to be modeled as well Incremental drag due to 3D effects and ancillary drag contributors Most common method is form factors that account for 3D effects Ancillary interference Excrescences Trim (goal should be keep it small) These values are computed based on thicknesschord ratios of the wing. nacelle and other appendages OEI asymmetric drag estimation Windmilling drag estimated using “imaginary cutoff Reynolds number” It is an imaginary skin roughness (l/k) independent of engine size Assuming this roughness level an equivalent skin friction is computed using the PrandtlSchlichting form of Eckert’s equation Drag due to asymmetry is then based on equilibrium of moments Dwm LR yeng yeng D wm + D wm + Top ∆CDOEI = q Sw [ ] y eng l vt tan δR Top lvt δR Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 12 . horizontal and vertical tails. and.) Predicting vortexinduced drag Obert’s empirical method is suitable for subsonic analysis (M>0. the fineness ratios of the fuselage.4) dCD 1.Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.05 = + 0.
) Predicting wave drag Difference in zerolift drag coefficient between the fastest Mach number (less than M =1. wing quarter chord sweep margin to divergence Mach Empirical exponential equation is then utilised to model the geometric increase in drag within the drag rise and divergence regimes Supersonic wave drag accounts for contributions due to volume displaced by the vehicle as well as lift distribution Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.0020 MCR MDD Constant CL Mach number Can produce reasonable initial estimate of Critical Mach using modified Korn’s equation airfoil technology operating lift coefficient mean wing thickness MCR 1 = cosΛ Qchd 3/2 (t c )m − ∆M CL 1 − MREF − cos Λ Qchd 10 cos 2 Λ Qchd ref.0) & Critical Mach is defined as transonic wave drag CD increasing CL Constant CL ∆CD = 0. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 13 .Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.
) Suggested target design and offdesign characteristics Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques Ref: Some Aspects of Aircraft Design and Aircraft Operation Obert. 1996 14 .
cmα or cxα curves and emergence of pressure divergence on any of the lifting surfaces or fuselage Ref: AIAA20020002 Design of the BlendedWingBody Subsonic Transport Liebeck. Isikveren All Rights Reserved .30 can be reached without encountering buffet Free from buffet within the operationally expected envelop is desirable Jan 05 Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 15 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.) Buffet Envelop It is an additional en route limitation to the aircraft flight envelop Defines an upper threshold of flight level after an appreciation of climb and cruise specific excess power residuals. 2002 Ref: AIAA 882043 The Integration of CFD and Experiment: An Industry Viewpoint Bengelink.Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont. 1988 Explanation of buffeting envelop for transport aircraft The derivation of these boundaries are commonly performed using extrapolated wind tunnel data to fullscale and subsequently verified with flight testing Initial prediction methods can become mathematically quite extensive which do not easily lend themselves to simplification In reaching and surpassing the threshold for buffeting the aircraft must permit full controllability This means flow separation on a swept wing at high Mach number should not initiate too far outboard to prevent strong roll or pitchup tendencies Airworthiness rules stipulate cruise flight has to be limited to lift coefficients where n = 1. and. maximum cabin pressure differential are considered Buffeting is characterized by Breaks in CLα.
1996 16 .) Predicted and flight test derived buffet boundary for L1011 Buffet boundary for MD80 transport Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques Ref: Some Aspects of Aircraft Design and Aircraft Operation Obert.
AR=1. i. allows for higher TOGWs Reduced engine maintenance – the option of retaining the original takeoff performance levels prior to installation of winglets promotes a reduced thrust concept Lower airport noise levels – BBJ with Aviation exploiting the reduced thrust concept Vortex Generators Partners’ winglet Flow over a lifting surface may tend to separate prematurely leading to stall. diminished control authority. greater drag or even noise The separation can be either chordwise or spanwise Separation can occur at lowspeed or highspeed (transonic flow) Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. net vehicular drag reduction Higher cruise altitude and OEI driftdown ceiling – due to a net vehicular drag reduction enabling a greater amount of specific excess power at given altitude and speed Improved takeoff performance – higher effective OEI lifttodrag and therefore higher second segment climb gradient for given reference speed. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 17 .e.5) and integrated by way of pronounced filleted transition geometry between the wing and winglet structures Benefits of winglets can be itemized as follows Decreased fuel burn and increased payload range attributes – achieved through an aerodynamic performance improvement.5 Blended winglets typified by a high aspect ratio (AR=3.Aerodynamic Devices These are appendages that either enhance performance or fix problems. either lead to successful operation and/or certificated airworthiness Winglets With greater emphasis being placed on improving aircraft cruise efficiency winglet devices offer the most attractive drag reduction Another reason for selecting winglets is the aesthetic appeal There are two categories The conventional winglet. i.e.
section contour distribution and washout Measure of insufficient upfront work done on a new design if artificial devices are employed to fix problems during flight testing Perpetual strides in CFD capabilities will have a tendency to minimise use of vortex generators. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 18 . at least establish a rationale that employing them is the best compromise Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.Aerodynamic Devices (cont. or.) Examples of vortex generators for highspeed (GV left) and lowspeed (Legacy right) To correct this situation a series of vortex generators or vortilons near the wing or control surface leading edge are usually installed These energize the airflow over the surface and thereby assist in delaying the onset of flow separation This is a common solution to imperfections like poor manufacturing tolerance Thin plates attached to engine nacelles or along the forward portion of the fuselage body are called strakes – also shed vortices to energize local flow or even correct directional stability at high angles of attack Not a desirable solution Can be avoided for the wing if thoughtful consideration is given to wing thickness.
and. increased Dutchroll damping Generates drag through greater wetted area and interference Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.Aerodynamic Devices (cont.) Stall Strips Are spanwise strips added to the wing leading edge to ensure stall begins at that location first They provide more docile (acceptable) stall characteristics It is an effective method to ensure proper stall progression. may also lead to unacceptable highspeed drag penalty Do not require these when leading edge highlift device is used Wing Fences Act as barriers to deter crossflow. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 19 . however. thereby possible separation which could lead to tip stall Highspeed drag penalty Ventral Fins Are surfaces that protrude from the underside of the aft fuselage in an inverted “V” configuration They improve stall protection by scooping up air under the tail helping to push the nose down at high alpha Another benefit is enhanced directional stability at sideslip and higher angles of attack Ancillary benefit Can avoid the need of a stability augmentation system through inherent improved directional stability at high Mach numbers and altitudes.
typical descent speed (e.13Vs) for each permissible takeoff flap configuration MidAUW.23VS and VFE Expected CD at V2 (1.13VS and 1.23VS) in the landing configuration Alpha = 0. in the clean configuration VREF (1.Setting Requirements for Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamics Whenever an initial technical assessment is undertaken a preliminary list of wing aerodynamic design requirements needs to be generated Primary considerations include Aircraft performance and handling Aircraft certification The list constitutes a roadmap and is formulated by collaborative efforts between conceptual design.13VS and 1.0 in ground effect for each takeoff flap configuration Expected CLmax for each flap and/or slat angle assuming both clean and with icing contamination Number of unprotected (antiice or deice) slat panels should be taken into account Jan 05 Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 20 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. aerodynamics and operational performance functions The most important component is the wing design It is an iterative process and requires input from all three groups mentioned above Issues concerning design philosophy generate fundamental questions about how the goals are to be achieved Requisite number of development wings Requisite number of production wings (if a family concept) Scope of tradeoff analysis and declaration of optimisation parameters Lowspeed requirements and targets that need to be defined are All speed targets are with respect to 1g stall concept Max expected L/D for each flap and/or slat angle Expected L/Ds at 1.3VS). 250 KCAS) in the clean configuration (idle power) VAPP (1.23VS for respective takeoff and landing configurations Stable L/D versus CL at 1. Isikveren All Rights Reserved .g.
) shapes on winglet (if applicable). if applicable) Expected CLmax in the landing configuration Expected CLMU (in ground effect at aircraft tipback geometry limit minus 1° is approximately CLshaker in free air) with no wing tip separation Special relationships and guidelines gathered through experience are CLmax lowest takeoff flap > CLmax landing / 1. wingbody fillet and landing lights Takeoff ice on all forward facing aerodynamic surfaces including protected slat panels Delayed Turnon ice on all slat panels DoubleHorn (1. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 21 . flow over the wing behind the nacelles should remain attached and be adequately energised up to higher angles of attack Outboard wing leading edge should be adequately protected to higher angles of attack with no significant losses in roll control effectiveness Approach and Landing Phase Pitch attitudes of 02° at VREF in the landing configuration Pitch attitudes at touchdown (VREF – 10 KCAS at 50 ft). is less than the aircraft tipback geometry limit by at least 2° Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.50 No significant lift loss due to residual deicing fluids in aerodynamic critical zones during lift off in ground effect Acceptable stall characteristics. wingbody fillet and landing lights Takeoff ice on all forward facing aerodynamic surfaces including protected slat panels should not result in stall speed increase of more than 3 KCAS Landing ice on all forward facing aerodynamic surfaces including protected slat panels should not result in stall speed increase of more than 5 KCAS Delayed Turnon ice on all slat panels should not advance stall onset ahead of stall warning (Plus 1 sec.) Small Runback Ice behind ribs and edges of protected slat panels DoubleHorn (3 in..) ice on all slat panels No winglet separation up to V2 – 5 KCAS for all takeoff flaps No significant buffeting up to VFE for all flap and/or slat configurations Wing Stall Progression Should be preceded by trailing edge separation and/or buffeting of the inboard/midwing Onset should not be defined by leading edge separation Should initiate on the inboard/midwing at the trailing edges For underwing podded engines.) shapes on winglet (if applicable). uncontaminated and with icing assumptions Number of unprotected (antiice or deice) slat panels should be taken into account Small Runback Ice behind ribs and edges of protected slat panels DoubleHorn (3 in.21 CLmax clean > CLmax landing / 1. in the landing configuration.5 in.Setting Requirements for Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamics (cont.
Isikveren All Rights Reserved . initial cruise altitude MidAUW. etc. flaps. maximum climb speed.) CL MAX (n o ice) No Ice CL Shaker 3 % or 5% Mar gin (no ice) With Ice CLREF 20 Manoeuvre Margin Refer enc e Speed αMAX Range 10 α Definition of target CLα characteristics.) Performance Requirements @ Shaker CL No unnacceptable handling characteristics up to αMAX (rolloff. note stickpusher needs to be accounted for aftfuselage mounted engine configuration Pitch attitudes of less than 4° at VAPP in the clean configuration No abrupt changes in pitch stability with increasing alpha up to maximum alpha Dihedral stability for all low speed configurations Wing tip. typical climb speed. underwing podded engine ground clearances up to 10° in roll. severe buffetting. intermediary cruise altitude Jan 05 Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 22 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. geometry limit in pitch or combination of both Highspeed requirements and targets that need to be defined are Expected maximum M*L/D at design cruise speed Expected L/D at High AUW.Setting Requirements for Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamics (cont. sudden pitchup.
maximum cruise. typical cruise speed. typical climb speed. maximum climb speed.) Expected CD at High AUW. initial cruise altitude MidAUW. initial cruise altitude High AUW. intermediate speed.52. initial cruise altitude MidAUW. MMO. initial cruise altitude MDD number at midAUW and initial cruise altitude Buffet boundaries margin of 1. MFC/VFC kink (thrust lapse rate included) CD always increases with Mach and CL particularly for intermediate to high speeds Shock waves strength and movement should not be abrupt with increasing Mach up to MMO or alpha (CL) up to 1.0° for most cases within the typical operations envelop Good design practise to ensure +0° for all operations Wing loading to ensure passenger comfort and operational efficiency Stable dihedral and weathercock characteristics up to MMO/VMO Gradual degradation in stability derivatives up to MFC/VFC No aileron aerodynamic reversal up to MFC/VFC Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.Setting Requirements for Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamics (cont. intermediary cruise altitude High AUW.5g Typical aircraft pitch angles during cruise Should not exceed +1.4 g at High AUW. intermediary cruise altitude Special relationships and guidelines gathered through experience are Speed stability (slope of L/D versus CL) assured at low AUW. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 23 .
. October 1985 “Getting a Lift Out of Winglets”. September.. A.. 2001 World Aviation Congress. 1988 Schaufele. AIAA854067. Business and Commercial Aviation. pp 25752583 Shevell. AGARD DCP 505. “Forty Years of HighLift R&D – An Aircraft Manufacturer’s Experience”..W.D. Sweden. R..D. February 1998. 5665 Dees. A. E. D61420. 1993 Obert. “Quasianalytical Modeling and Optimization Techniques for Transport Aircraft Design”. Stowell.. pp. Thesis. “Aerodynamic Design of the DC9 Wing and HighLift System”. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH).S. Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda. 670846. ICAS886. ”The Aerodynamic Characteristics of Flaps”.. 1967. 1953 “Aerodynamics”.1. Ebeling. P. AIAA Paper No.T.2. “The Aerodynamic Development of the Fokker 100”. 2002 Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T. May 1989 Obert. Section 7. Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 24 . Ph.D. Ministry of Supply. R. Douglas Aircraft Div. Boeing Flight Operations Engineering. M. United Kingdom. A. E. Report 200213. “737800 Winglet Integration”. “Predicting LowSpeed and HighSpeed Aerodynamic Attributes”. “Aerodynamic Bugs: Can CFD Spray Them Away?”. September 2001 Isikveren. Jet Transport Performance Methods... AIAA 3rd Applied Aerodynamics Conference.) Additional Reading Young. Seventh Edition.. Department of Aeronautics.Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont. McDonnell Douglas Corp. SAE Paper 2001012989..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2001012989 737800 Winglet Integration Paul Dees Boeing Commercial Airplanes Michael Stowell Aviation Partners Boeing Copyright © 2001 Society of Automotive Engineers. a joint venture called Aviation Partners Boeing (APB) was formed between The Boeing Company and Aviation Partners. Program challenges included developing both retrofit and production configurations using a common winglet design. The joint venture allows APB access to Boeing basic airplane data. Boeing has primary responsibility for production winglets and APB has primary responsibility for retrofit winglets on inservice airplanes. Inc. AVIATION PARTNERS BOEING BACKGROUND Aviation Partners Boeing is a limited liability corporation owned by The Boeing Company (Boeing) and the principals of Aviation Partners Incorporated (API). The joint venture company was formed after Boeing Business Jets contracted API to design and certify winglets on the 737700 IGW business jet. Inc. WINGLET BENEFITS Figure 1 . API’s primary business is the application of performance improvement technology to business jets. The program challenge then was how to integrate winglets into both existing fleet aircraft and into new production aircraft. as also were increases in flight loads. Winglet benefits along with improved performance include reduced engine wear and enhanced visual appeal. ABSTRACT A joint venture called Aviation Partners Boeing successfully integrated winglets into the NextGeneration 737800 by retaining performance improvements with minimal weight penalty on the existing 737 wing design. where the patented blended winglet technology (Reference 1) was developed.Blended winglet on 737800 . The purpose of the joint venture is to create a mechanism for an exchange of data between API and Boeing with the goal of improving the performance of Boeing products in production and in the retrofit market. causing minimal impact on all customers. The flight testing of winglets for the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) indicated the expected gains in aerodynamic efficiency were real. keeping the improved aerodynamic efficiency with minimal structural weight penalty and minimal systems changes. INTRODUCTION The 737800 wing was originally designed and certified without winglets. preferably using a common winglet design. Another program challenge was how to minimize cost of the flight test and certification effort of several distinct wing configurations. The technical challenge then became how to add winglets to the already existing 737 wing design. which will facilitate design and certification efforts in the retrofit market. and causing minimal disruption to the 737 production process. To meet these challenges. Boeing has access to API’s Blended Winglet technology for applications on current aircraft in production as well future airplane programs.
Adding winglets increased both the wing dynamic and static flight loads significantly. Many of the aerodynamic driven changes to the 737800 are the same for the retrofit and production versions. For a given amount of lift. Changes common between the 737800 retrofit and production aircraft with winglets are: • • • • Winglet Stabilizer Trim settings Autothrottle Flight Management Computer (FMC) data Figure 2 shows the flighttest derived winglet block fuel burn improvement. The winglet is approximately 70% graphiteepoxy by weight. An economically viable . Figure 3 – Blended winglet construction Figure 5 – Retrofit wing modifications Figure 3 shows the 737800 Blended Winglet construction. Direct economic benefits to the airlines include combinations of these items (not all are available simultaneously): • • • • • Decreased fuel burn Increased payloadrange Improved takeoff performance Reduced engine maintenance Lower airport noise levels RETROFIT WINGLETS APB has primary responsibility for the retrofit (post delivery and in service) winglet installations. Figure 4 shows the primary retrofit changes and Figure 5 illustrates the structural modifications required for the 737800 winglet retrofit. drag is reduced. It is based on an average of eastbound and westbound missions and is common to both retrofit and production winglets. Figure 4 – Retrofit winglet aircraft modifications Most of the structural changes required differ between the 737800 retrofit and production aircraft. In the aircraft retrofit environment many of the challenges to install winglets on the airplane are different compared to the production modifications. Figure 2 – Winglet block fuel burn improvement Other less tangible benefits include hightech visual appearance and airline passenger appeal (environmentally friendly). which increases with cruise range.The addition of 8 foot tall Blended Winglets to the 737800 (see Figure 1) increases the aerodynamic efficiency.
The structural provisions were designed to minimize weight impact on customers who chose not to purchase the optional winglets. Figure 6 – Production winglet installation modifications The retrofit configuration used a loadalleviation system to handle the increased flight loads. The new –6 stall management yaw damper (SMYD) accommodates the shield’s impact on stick shaker speeds and is pinselectable. Modification to the wing was minimized by the development of a Speedbrake Load Alleviation System. All of the position and navigation lighting is on the winglet. The early production winglets have a small light shield inboard of the forward anti collision lights to prevent strobe flashing from entering the cockpit. The winglets are built within Boeing to the same drawings as the APB retrofit winglets. especially final assembly. some specific fastener locations are cold worked to meet fatigue requirements. This is difficult because the retrofit modification is limited by existing parameters in the basic airplane. Wing service life goals were achieved by reworking existing fasteners in the lower wing skin. To minimize the weight penalty for customers who do not choose winglets. changes for the production winglet installation is shown in Figure 6. As with the retrofit. PRODUCTION WINGLETS Boeing has primary responsibility for the inline production winglet installations. This system changes the angle of the inflight speedbrakes in critical flight conditions to reduce wing loading. these changes stop at rib 25.retrofit program minimizes the recurring costs of the installation. For the Retrofit 737800 the wing strength was increased by the addition of straps and angles to the stringers located inside the wingbox as shown in Figure 5. Likewise. . The wing structural changes are shown in Figure 7. The increased pitch inertia at the wingtips by the addition of winglets aggravated critical flutter modes. but that was rejected as it would have penalized customers not choosing winglets. a new – 800 winglet model engine database (MEDB) for the flight mission computer (FMC) is required and is selected via pin select. A retrofittable lighting product improvement is in development to eliminate the light shield. The production winglet installation met the challenge by carefully designing minimal additional bending and torsional stiffness into the wing. a new Autothrottle is used with winglets and includes a winglet setting via dipswitch. replacement of the removable outer 2 bay skin panels improved flutter tip modes. It would have been possible to trade flutter ballast weight for greater increases in wing skin panel thickness. an absolute seal is installed to prohibit any flammable fuel vapors from the inboard wing from reaching any potential ignition sources in the winglet. Flutter considerations drove a significant effort to control wing torsional stiffness and winglet weight and center of gravity. Systems changes were also required to support the addition of winglets. as with the retrofit configuration (Figure 8). The fasteners were removed and replaced with interference fit. increasing skin thickness may be the most efficient means of increasing the wing bending strength. Some minor strengthening is required in the center wing. The aft position light installation is in a low drag streamlined fairing on the inboard portion of the winglet. The primary changes were upper and lower skin panel gage changes and stringer gage changes over the outboard 2/3 of the wing. For example. Partial provisions also include new ribs 25 through 27 with additional strength as needed. Figure 7 – Production winglet structural changes The customers that choose winglets have new upper and lower outboard skin panels from ribs 25 to 27 and 75 pounds of flutter ballast per wing that is required to meet the flutter certification requirements of being flutter –free at 15% greater airspeeds then Mdive/Vdive. A reduction in the low altitude operating speed was avoided by adding 90 pounds of ballast per wing in the outboard leading edge. and the configuration is known as “partial provisions”. special fasteners for fatigue life improvement. An overview of the required Since the winglets improve cruise performance. As with the retrofit. Also. however skin replacement is not cost effective for retrofit. They were also designed to minimize the impact of winglets on the Boeing production facilities. These system changes are common with the retrofit installation.
ILFC. Initial production winglet customers included South African Airways through GATX. Prototype winglet performance and loads were flown in 1998 and 1999 on the YC001 (737800) and YG001 (737700 BBJ) airplanes. Air Berlin.Figure 10 – Flight test summary Figure 8 – Production winglet lighting Another small systems change is required due to the winglet aerodynamics altering the stabilizer trim angles. A summary of these flight test programs is shown in Figure 10. Boeing and APB held joint flight test programs wherever possible to minimize cost and share data. APB worked with assistance from BCA to achieve certification for the retrofit installation with the FAA and JAA and obtained the Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) in May. AIRLINE OPERATIONS The first flight with certified 737800 winglets was by Hapag Lloyd on May 8th. Initial retrofit winglet customers included HapagLloyd as launch customer and Air Berlin. 2001. FMC. Current committed 737 retrofit programs beyond the 737800 are the 737700 and the 737300. Figure 12 – 737 Winglet program status . and American Trans Air. and stabilizer greenband changes are shown in Figure 9. which was certified using YC020 flight test data. SMYD. This allowed a reduction in YC714 flight test hours by avoiding additional flutter flight testing. POTENTIAL FUTURE PROGRAMS APB believes a tremendous interest in winglets exists in the passenger and freighter market place. Figure 12 details the status of all the 737 winglet programs. Figure 9 – Systems changes FLIGHT TEST AND CERTIFICATION Five different 737 aircraft were flight tested from 1998 to 2001 to validate and to certify the winglet installations. 2001. occurred also in May and was done by Program Letter of Definition (PLOD). This manifests itself as updated stabilizer trim switch locations and a winglet “greenband” light plate in the cockpit. An example of cooperation between Boeing and APB is the use of YC020 flutter flight test data to correlate with Boeing computational methods in support of the production winglet flutter certification. The BBJ winglet installation was certified on YG032 in 2000. It is similar but not identical to the –800 retrofit winglet installation. Certification of the Boeing production installation. with assistance from APB. Autothrottle.
CONCLUSIONS 1. 3. 2. 4. A common design approach for both retrofit and production winglet installations provides maximum fleet commonality for the winglet customers. 1994. . Louis B. The expected winglet performance benefit was maintained with minimal weight penalty despite increased wing loads. REFERENCE Gratzer. A joint development and flight test program was an important ingredient to support the certification efforts.253. 5. CONTACT Retrofit winglet sales information is available from Tom VanDerHoeven at 1800winglets.348. granted September 20. Proper treatment of additional winglet loads and their impact on flutter were required for a successful program. Production winglet sales information is available from James Wilkinson at (206) 7661380.. US Patent 5. “Blended Winglet”. Properly integrated winglets provide substantial value to their operators. both as retrofit and production installations. APB blended winglets were successfully integrated and certified onto the Boeing 737800. 6.
With a distorting wake. cambered. twisted and cranked with dihedral.). Since the primary assumption of any VLM is linearity. tapered. This task can be achieved by concurrent utilisation of dedicated software to quantify the fundamental parameter of clean wing liftcurve slope with wellestablished empirical methodologies. but also of more exotic layouts such as multisurface and non planar wings.1 Clean Wing Lift Attributes and Maximum Lift The clean wing maximum lift can be computed for any original multisurface or nonplanar planform geometric definition using a threedimensional VortexLattice Method93 (VLM).1. This is surmised as being achievable by first of all soliciting the designer’s philosophical requirements and translating this notion into single allencompassing algorithms that provide visibility to the designer. The slope dCL/dα itself is quantified by comparing the computed VLM lift at the two seed AoA VLM calculations. These two primary goals must also be tempered by an appreciation for reduction in the analysis complexity. Unlike what is offered by classical VLM approaches. not only in terms of departing from the usual more simplified approach premise. two such candidates are suggested as α = 0° and +4°. which calculates aerodynamic properties of multiwing designs that are swept (symmetric or otherwise skewed). but an account of the impact a technological decision makes to the end result. this is found by extrapolating the liftcurve slope (dCL/dα) back to the point at which CL = 0. the classical “horseshoe” arrangement of other VLM programs has been replaced with a “vortexsling” arrangement. dihedral. The source of the basic theory for the VLM with flexible wake is cited as Moran94. Succinctly. it was recognised the algorithm to compute maximum lift attributes adhere to a quasianalytical philosophy. the methodologies must be impervious to stoppage when key information required on the part of the designer is found to be lacking. the next step is to identify the zerolift AoA (αoL). 7.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 75 7 Predicting LowSpeed and HighSpeed Aerodynamic Attributes The importance of predicting lowspeed and highspeed aerodynamic qualities of aircraft cannot be understated.1 LowSpeed Aerodynamics: Lift To consistently support design studies of not only quite complex conventional planforms (with multiple cranks. Secondly. It basically works in the same way as the “horseshoe” procedure with the exception that the legs of the shoe are flexible and consist of seven (instead of three) vortices of equal strength. Wing lift carryover into the fuselage body can be accounted for by factoring the original (wing only) dCL/dα with a calibrated variation of . Following the protocol mapped out in Figure 23. two seed computations are conducted for the lifting surface system at angles of attack (AoA or α) where collinearity is likely as depicted in Figure 23 and labelled as Step 1. The implication to vehicular definition relates to an initial appreciation of how the flight envelope will look as well as being one of the integral components in formulating the aeroplane’s operational performance attributes. one particular approach models the wake coming off the trailing edge of every lifting surface as flexible and changing shape according to the flight state considered. nonlinear effects such as the interaction of multiple surfaces can be simulated more consistently. etc. and an exemplar of software embodying these principles is one authored by Melin95. The main aim is to develop methodologies where the designer has an ability to approach the design solution in a more sophisticated manner. 7.
Predicting the lift characteristics of a clean finite wing using quasianalytical techniques (1g stall concept shown). (135) is only applicable for wingbody configurations not violating the constraint of dh / b < 0. The final step involves adding 4° times the vehicular dCL/dα to the now corrected CL computed for Point 3 in Figure 23 to predict the clean wing CLmax adhering to a 1g stall concept. Pitts et al stipulates that the use of Eqn. simply given as C L max = 14o (1 + 0.2. α (deg.064 Φ regs ) dC L dα (136) vehicle . a method given by Pitts et al96 dC L dα where d ξ = 1 + ς h b d2 π Snet h + Sgross 2 dC L dα wing Sgross (135) =ξ vehicle dC L dα (134) wing is related to the fuselage external maximum width (dh). the net or exposed wing planform area (Snet) and the gross wing planform area (Sgross). Step 3 involves an AoA increment of ∆α = 10° to yield an estimate of the cessation of the linear portion of the curve (usually around α = 8°) or the beginning of nonlinear lift leading eventually to stall.2. The parameter ς is a calibration constant and was derived to equal 3. or. From known data3. As a final point.76 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS Lift Coefficient. CL 4 4° x dCL dα 3 αstall 43 − 2ARref 3 1 dCL dα VortexLattice Calculations Empirical Algorithm αoL 2 ∆α = 10° Angle of Attack.) Figure 23.97101.
The subscript 22 denotes the influence of an auxiliary flap or vane if applicable. however. A similar and more detailed working account may be found in a design review done by Pazmany103 and Isikveren et al104. the corresponding AoA for stall (αstall) can be estimated as well.1). αstall is found by incrementing the AoA at Point 3 shown in Figure 23 by (43 2ARref) / 3. Since the AoA for stall will differ between the 1g stall break and minimum speed in a stall manoeuvre.97101 quoted earlier. A suggested empirically derived method based on the same data3.0° to model the minimum speed (FARs) in stall manoeuvre AoA. i. introduces a multiplier derived from information presented by Obert3.1.2 Maximum Lift Generated by Trailing and Leading Edge HighLift Devices Highlift produced by flap and slat deflection is estimated based on methods presented by Young102. flap incidence and part span. 7.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 77 When s = 1. F(AR) is the function relating the vehicular dCL/dα and the aspect ratio. the increment due to the presence of any trailing edge flap is given by F(AR ) ∆C Lflaps = ∆C′L (c′ c) + C L max W (c′ c − 1) f (Λ ) F(6) (138) where (c´/c) is the effective chord ratio. f (Λ) is a correction to the lift increment for a swept wing.0. Making allowances for effective chord. Φregs = Φ(s. λ2(β) is a function of the flap angle and is determined from experimental data (varies from one flap to another). the salient features will be appropriately noted. and ∆C ′ = λ 1 (c f 1 c) λ 2 (β1 ) + λ 1 (c f 2 c) λ 22 (β 22 ) L [ [λ ( b 3 ] f 22 b) − λ 3 ( b f 21 b) − λ 3 ( b f 12 b) + λ 3 ( b f 11 b) (139) ] λ1(cf/c) is a function of effective chords. (137) is taken to be applicable for the 1g stall concept only. CLmaxW is the maximum clean wing lift attainable. or.e. The operation [λ3(bfx2/b)  . Working off the equivalent reference wing aspect ratio as the only independent variable for analysis. (137) be incremented by an additional ∆α ≈ 1. or alternatively put. An appropriate parameter value is invoked in accordance with the analysis being conducted. the impulse function. it is suggested that Eqn. This reference uses empirical correlation from assorted accumulated data and predicts with adequate accuracy the aerodynamic characteristics of high lift devices. The methods are not explained in great detail here. under the premise of a poweroff 1g stall concept (s = 0). by combining all the steps detailed above can be simplified to read α stall = α oL + 73 − 2 AR 3 (137) Eqn. otherwise is zero for s < 1. If the value is of interest. the minimum speed in a stall manoeuvre in accordance with FARs (s = 1) respectively. and this is standardised to an AR = 6.
(139). The constant kgeo is equal to 2. an upper permissible boundary of CLmax = 3. represent the relative increase in lift compared to the default singleslotted flap prediction assuming double slotted of Douglas type and Fowler flapping arrangements respectively. by incorporating supplementary simplifications for sake of brevity. i. it’s coupled constituent Eqn. (138). Congruous with the double slotted premise. linear sensitivity to AR.39 for given highlift device types have been preselected for field calculations. Occasions where a slat lift increment is desired. Furthermore. (140) was chosen to be a more accurate model ∆C Lflaps LE TE = k geo AR b flap cos 3 Λ Qchd (141) .1).97. and introduce not only the fixed functional values related to design intent supplied by Young. the algorithm used to determine CLmax given above permits an opportunity to truly optimise flap setting for the operational performance scenario considered.50 which is universally applicable to all devices has been artificially set in keeping with conclusions drawn from surveys presented by Obert3.105. expressed as fraction of total reference wingspan. introduction of a continuous functional form for the f(Λ) correction parameter. In the end. 15o and 35o for intermediate takeoff. The first task is to take Eqn.35. a tentative maximum deflection of 20o is assumed based on experimentation and actual examples64. 20o for intermediate and maximum takeoff. For double slotted flaps of Douglas type.183 x 103 and is universally applicable for all (chord extending) flaps considered. These trailing edge highlift devices may also be complemented by the introduction of leading edge slats. x = 2 and 1 define the outboard and inboard (due to a central cutout) ends respectively. a more consistent approach exhibiting functional similarity with Eqn. Young102 suggests a rather simplified expression relating lift increment due to slat to the slat wing chord fraction. and 45o for landing. Regardless of this directive.78 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS λ3(bfx1/b)] is a part span correction factor. 20o and 45o for intermediate takeoff. the Fowler assumes 10o. maximum takeoff and landing configurations respectively. The increment in lift due to slat is only introduced for maximum lift prediction. A series of fixed flap settings corresponding with deflection optima based on experimental results given in literature1. providing an extension is made to allow cubic interpolation of CLmax for the given intermediary flap setting. and. maximum takeoff and landing configurations respectively.1) and Φfowl = Φ(s. i. The flap deflection angle in degrees is denoted by βflap with bflap defining the partspan flap including fuselage carrythrough. Φdslot = Φ(s. these selected values were found to be very close to actual deflections used on contemporary aircraft and hence adopted for simplicity. but a parameter to account for the stall concept adopted per chosen airworthiness regulations. the final algorithm describing change in lift due to trailing edge device deflection is proposed here as ∆C Lflaps 20 + Φ dslot + 5Φ fowl 3 = k geo β flap AR (3 b flap − 1) cos Λ Qchd 20 (140) The two design related impulse functions.e. Single slotted flaps tentatively have predesignated deflection optima of 7o. initial guesses for optimal flap deflections have been assumed to be approximately 10o. maximum optimal flap deflection usually pertaining to landing configuration. Although optimal flap deflection is dependent upon a given vehicular configuration and ambient conditions in which the aircraft operates.e. an allpurpose fixed quantity for effective chord. Additionally.
1. a wideranging analysis has shown predictions are relatively consistent with actual aircraft lift data. To complete the entire prediction exercise.1 ε = +5% 0 0. Highlift device set to neutral and maximum deflection shown. MAC (x cg − x ac ) C Ltrim = C L max 1 + lt (142) Many aircraft manufacturers adopt the simplified functional form given by Eqn. a trimmed lift coefficient needs to be produced.2 Error. and bflap is the slat partspan fraction. .4 2.4 1.8 3 Vehicle Actual CLmax () Figure 24.6 2. to simplify matters.0470.3 Establishing the Accuracy of Clean Wing and HighLift Prediction Once each of the analytical and empirical constituents is combined to form the final algorithm. Such an approach requires a detailed array of information. namely the MS(1)0313. except for kgeo.3 1 1. and then incrementing contributions due to generated moment coefficient about the aerodynamic centre and the moments created because of increase in drag due to trim. (142) in their respective aerodynamic data handbooks. sufficient accuracy can be achieved by dropping the terms dependent upon moment coefficient and increase in drag. now taken to be 0. in Predicted CLmax () 0.2 1. 7. otherwise equal to approximately 0. ε. Using a generic supercritical profile as a basis for this investigation.15 for all other configurations.8 2 2.2 ε = 10% 0.05 for aftfuselage mounted vehicles. As outlined by McCormick34 a complete treatment involves augmenting untrimmed vehicular lift coefficient according to the relative distance between vehicular centre of gravity (xcg) and aerodynamic centre (xac) locations.6 1.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 79 where all other parameters retain the previously given definitions.2 2. Prediction accuracy of algorithm to compute CLmax using quasianalytical techniques. Default values for the nondimensional relative MAC distance (xcg – xac) can be assumed as 0. Figure 24 elucidates this by demonstrating a typical bandwidth of 0.1 ε = 5% 0.3 TE (or LE) Flaps Neutral Max TE (or LE) Flaps ε = +10% 0.
the study indicates there exists a good likelihood maximum lift predictions will not exceed an error of around ε = ±0. This equivalent characteristic length may in turn be reintroduced into Eckert’s equation and solved for any other Mach number and flight level combinations the aeroplane encounters. b = 2. . In this way. The benchmarking data comprised either known aerodynamic performance or was derived from vehicular stalling speeds. By creating a hybrid approach where the component buildup method is benchmarked against a standardised closed form expression. 7. Global Express64. Fokker Aircraft Fokker 70110 and Fokker 100111.9x104 s/m2. Note that all aircraft assuming maximum flap deflection data points are displayed in Figure 24. Learjet 60106. Bombardier Aerospace Learjet 4578.15 irrespective of flap deflection. A tool for estimating zerolift drag is the friction coefficient equation based on experimentation done by Eckert115. CRJ20079. the Reynolds number (NR) in atmospheric flight at given speed and flight level can be expressed as NR = ρ sls σ V lb µ sls µ µ sls (144) The identity ρsls/µsls is approximately equal to approximately 6.2. the friction coefficient (cf turb) according to Eckert based on wetted area is given by c f turb = A (log N R ) b (1 + cM ) 2 d (143) where M is the instantaneous Mach number. PD3402 19 PAX regional jet conceptual design study112. and lb is any specified representative length of the body.58. Embraer ERJ 135108.144 and d = 0.a quantity commonly used for aircraft comparison exercises. constants A = 0. The aircraft used for this validation exercise were: Boeing BBJ176. ERJ 14584.58 are coefficients of proportionality derived by Eckert.1 Derivation of The Equivalent Characteristic Length Method Assuming the boundary layer is fully turbulent and accommodating effects due to compressibility on skin friction. and. More saliently. CRJ70080 and CRJ90081. and. c = 0. Challenger CL60451. Cessna Citation Excel82. Saab Aerospace Saab 340113 and Saab 2000114.455.2 ZeroLift Drag Estimation . which accounts for fully turbulent flow and compressibility effects. By assuming an appropriate reference condition of Mach number and flight level. data pertaining to neutral flap deflection is shown where the original manufacturer information was available. the component buildup method may be employed and a characteristic equivalent length for the entire vehicle can be derived from its equivalent skin friction coefficient . 7. a very preliminary assessment of the complete vehicular zerolift drag estimation may be accomplished by summation of these individual components.80 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS error (ε = predicted – actual) with respect to manufacturer quoted values falls within a ±5% splay. ERJ 140109.The Equivalent Length Method A common method for determining the zerolift drag (CDo) of aircraft components is an assumption that the constituent’s friction drag is equivalent to a flat plate having the same wetted area and characteristic length. Dassault Aviation Falcon 2000107 and Falcon 90053. Gulfstream Aerospace GIVSP89 and GVSP90. economy of effort can be achieved without incurring excessive degradation in predictive powers.
(145). the Reynolds number adjustment parameter becomes −1 b ηact = 10 (τact −1)log N R (147) Assuming an actual flight Reynolds number of around 20 x 106 where τact was found to equal approximately 1. Based on an elaborate amount of experimentation done in wind tunnel and flighttesting. raises the requirement of additional adjustments to reflect actual physical observations.105 can be thought of as a “mean curve” adjustment.105. c f = τ act c f turb (146) By initially equating Eq. typical values of skin friction exceed the predicted value significantly. or. (143) reveals the theoretical turbulent skin friction coefficient is primarily a function of Reynolds number with a supplementary account of compressibility effects. which is determined using the characteristic length and skin roughness derived from a table of values presented for different surfaces. The results showed a simple linear proportionality between cf and cf turb. pressure effects due to frontal area. The traditional method utilises the concept of a cutoff Reynolds number4. In actual flight conditions. for values ηact ≠ 1 constitutes an additional correction to represent equivalent sand roughness. This circumstance does not necessarily invalidate the use of Eckert’s equation. but rather. (146) using the binomial construct. otherwise. Other sizable contributions to the final value of skin friction includes dissimilar boundary layer development and velocity profiles between streamlined shapes and the flat plate analogy. PoissonQuinton116 was able to quantify the difference between actual values of skin friction and theoretical turbulent friction assuming a smooth adiabatic flat plate. The first correction calls for account of an equivalent sand roughness. namely. τact. produces a correction of ηact = 0. (145) with a factorised Eq. any adjustment that takes into account actualflight corrections should be expressed as being proportional to Reynolds number.45 as cited in PoissonQuinton’s results116. In view of this situation. which would then be introduced into the modified Eckert’s equation given by Eq. and. With this idea in mind. Examination of Eq.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 81 The results obtained by an approximate turbulent theory such as the one given by Eq. Eq. solving for the constant of proportionality. (143) assumes a smooth adiabatic flat plate. and then rearranging the interim result such that ηact becomes the subject. Instead of relying on a sequence of discretised computations. representative of conventional technology/manufacturing . pressure and interference effects. (143) would be modified to read as cf = [log(ηact N R )] b [1 + cM 2 ]d A (145) where the parameter ηact = 1 produces a skin friction result synonymous with Eckert’s original theory. the aim here is to formulate a singlestep prediction procedure for skin friction coefficient that can incorporate these adjustments. algebraically incorporated into the (log NR)b term. The Reynolds correction coefficient of ηact = 0.
Since an algorithm to quantify a realistic turbulent skin friction coefficient has been established with Eq.30 (or potential CDo reduction of up to 10% from the mean curve) has been derived when analysing some narrow bodies and larger aircraft types from data supplied by Obert3. surface waviness due to airframe construction. and therefore has been presented as the basis for establishing predictions at the very initial design stage. Working off a basic assumption that momentum thickness at given transition point is synonymous for both laminar and turbulent flows (see Figure 25).197. . (143). dynamic distortion and cabin pressurisation. (143) represents a condition where fully turbulent flow exists. this can be used as a basis to formulate an extension such that a realistic skin friction assuming mixed flow is produced. xT is the point along the body characteristic length where flow transition occurs and ∆x is a distance ahead of the transition point where fictitiously the onset of fully turbulent flow takes place. cf turb is computed assuming a Reynolds number based on a body characteristic length starting from the fictitious onset of turbulent flow to the end of the ‡‡ The aircraft surface can have many irregularities. Eq. lb Figure 25. hence permit the designer to set a minimum goal of what proportion laminar flow shall occur over the characteristic length of the body constituent in question. and this factor is in turn synonymous with a Reynolds correction coefficient of ηact = 0. It would be prudent to give scope in accommodating mixed laminar and turbulent flow. protruding flush rivet heads. These include gaps and steps. the final skin friction can be produced by summing the friction coefficients for partly laminar and turbulent flow2. and. The premise of mixed laminar and turbulent flow used to derive an augmented realistic skin friction coefficient2.82 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS levels‡‡. Consideration must also be given to the fact a practical lower limit of τact = 1. It can be shown34 the total flat plate friction coefficient for a mixed laminar and turbulent flow is calculated from c f = c f turb − xT (cf turb − c f lam ) lb (149) In this equation. Matching the momentum thickness of the laminar and fully turbulent boundary layer at transition point T gives c f lam x T = c f turb ∆x (148) where cf lam is the skin friction coefficient for laminar flow.
§§ . (150). or distance xT. assists in ascertaining what proportion of the completely turbulent flow premise imparts an influence on the mixed flow result.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 83 body. In addition. Experimentation has found a useful value for this parameter is approximately χmf = 0. hence permit a reduction in complexity. The upper boundary of assumed laminar flow fraction is a reasonable one for design prediction purposes since an example of the most successful flight testing of combined passive and active laminar flow control technology achieved laminar flow up to 30% of wing chord117. Experimentation has found that a speed near the final vehicle MRC or LRC at an altitude 4000 ft lower than the intended certified ceiling are good reference conditions for a balanced error distribution. the total skin friction coefficient for mixed laminar and turbulent flow can alternatively be expressed as x c f = 1 − χ mf T c f turb lb (151) The constant of proportionality. experimentation conducted in a more operationally pragmatic sense commonly produces transition at 15% wing chord117. an iterative procedure is required to solve for ∆x in Eq. an equivalent skin friction coefficient representative of the entire vehicle can be produced with the congruent relation c ε ∑ Siwet ≡ ∑ c if Siwet f i =1 i =1 I I (153) The parameter cε is the equivalent skin friction for the sum of all constituent wetted f areas produced using the equivalent flat plate analogy representing the entire aeroplane.40. Substitution of Eq. By choosing an appropriate reference condition of Mach number and altitude§§. Introducing a presumption the fictitious distance ∆x consistently exhibits linear proportionality with xT for low to midrange values of ∆x / lb. and. Investigations found that for xT / lb values less than approximately 0. cf lam is calculated based on the entire length of assumed laminar flow. A valid form of simplification is in order here. It The reference condition for Mach and flight level is open to the designer’s willingness to trade larger errors in low speed for more accurate highspeed zerolift drag or visa versa. χmf. (150). scope can be given to dispense with the transcendental nature of Eq.40.74 for all xT / lb < 0.h = ∑c S i =1 i f I i wet SW (152) where the product c if Siwet is the drag area of each component i. (148) into Eq. (149) can produce an alternate form x + ∆x c f turb c f = 1 − T lb (150) Since cf turb also depends on ∆x. The component buildup method for zerolift drag at given Mach number and flight level is given as C Do M .
2. not configured for a more indepth calculus treatment. (143) can be solved for f an equivalent characteristic length (lε) given by the identity A cε f 1/ b lε = 10 ρsls σ V µ sls µ µ sls [1+cM ] 2 −d / b (154) Reintroducing this relation to Eckert’s equation. independent of Mach number or flight level effects) is small. 7. more importantly what is the upper threshold of relative errors the designer may expect. Eq. (143) then becomes . Eq. Since the entire vehicle has been replaced by the flat plate premise with a corresponding value for cε . in conjunction with some algebraic manipulation. Eq. designated hereon as the Equivalent Characteristic Length Method (ECLM). If Eckert’s general equation is partitioned into Reynolds number and compressibility dependent constituents. and more poignantly. In an effort to theoretically gauge the magnitude of inherent errors produced by this approach. drag is an integral parameter and has the primary requirement of being differentiable with respect to the airspeed V for all cases. a general zerolift drag equation. and. the ECLM expression was reconfigured as an error function with respect to the exact component buildup method. By utilising the relation x = eln x. by rearranging Eckert’s equation. The most expedient way to observe this would be the comparison of resultant equivalent skin friction errors analytically and do so for a range of contemporary regional transport and business jet Reynolds number regimes based on complete vehicular characteristic lengths.e. It was identified that this problem may be avoided via the use of logarithmic differentiation. (155) can be alternatively expressed as ρ sls σ V 2 1 + c 2 c = A[ln10] exp− bln ln V l ε − dln a sls θ µ sls µ µ sls ε f b (156) which is in a form ready for differentiation albeit the complexity has not been reduced. Eq. and assuming the error in NR due to a now fixed equivalent characteristic length (i.2 Gauging the Robustness of the Equivalent Characteristic Length Method An interesting question is to what extent the equivalent characteristic length assumption is compatible to the exact component buildup method. which accounts for all variations of Mach number and flight level can be given approximately as C Do ≅ A ρsls σ V l ε 1 + cM 2 log µ sls µ µ sls b M .84 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS is now proposed that this notion of equivalence can be extended to quantify a characteristic length as well. (155) appears to be in a form that is quite complex.h [ ] d Swet SW (155) For a detailed analytical treatment of en route performance.
5 3. the relative error of an equivalent characteristic length assumption can be gauged by considering deviations from the exact value of c fexact through a fractional comparison .5 4.0% 0.0% +30% +40% +50% +60% +70% 10.0% 0% +10% +20% Error in lε 5.5 6.5 1. by introducing the notion of error factor defined as the ratio of the fixed vehicular characteristic length quantity derived from a reference Mach and flight level to the exact value of vehicular characteristic length.5 5. Now.0% 20% 10% Error in lε 0.0% (159) Relative Error of Vehicular ZeroLift Drag () 40% 30% 5. or εl = lε/lexact.5 Reynolds Number Based on Vehicular Characteristic Length (x106) Figure 26.5 7.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 85 cf = ϖ1 log l b ϖ 2 1 + ϖ2 b (157) where the compressibility term is described by ϖ1 = [1 + cM ] A 2 d (158) and the Reynolds number dependent constituent is defined as ρ σ ϖ 2 = log sls V µ sls µ µ sls 10.5 2. Resilience of ECLM accuracy for a given error in vehicular characteristic length and en route Reynolds number based on vehicular characteristic length.
(162) was compared to Eq. a 5% underestimation of zerolift drag is tolerated by a +33% error in equivalent characteristic length from the exact value. and larger regional and narrowbody aircraft from NR = 3.86 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS cε f c fexact log ε l = 1 + log N R −b (160) Figure 26 (previous page) shows the variation of resultant prediction error compared to the exact vehicular equivalent skin friction of zerolift drag with Reynolds number based on vehicular characteristic length whilst assuming various errors in the εl ratio. small business jets typically operate at around NR = 106. an error of 24% in lε compared to lexact corresponds to a +5% overestimation of equivalent skin friction or total zerolift drag.05 2 = + 0. inclusion of wing twist effects. To put Reynolds number based on vehicular characteristic length into context.e. assuming typical centre of gravity locales. For a typical en route Reynolds number of 1.0 x 106. This result demonstrates the resilience of ECLM. Conversely.40.5 x 106 and 2. Eq. 7. (162) does not appear to account for the distinction of power plant installation philosophy.3 VortexInduced Drag at Subsonic Speeds Many methods exist in quantifying this phenomenon and the most simplest of them is the Oswald Span Efficiency Method which assumes the vortexinduced drag coefficient of three dimensional wings with an elliptical lift distribution equals the square of the lift coefficient divided by the product of the aspect ratio and π. Obert3 offers an empirically derived equation for the vortexinduced drag factor applicable for Mach numbers greater than about 0. dC D 1.0 x 106 and higher. based on actual aircraft regardless of power plant installation. for the same Reynolds number. Interestingly. As an exercise. Additional drag produced by nonelliptical lift distributions is made by using the Oswald Span Efficiency Factor (e). the continuous functional form offered by Obert seemed to match the values for these known examples with an adequate degree of accuracy. i. which effectively reduces the aspect ratio. and the direct impact this has on span loading distribution. (161) and Oswald span efficiency factor solved for a variety known e values of equipment with different power plant installation philosophies not covered by the statistical survey. clean wing. regional aircraft and larger business jets between NR = 1. underwing podded or onwing nacelle configurations. The vortexinduced drag factor35 is given as dC D 1 2 = dC πARe L (161) Numerous estimation methods for e have been developed but they mostly tend to produce optimistically high values compared values of real aircraft. and compressibility effects neglected.007 dC L clean πAR (162) Eq.5 x 106 based on vehicular characteristic length for regional transports. This leads the author to believe a correlation between aspect ratio and power plant installation .
there is also an additional physical effect that needs to be addressed.150. For field performance where Mach numbers typically range between 0.893ξ ht ) 2 + 4 + 240 c m c m (165) . The modified wing form factor reads as 4 t t ϕ wing = 0.1). Such a model is proposed here to be dC dC D dC D 2 = 2 + ∆ D dC 2 dC dC L flaps L L clean dC D 1. invokes a correction to the vortexinduced drag factor to signify an irregularity in the lift distribution due to deployment of highlift devices. or alternatively. hence Obert’s regression analysis inherently accounted for this association. ancillary interference. horizontal and vertical tails. and excrescences are reviewed here. Concurrent to this circumstance.421 2 + 4 + 240 c m c m (164) with the horizontal tail surface redefined to be ϕ htail 4 t t = 1 + 0.007 dC πAR L (163) The impulse function.271 Φ flap 2 = − 0. Literature demonstrates this variation is proportional to wing geometry. 7. (163). All of the form factors itemised below were derived from original expressions developed for GASP39 and subsequently modified to suit known data more appropriately. In order to acknowledge these known phenomena. as flap deflection is increased. the effect of flap cutout and lift carry over by the fuselage1. and. This is attributable to an increasing benefit generated by the sloteffect at greater deflections and amounts to a measure of boundary layer control thus preventing separation. These values are computed based on thicknesschord ratios of the wing.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 87 philosophy must exist.000487 β flap + 0. This means the maintenance of sufficient accuracy can be expected using the one algorithm in predicting the vortexinduced drag regardless of flaps neutral or extended.25. (163) to lowspeed drag polars of the Saab 340113 and Saab 2000114 aircraft found the correlation to be quite adequate. There is a reduction in the vortexinduced drag factor with increasing flap deflection.1 (1 − 0. nonellipticity of the spanwise lift distribution of the basic wing. it is apparent that a change in vortexinduced drag factor will take place due to a change in the spanwise lift distribution due to flaps extending and deflecting118. the fineness ratios of the fuselage and nacelle.4 Three Dimensional Effects and Ancillary Drag Contributors Five form factors that account for threedimensional effects.05 + 0. Studies comparing the vortexinduced drag estimate generated using Eq. a reduction in the vortexinduced drag for given CL occurs. the implication is an incremental change in the vortex induceddrag factor needs to be introduced to Eq. Φflap = Φ(βflap.
Similarly with the wing. the nacelle form factor is based on the premise of slenderness as well d ϕ nac = 1. In the absence of detailed undercarriage sizing.005339 β flap + 0.5 2 + 4 + 240 c m c m (166) The fuselage form factor is predicated by body slenderness ratio.294 SW ( ) (169) The total aircraft drag of a configuration geared for field operation is also affected by a profile drag contribution from extended flaps and slats.15 for trailing edge and leading edge devices respectively are suggested as initial estimates. the drag due to extension of undercarriage can be quantified with adequate accuracy using statistical correlation from known data. Assuming a streamlined fuselage without a blunt nose ϕfuse d l = 1 + 0. an approximation for the incremental drag is suggested as ∆C Do flap = 1 c MAC 2 cos 2 β flap 5. a useful linear regression equation was derived to be ∆C D LG = 1 2.35 nac l nac (168) The prediction of a lowspeed drag polar for field performance requires account of contributions due to extended undercarriage and highlift devices.0025 fuse + 60 v l d fuse v 3 (167) and finally. the vertical tail form factor was amended to read as ϕ vtail 4 t t = 0.0416 f bb SW c flap (170) ( ) and typical values for the relative flap chord fraction of cf / c = 0.88 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS The ξht parameter represents horizontal tail placement nondimensionalised by dv with respect to the vertical tail tip and FRP waterline. 7.17 1 + 0.4 because yawing and rolling considerations become rather complex in nature since these .85 x 10 −5 WTO + 0. Assuming a given trailing edge (and/or accompanying leading edge) highlift device has been deployed.26 and cf / c = 0. Based on information gleaned from McCormick34. It is usually classified as a preliminary design problem1.268 x 10 −4 β flap − 0.5 Total Incremental Drag due to One Engine Inoperative Condition The One Engine Inoperative (OEI) condition appears to be mostly disregarded in conceptual design literature.
Simplifications of forces and geometric considerations during the asymmetric thrust condition. By examining the exact approach. incremental changes in normal force vortexinduced and profile drag from control surface deflection. Studies have shown that many of these constituent contributors can be neglected with the exception of vortexinduced and profile drag generated by rudder deflection.5. By assuming the vertical tail utilises a symmetric profile and all rudder deflections during asymmetric flight will be below stall. a number of valid simplifications may be incorporated in order to reduce the scope of detailed information required whilst retaining strong predictive powers and objective function sensitivity with respect to the design variables. Top is the instantaneous available thrust produced by the critical engine at instantaneous velocity V and lvt is the vertical tail moment arm. equilibrium is achieved via. Dwm is the drag produced by the windmilling engine. L R l vt = y eng (D wm + Top ) (171) where yeng is the moment arm from fuselage centre line to the critical and windmilling engines.1 The General One Engine Inoperative Drag Constituent If one considers the OEI asymmetric condition. 7.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 89 must be trimmed out by primarily the rudder and then aileron. airframe sideslip. studies have shown that many of these constituent contributors can be neglected with the exception of vortexinduced and profile drag generated by rudder deflection. Drag due to engine windmilling. Figure 27 demonstrates the pertinent forces and moments once this simplification is introduced. asymmetric slipstream effects and lift distribution reconfiguration producing independent vortexinduced contributions all combine to complicate matters. The instantaneous lift (LR) generated by the flapped vertical tail is34 . Dwm yeng yeng lvt LR δR Top Figure 27.
If a simplification is sought. the next step should be an appreciation of to what extent performance shall be degraded. AR vt cosΛ C Lα . Since the geometric characteristics for equilibrium of asymmetric thrust has been quantified.110 per deg. however. the possibility of accounting for the influence of minimum control speed limitations on field length and initial climb performance can be introduced at the conceptual level. . the rudder deflection required for equilibrium of the OEI asymmetric condition is given by δR = y eng (D wm + Top ) q S vt C Lα . section liftcurve slope of Clα. Thus. By assuming some level of conservatism for smaller deflections.vt τ η l vt (174) From this basis. an overall flap effectiveness of τη = 0.088 per deg.Qchd 2 + 4 + AR 2 vt (173) Assuming a thin airfoil.Qchd) accounted for by a first order cosine relation given by Torenbeek1. By summing the forces and moments in Figure 27. the total incremental drag contribution produced by an OEI asymmetric condition (∆CDOEI) is approximated by39 y eng D wm + D wm + Top tan δ R l vt (175) ∆C DOEI = q Sw [ ] *** Two point vortices represent the airfoil and this function is dependent upon cf / c ratio. a correction which accounts for the effects of viscosity. Svt the vertical tail reference area. McCormick shows at an upper deflection of δR = 30°. This figure can be substantiated against Torenbeek’s1 presentation of overall effectiveness factors derived from experimental data for plain flaps.vt = C lα . and equating these to represent contributions of vortexinduced and profile drag due to rudder deflection.66 may be derived using Weissinger’s approximation34***. and η.vt) can be estimated by the Helmbold equation34 based on an approximate lifting surface theory with the effects of sweep (Λvt. it was found an average of 0. McCormick34 demonstrates that thin airfoil theory can be utilised to produce adequate results but the functions are still represented by dependent variables.04 per rad) taken from Abbott and Von Doenhoff69 yields more realistic predictions. from linear thin airfoil and lifting surface theory.vt = 0. a value of η = 0. Assuming a typical cf / c value for the flapped vertical tail of around 0. The liftcurve slope characteristics (CLα. (2π per rad) is given theoretically. an estimate of τ = 0. and.vt vt . τ a flap effectiveness factor. methods to predict these quantities with respect to operational performance will be addressed in the takeoff field performance discussion of this report.3.74 would be appropriate. (5.49 applicable to the complete range of angles would result.90 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS L R = q S vt C Lα . Furthermore. The functions τ and η are generally derived empirically since they behave in a nonlinear fashion with chord fraction (cf / c) and rudder deflection angle (δR).vt τ η δ R (172) with q denoting the dynamic pressure.
analogous to an internal drag contribution. neglecting compressibility effects and hence adopting the PrandtlSchlichting form. By comparing the ratio of characteristic length and a skinroughness value (l/k).5. then a predesignated cutoff Reynolds number would be independent of Mach number variation for subsonic flight††† and atmospheric conditions because as indicated by Raymer. specifically in relation to OEI maximum attainable flight level and driftdown net level off height proficiency trade studies at ISA and more importantly offISA conditions. it can also be utilised for climb out analysis as well. ††† . the method is rather esoteric because the procedure employs the momentum theorem. (143). there is a strong correlation to relative roughness alone. the OEI performance will be influenced by additional drag due to a windmilling engine during the equilibrium condition of asymmetric flight. which requires an estimation of mean flow velocity in the nozzle exit together with the windmilling mass flow. Raymer4 discusses the merits of employing a cutoff Reynolds number parameter to account for expected higher skin friction coefficients in conventional zerolift drag estimation when the surface of a body is relatively rough. the cutoff Reynolds number (NR cutoff) is then determined by N R cut −off l =a k b (176) where a and b are constants of proportionality and NR cutoff varies monotonically with l/k for subsonic speeds. Unfortunately. therefore. bypass ratio and internal configuration. the equivalent flat plate skin friction that simulates an imaginary roughness condition for a windmilling engine would be given as OEI flight regime is considered predominately as a subsonic problem. the imaginary relative roughness can be taken as approximately constant. This premise may not hold true for extended range and in some instances driftdown operations.2 Drag Generated by Windmilling Engine For multiengine aircraft with engines not buried in the fuselage. The notion of a “cutoff Reynolds number” can be useful in helping to quantify the drag produced by a windmilling engine in this respect.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 91 This relation is not only applicable for low speed field performance. As an alternative. When the imaginary cutoff Reynolds number is quantified empirically and substituted into Eckert’s equation for skin friction given by Eq. the imaginary cutoff Reynolds number can be considered independent of nacelle size or characteristic length as well. Typical values for the ratio of these speeds are offered but they are specific to engine type thus not allowing for a continuous function concept. Assuming a windmilling engine is essentially the nacelle but influenced by some degree of imaginary roughness on the body in this condition. which also may be postulated to be a function of engine size. 7.e. It is evident that the internal drag generated is related to maximum static engine thrust potential. In view of this. i. This would mean the imaginary value for k would increase proportionately with nacelle physical dimensions. a more simplified approach is proposed which assumes the windmill drag component can be accounted for by representing it as an equivalent flat plate problem with an associated skin friction value which is imaginary and independent of Reynolds number variation or associative compressibility effects. Torenbeek1 proposes a conceptual method to estimate the magnitude of the drag increment by considering this quantity to be a function of engine frontal area.
3 0.3x104.7 Mach number () Figure 28. sea level conditions. Once the windmilling engine representative skin friction is quantified. predictions of ∆C D were computed and subsequently compared to known windmill drag data for both the Williams International FJ442A120 small turbofan rated at 10. Figure 28 demonstrates the level of accuracy generated using the imaginary skin friction method.1 0. known windmill drag properties for the BAe 146200119 were used and the results were tested against other installed aircraft engines.58. Using this information in conjunction with the nacelle wetted area estimation methodology described wm previously. Benchmarking predicted windmilling drag using the imaginary skin friction method against actual engine windmilling data.92 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS c fwm = [logN A b wm R cut −off ] (177) where A is equal to 0.4 0. the results were found to be quite encouraging.6 0.f) and the CFM567B26121 engine rated at 118 kN (26400 lb. ISA. .5 0. or corresponding imaginary skin friction of c fwm = 0. The suggested values for conceptual analysis were found to be wm N R cut −off = 9.455 and b = 2.2 0.f) used on the B737800 narrowbody commercial transport.007274. Williams FJ442 Actual Data Williams FJ442 Prediction CFM567B28 Actual Data CFM567B28 Prediction Windmill Drag (N) 0 0.nac SW (178) In order to derive the value for imaginary skin friction.2 kN (2400 lb. more so due to the fact the nacelle wetted area was not calibrated to any known data before computing the final result. an incremental contribution to drag in the OEI asymmetric condition is therefore given by ∆C wm D = c fwm S wet .
The free stream Mach number at which this first occurs is called the critical Mach number. The definition of what particular Mach number constitutes MDD is open to several options. CD increasing CL Constant CL ∆CD = 0. Notwithstanding. Additionally. quarter chord sweep.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 93 Additionally. for an initial analysis the drag rise is graphically estimated using a few rules of thumb rather than a more comprehensive appreciation of the dependence of MDD on parameters like instantaneous operating lift coefficient. Typically. 7.0020). MDD is a function of lift coefficient since shock formation and strength directly relates to increases in airflow velocity.8%. and can be thought of as the lower limit of the transonic flow regime. One should recall the method is based upon the generic pitot nacelle. the actual nacelle wetted area for a turboprop (or even Sduct and straights ducts) power plant installation must be disregarded and the generic pitot introduced into the prediction process. thereafter the drag rise rate increases substantially as shown in Figure 29. mean wing thickness ratio and type of airfoil geometry employed as exemplified by Raymer4. This accounts for a simulated bypass ratio increase due to the presence of propeller or larger fan diameter contribution for given maximum static thrust rating or nacelle size. therefore. Steadily increasing values of free stream Mach number above MCR are characterised by regions of supersonic flow terminated by normal shock waves shifting aft and increasing in strength. Inspection of the Saab 2000’s one engine inoperative drag assuming a propeller in the autofeathered condition114 produced an estimation error of –2. denoted here as MCR. The formation of shocks in the transonic flow condition affects the drag up to the drag divergent Mach number (MDD).0020 MCR MDD Constant CL Mach number Figure 29. The most common is the Boeing definition where MDD is the speed at which an incremental increase in viscous drag influenced by drag rise is equal to 20 counts (or ∆CDD = 0. it is recommended that the drag contribution for turboprop engines using this method should be obtained by factoring the equivalent turbofan result by 3. Definitions for the transonic mixed flow regime and indication of speed thresholds for certain drag escalation attributes. this assumption .6 Compressibility or Wave Drag Compressibility is a drag increment caused by an increase in free stream Mach number above a critical point where locally accelerated speeds increase sufficiently to reach Mach numbers of unity and above.
87 for conventional peaky sections. By rearranging Torenbeek’s version of the modified Korn’s equation so that MDD is the subject 3/ 2 (t c )m CL 1 1 − M REF − = cos Λ Qchd 10 cos 2 Λ Qchd cosΛ Qchd M DD (180) Torenbeek1 offers an arbitrary mathematical representation of the condition where drag rise is terminated (at speed MDD) and an increased drag rise rate begins ∆C Dcomp M − M DD = ∆C DD 1 + ∆M n (181) where the symbols n = 2. Torenbeek122 offers a variation of Korn’s equation123 to quantify the limits of wing section performance for given vehicle wing thickness. and. 7. MREF = 0.1 Derivation of the Incremental Drag due to Compressibility Much of what is known about this flow regime are largely experimental hence are described by many different empirical models.5 and ∆M = 0.6. Therefore. As a consequence. sweep and typical operating lift coefficient envelope M REF = M DD cos Λ Qchd CL 1 + cos 2 Λ 10 Qchd 3/ 2 + (t c )m cos Λ Qchd (179) where MREF is a wing section technology factor. (180). thereby.but a wide range of information exists which aid in predicting compressibility drag characteristics for given set of design parameters adequately. a modification of this premise with an empirical fit more akin to the actual performance produced by contemporary regional and business jet vehicles is proposed: a customary technology factor of MREF = 0.935 for supercritical aft loaded. allowing the definition of MCR to be given as .94 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS does not necessarily invalidate this first order estimate’s predictive powers .90.05 are given by Torenbeek.850 for supercritical aft loaded sections is suggested as a more pragmatic value with an occasional upper limit not exceeding MREF = M0. Torenbeek suggests values of MREF = 0. they have no physical significance but are derived from experimental data. Eq. (181) implicitly relates MCR to MDD as M DD = M CR + ∆M (182) This information can be used in conjunction with Eq. Here. it would be deemed prudent in attempting to derive a closed form expression that describes the mixed flow regime simultaneously neglecting highly nonlinear terms but having a stronger basis to set more realistic goals.
as stipulated by Kuchemann126 and introducing an empirical wave drag efficiency factor4.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 95 M CR 1 = cosΛ Qchd 3/ 2 (t c )m CL 1 − M REF − − ∆M cos 2 Λ 10 cos Λ Qchd Qchd (183) Now. ΦMcr = Φ(M.05. analysis of actual subsonic aircraft (even those catering to MMO speeds up to M0. Although this value reflects supersonic designs displaying a relatively poor volume distribution. ηopt. (181) yields M − M CR ∆C Dcomp = Φ M CR ∆C DD 1 + Φ M CR − 1 ∆M n (184) which then leads to a closed form expression for the total compressibility drag contribution including the concept of initial and supplementary drag rise and the final equation conforms to the presupposed condition of differentiability with respect to airspeed V. (181) and solving for the exponent n produces .90) found ηopt Ko = 4. the wave drag due to volume for given body volume Vb reads as ∆C Dcomp M sREF = ηopt K o 128 Vb2 π SW l 4 b (185) The product ηopt Ko can be estimated from values quoted by Raymer4 and Torenbeek124. and one suggested reference is MsREF = 1. the wave drag of wings and slender bodies is frequently related to the theoretical minimum wave drag of pointed optimum bodies.0 is more appropriate. or even all three in consort. Once the wave drag due to volume has been quantified for the reference condition. as composite area distributions in pairs. and incorporating Eq. by utilising linearised theory as Mach number tends to unity from below125. i. Even though the implicit assumption involves smooth bodies in inviscid flow. (183) into Eq. Ko. Correcting for deviations from the optimum by a factor.6. 7.2 Quantifying Wave Drag due to Volume and Lift As expounded by Torenbeek124. the next step is to build the wave drag model according to the operating parameters dictated by given flight conditions.5 for ηopt Ko is adequate. representing the ratio between actual wave drag and that of the optimum body. Taking the logarithm on both sides of Eq.MCR). (182) and Eq. This is accomplished by initially choosing a reference Mach number that is slightly faster than sonic speed. Raymer and Torenbeek indicate a combined factor of approximately 2. SearsHaack or Adams optimum either in isolation.e. the relative merits of differing configurations can be compared as a guide to dragrise behaviour. These optimum bodies can be represented by the von Karman ogive. by introducing the concept of an impulse function or approximate unit step that is critical Mach number dependent.
(181). 7.25124. or alternatively.96 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS ∆C Dcomp M sREF log ∆C DD n= M sREF − M CR log ∆M (186) Eq. r = SW / (b lW) is a shape parameter. It is therefore not surprising many existing aircraft types have been outfitted with winglets as part of an overall enhancement package and many kits are offered to retrofit inservice aircraft. β = (M2 . The drag due to lift of surfaces at supersonic speeds (∆CDi wave) with streamwise and spanwise elliptical pressure load distributions is quantified by Jones’127 classical though not universally accepted relation describing the lower bound ∆C Di wave = K W β 2 C L r λ cbox π (187) where the working dimensions are shown in Figure 30. the socalled corrected box ratio is defined as λcbox = β b / (2 lW). Figure 30. Definition of working parameters to compute drag due to lift in supersonic flight124. hence. The conventional winglet (ARWL ≅ 1. The fundamental assumption here is that the fuselage nose and tail do not contribute to lift.1)1/2. and. for a given critical Mach number premise. KW is a deviation from the theoretical minimum and recommended as being equal to 1. (186) is then substituted back into Eq. an estimate of the wave drag due to volume can be computed dynamically for an instantaneous operating lift coefficient.5) approach is now being replaced by .7 Quantifying the Aerodynamic Impact of Winglets With greater emphasis being placed on improving aircraft cruise efficiency winglet devices appear to offer the most attractive combination of drag reduction and aesthetic appeal.
a revised (and reoptimised) performance estimate would entail consideration of the change in aerodynamic qualities and the change in aircraft empty weight.129131. one suggestion is to adopt these percentages and empirically adjust the design prediction accordingly with no due regard given to winglet design variable sensitivity. i. allows for higher TOGWs. In general.71. typified by a high aspect ratio (ARWL ≅ 3. Many examples of winglet performance prediction and design optimisation is available in literature34. camber and twist in achieving maximum reduction of vortexinduced during cruise. cant. Reduced engine maintenance – the option of retaining the original takeoff performance levels prior to installation of winglets promotes a reduced thrust concept. threedimensional potential flow panel method is subsequently employed to evaluate the configuration under takeoff and landing operating conditions. by summing the forces in the direction of freestream and adhering to the sense convention indicated. The final step in the design cycle is to weigh the economic feasibility of adding winglets to the aircraft. To alleviate the need for excessive effort.7. 7. Therefore. the designer should expect a combination of a few at best. it is evident if appropriately designed and integrated with the main wing. the total force of the local system can be quantified to be ∑F x = D WL cos α ind − L WL sin α ind (188) . Regardless of the design philosophy. the devices will translate into a some sort of a direct economic benefit for the operator. Improved takeoff performance – higher effective OEI lifttodrag and therefore higher second segment climb gradient for given reference speed. as one would intuitively expect this approach is susceptible to inconsistencies.e. ideally. thereby gauging the possibility of adverse low speed characteristics. Higher cruise altitude and OEI driftdown ceiling – due to a net vehicular drag reduction enabling a greater amount of specific excess power at given altitude and speed.70. All of these enhancements may not necessarily come to fruition concurrently. the known benefits of winglets can be itemised as follows: • • • • • Decreased fuel burn and increased payload range attributes – achieved through an aerodynamic performance improvement. For conceptual design studies. Unfortunately. net vehicular drag reduction. a requirement now arises for a quasianalytical method to quantify the change in vehicular drag due to winglets. winglet configurations are analysed using the VLM to establish optimal planform attributes.1 Quantifying the Drag Reduction of Winglet Devices As depicted in Figure 31.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 97 socalled blended winglets128. only a relative drag is quoted at given operating lift coefficient and change in OWE due to a wing bending moment increase. Lower airport noise levels – exploiting the reduced thrust concept.5) and integrated by way of pronounced filleted transition geometry between the wing and winglet structures. Nonetheless. A nonplanar. The revised span load is examined referenced to the ultimate wake in a Trefftz plane analysis in order to determine the induced drag and bending moment distribution.
Prandtl’s liftingline theory stipulates the downward induced angle of attack generated by finite wings is proportional to the operating CL and inversely proportional to the wing AR132. To this end. divided by qSW.98 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS where αinc is the winglet representative incidence and αind is the spanwise induced angle of attack instantaneously generated by the wing. Eq. When the freestream velocity is vectorially added to the spanwise induced velocity component in planview.e. (188) should be examined in the nondimensionalised form. the resulting vector produces an angle of attack αind.2 was empirically derived from flow visualization experiments undertaken by Head133. Resolving local lift and drag forces generated by the winglet into the direction of freestream. the trailing vortex shed at each wingtip induces not only a downward velocity in the region of the wing itself. but the circulatory motion also generates induced velocities in a spanwise direction. A key requirement is to now formulate a semiempirical expression for αind. V∞ αinc αind LWL LWL sin αind αeff αind Forward DWL DWL cos αind Inboard Wing + Figure 31. then α ind = ηind CL π AR (189) A suggested scaling factor ηind = 7. Since the true goal is to quantify a relative vehicular drag. the instantaneous lift coefficient produced by the winglet (CL WL) is given by C L WL = C Lα WL (α eff − α oL ) (190) . Working off this premise and introducing a coefficient of proportionality (ηind) to represent a scaling factor between the downward and spanwise induced velocities towards the tips. Fundamentally. i.
By virtue of attaching winglets to the tips of a wing. The CDo WL contribution is derived using the component buildup method with an adjustment for interference as outlined earlier. In this context. The total winglet drag is determined by summing the winglet zerolift (CDo WL) and vortexinduced (CDi WL) drag. An account of the zero lift angle of attack αoL is assumed here to be approximately α = –3° for 3% cambered aerofoil sections commonly used for winglet devices. a useful basis is to refer to the fractional change in the vortexinduced drag factor used to augment the original ∆CDi denoted by the subscript “orig” dC ∆C Di = O D C Di orig (192) dC 2 L The fractional change operator for the vortexinduced drag factor. Recognising an adjustment required to conform to the reference wing convention ∆C D = 2 (− L WL sin α ind + D o WL cos α ind + Di WL cos α ind ) + ∆C D comp + ∆C Di qS W S WL (C Do WL cos α ind + C Di WL cos α ind − C L WL sin α ind ) + Φ MCR ∆C D comp + ∆C Di SW (191) =2 with the ∆CD comp component considered to be greater than zero if the winglet MCR has been exceeded by the freestream Mach number. namely OdCD/dCL2. (189) and Eq.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 99 where the effective angle of attack αeff is found by taking the difference between αind and the winglet representative incidence angle αinc. The liftcurve slope characteristics (CLα WL) can be estimated using the Helmbold equation34 modified for compressibility correction as given by Eq. (88). By incorporating the vortexinduced drag factor derived by Obert3 and given by Eq. It is highlighted that the incremental zerolift drag due to presence of winglets must be considered in isolation from the vehicular characteristic length and the ECLM drag prediction algorithm. is not deemed to be a constituent in deriving the vehicular characteristic length. is quantified by comparing the original wing planform and an equivalent wing planfom with winglets canted as some angle ΓWL off the vertical. Upon substitution of Eq. In an attempt to quantify the relative reduction in vortexinduced drag due to presence of winglets (∆CDi) in the flow field. one would expect an alteration to the spanwise lift distribution and the trailing vortex system downstream since circulation along the wingspan changes accordingly. and a reduction in the wing vortexinduced drag. the winglet device is taken to be an addon to an existing vehicle wing planform. the total incremental drag due to presence of winglets is determined by summing the resolved local winglet lift and drag force components. (188) now expressed in an equivalent nondimensionalised form. the change in drag due to compressibility if the winglet preempts the wing in generating supervelocities. (162) the operator becomes . (190) into Eq. and therefore.
With regards to the exercise of predicting a change in block fuel due to presence of winglets.7.100 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS AR orig − AR rev (193) π AR rev 1 + AR orig 150 where for winglet span (or height) and root chord of hWL and cWL respectively the revised aspect ratio (ARrev) is defined purely on the basis of geometry O ∆ dC D dC 2 dC D L = = dC 2 dC D dC 2 orig L L ( ( ) ) AR rev = (b + 2 h WL tan ΓWL )2 S W + h WL c R WL (1 + λ WL ) tan ΓWL (194) 7.5).0% 1.0% Block Fuel Improvement () 3. The problem can be allayed by stipulating an accepted . a calibrated drag model assuming no wing tip device was created from information generated by Boeing121 and subsequently contrasted against an assumption of winglets installed. Comparison between flighttest derived71 and predicted improvement in block fuel for B737800 commercial transport. which are characterised by lower operating lift coefficients (CL < 0. Actual data derived from flighttesting was taken from results published by Dees and Stowell71. this analytical sensitivity does not parallel the winglet parametric study results presented by Ishimitsu70. nonetheless. i. Some precision is lost for shortrange missions.0% Brochure OEW Typical Mission Rules LRC Mach 0.e. One undesirable feature of this method is the fact ∆CDi approaches zero with decreasing ΓWL. the agreement for the B737800 appears to be mostly a good one.0% 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Stage Length (nm) Figure 32.2 Proficiency of Drag Reduction due to Winglet Prediction Figure 32 shows a comparison of the calculated and actual improvement in block fuel for a Boeing B737800 narrowbody transport.0% 737800 Winglet Actual 737800 Winglet Predicted 4. 5.0% 2. 500 nm and less.
55 Mach number () 0. the inner boundary labelled “Core Predictions” are points that will always need to be considered during the course of examining the viability of a design candidate from an operational performance perspective. mission role and even power plant installation philosophy.50 LRC Speed 0.0% 5. CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the Saab 2000 highspeed turboprop regional transport.35 0.8 Validation of the Total Aerodynamic Drag Model The aerodynamic performance characteristics of known contemporary aircraft were available to validate the predictive powers of the methods discussed – henceforth referred to as the Combined Drag Model (CDM).LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 101 design protocol of winglet integration not violating a minimum cant angle or lower threshold of ΓWL. Bombardier Aerospace Learjet 60134. Each chart indicates two zones of prediction effectiveness: “Infrequent Excursions” alludes to operating points within the certified aircraft flight envelope that are seldom impinged during typical operation. Bombardier Aerospace Global Express135 and Boeing B737800121 respectively. very low and very high operating lift coefficients. Mmo Boundary 0. and it is discernable that core predictions will stay within an acceptable ±5% error bandwidth. the results indicate there exists a good likelihood that CDM will produce predictions well within ±10%. Cant angles less than approximately 15° are not permissible because it is indicative of a less pronounced rate change improvement in CDi with respect to wing root bending moment.e. it gives less scope to provide aerodynamic interference relief between wing and winglet and is detrimental in delaying the formation of shock waves on the winglet upper surface.0% 10. .60 0. whereas.0% 5.45 Core Predictions 0.0% 0. Figure 35 and Figure 36 show the agreement between predictions using CDM and flight test drag polars for the Saab Aerospace AB Saab 2000114.40 Infrequent Excursions 0. Figure 34.0% Prediction Error for Total Drag Figure 33. Figure 33. 7. and of equal importance.30 10. i. By virtue of conducting a validation exercise that encompasses aircraft of varying size.
CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the Global Express ultra long range turbofan business aircraft.0% 10.0% 5.70 Infrequent Excursions 0.0% 5.60 10.75 Mach number () LRC Speed 0.0% 10.80 LRC Speed 0.65 Infrequent Excursions 0.0% 5. 0.0% Prediction Error for Total Drag Figure 35.65 0.0% 5.75 0.0% 0.102 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS Mmo Boundary 0.80 Core Predictions 0.70 0. CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the Learjet 60 midsize turbofan business aircraft.90 Mmo Boundary Core Predictions 0.0% 0.60 10.85 Mach number () 0. .0% Prediction Error for Total Drag Figure 34.
70 Infrequent Excursions 0.LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 103 Mmo Boundary 0.75 0.0% 0.0% 10.0% 5.60 10.0% Prediction Error for Total Drag Figure 36. CDM prediction effectiveness inspected for the B737800 narrowbody commercial transport.80 LRC Speed Core Predictions Mach number () 0.0% 5.30 used in generating the reference condition. . note that τact = 1.65 0.
104 CONCEPTUAL AIRCRAFT DESIGN METHODS intentionally blank .
LOWSPEED & HIGHSPEED AERODYNAMICS 105 .
Isikveren All Rights Reserved Section 6 – Initial Sizing & Analysis Techniques 25 .Tier II Lowspeed & Highspeed Aerodynamic Prediction (cont.) End of Additional Reading Jan 05 Copyright 2005 by Askin T.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.