Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

SAE TECHNICAL
PAPER SERIES 2002-01-2912

Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Commercial

Transport Aircraft Aerodynamics at
Extreme Flight Conditions
Gautam H. Shah, Kevin Cunningham, John V. Foster,
C. Michael Fremaux and Eric C. Stewart
NASA Langley Research Center

James E. Wilborn, William Gato and Derek W. Pratt

The Boeing Company

World Aviation Congress & Display

Phoenix, Arizonia
November 5-7, 2002

400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001 U.S.A. Tel: (724) 776-4841 Fax: (724) 776-5760 Web: www.sae.org
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

For permission and licensing requests contact:

SAE Permissions
400 Commonwealth Drive
Warrendale, PA 15096-0001-USA
Email: permissions@sae.org
Fax: 724-772-4028
Tel: 724-772-4891

For multiple print copies contact:

SAE Customer Service

Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada)
Tel: 724-776-4970 (outside USA)
Fax: 724-776-1615
Email: CustomerService@sae.org

ISSN 0148-7191

Positions and opinions advanced in this paper are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of SAE. The author is solely
responsible for the content of the paper. A process is available by which discussions will be printed with the paper if it is published in
SAE Transactions.

Persons wishing to submit papers to be considered for presentation or publication through SAE should send the manuscript or a 300
word abstract to Secretary, Engineering Meetings Board, SAE.

Printed in USA
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018
Wind-Tunnel Investigation of Commercial Transport Aircraft
Aerodynamics at Extreme Flight Conditions
Gautam H. Shah, Kevin Cunningham, John V. Foster, C. Michael Fremaux and Eric C. Stewart
James E. Wilborn, William Gato and Derek W. Pratt
ABSTRACT
A series of low-speed static and dynamic wind tunnel
tests of a commercial transport configuration over an
extended angle of attack/sideslip envelope was
conducted at NASA Langley Research Center. The test
results are intended for use in the development of an
aerodynamic simulation database for determining aircraft
flight characteristics at extreme and loss-of-control
conditions. This database will be used for the
development of loss-of-control prevention or mitigation
systems, pilot training for recovery from such conditions,
and accident investigations. An overview of the wind-
tunnel tests is presented and the results of the tests are
evaluated with respect to traditional simulation database
development techniques for modeling extreme
conditions to identify regions where simulation fidelity
should be addressed.
INTRODUCTION
Loss-of-control has been identified as a major
contributor to the fatal accident rate of large, transport-
category airplanes. Loss-of-control accidents involve
extremely large angles of attack and sideslip, as well as
large angular rates, all of which are far outside the
normal operational envelope. Recently, it has been
recognized that improved aerodynamic models of these
extreme conditions, which can be generated by control
upsets, unusual attitudes, atmospheric disturbances,
loss-of-control and/or out-of-control situations, are
needed to develop systems that prevent/mitigate upset
conditions and to facilitate pilot training of techniques for
recovery from these various situations1,2.
As a part of the NASA Aviation Safety Program (AvSP),
a research effort has been undertaken under the Control
Upset Prevention and Recovery (CUPR) sub-element to
improve aerodynamic modeling and simulation of
commercial transport aircraft at flight attitudes and
conditions beyond the normal operating envelope. This
2002-01-2912
NASA Langley Research Center
The Boeing Company
effort involves acquiring an extensive, detailed
aerodynamic database for determining flight
characteristics not only beyond the conventional flight
envelope, but also beyond the normal experimental,
wind-tunnel-derived database typically acquired by a
manufacturer. Methods to validate the resultant
database to increase confidence in providing accurate
simulation of extreme flight conditions are also being
developed within this effort.
A further goal of the CUPR effort is to assess the
accuracy and utility of existing aerodynamic databases
at extreme angles of attack and sideslip, for both static
and dynamic characteristics. For this flight region data
are often either estimated or extrapolated from lower α/β
wind tunnel results because there has been no previous
requirement for high fidelity in this regime, and due to
the difficulty in safely validating such characteristics with
full-scale flight tests.
Recent accidents have demonstrated that aircraft can
readily reach flight conditions beyond the range of a
manufacturer’s existing aerodynamic database (Figure
1), and current extrapolations from that database may be
insufficient to properly model the aircraft’s response for
simulation training of recovery from such conditions. In
addition, dynamic aerodynamic characteristics are
usually estimated, rather than measured, for an even
more restricted envelope of confidence than that for the
static characteristics.
To acquire an appropriately accurate and detailed
aerodynamic database for modeling of extreme
conditions, an unprecedented series of static and
dynamic low-speed wind tunnel tests was conducted in
2000 and 2001 on a conventional twin-engine
commercial transport configuration in facilities at NASA
Langley Research Center. An overview of the initial
results of those tests is presented in this paper.
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

TEST DESCRIPTION lower surfaces of the wing, stabilizer, and vertical tail.
Comparisons of test results were made to previous,
Tests were conducted in the NASA Langley 14x22-Foot higher Reynolds Number wind-tunnel tests conducted on
Tunnel and 20-Foot Vertical Spin Tunnel (VST) using a same-size model of a similar vehicle configuration.
two different sized models of a conventional, medium- Trends and differences due to Reynolds Number in the
range twin-engine commercial transport configuration. low angle-of-attack range were as expected, and
Conventional static and forced oscillation (about all three became less significant at larger angles of attack and
axes) tests were conducted on a 5.5%-scale model, and sideslip and fully separated flow conditions (also as
rotary balance tests were conducted on a 3.5%-scale expected).
model. Model geometry information and control surface
locations, as well as installation photographs, are NOMENCLATURE
presented in Figure 2.
Longitudinal data are referenced to stability axes, and
The data coverage was extremely broad in many lateral/directional data are referenced to body axes.
aspects, with large angle of attack and sideslip ranges, Moment coefficients are referenced to 25% Mean
and control surface deflections both within and beyond Aerodynamic Chord ( c ). Variables presented or
the normal range of motion. The aerodynamic discussed are:
contributions of individual components, such as vertical
fin, horizontal stabilizer, or engine/pylon were also b Wing span, ft
studied. Data were acquired for both a clean-wing, c Mean aerodynamic chord, ft
flaps/slats-retracted configuration as well as a high-lift CL Lift coefficient, stability axis
configuration with both flaps and slats extended. The Cm Pitching moment coefficient, stability axis
results presented in this paper are for the clean-wing Cl Rolling moment coefficient, body axis
configuration. Clβ̇ Rolling moment coefficient due to sideslip rate,
body axis
Conventional static tests were conducted in the 14x22- Clp̂ Rolling moment coefficient due to non-dimensional
Foot Tunnel at a dynamic pressure of 10 lb/ft2, roll rate, body axis
corresponding to a Reynolds Number of 0.54x106 based Clp Roll damping coefficient, Clpˆ + Clβ˙ sin α , body axis
on mean aerodynamic chord. Data were acquired at Cn Yawing moment coefficient, body axis
angles of attack from –30° to +90°, and at angles of Cnβ̇ Yawing moment coefficient due to sideslip rate,
sideslip from –45° to +45°. A limited amount of testing body axis
was also conducted at a dynamic pressure of 30 lb/ft2 to Cnr̂ Yawing moment coefficient due to non-dimensional
explore Reynolds Number effects. yaw rate, body axis
Cnr Yaw damping coefficient, Cnrˆ - Cnβ˙ cos α , body axis
Forced oscillation tests were also conducted in this
p Roll rate, body axis, rad/sec
facility. The model was oscillated in a sinusoidal motion
p̂ Non-dimensional roll rate, pb/2V∞, body axis
over a range of frequencies and amplitudes that
corresponded to typical full-scale short-period and r Yaw rate, body axis, rad/sec
Dutch-roll motions. Oscillation tests were conducted r̂ Non-dimensional yaw rate, rb/2V∞,body axis
individually in the pitch, roll, and yaw body axes to S Wing reference area, ft2
acquire aerodynamic damping characteristics. V∞ Freestream velocity, ft/sec
α Angle of attack, deg
Dynamic tests were also conducted in the 20-Foot β Angle of sideslip, deg
Vertical Spin Tunnel on a conventional rotary balance β̇ Sideslip rate, rad/sec
apparatus to acquire steady-state rotary damping ∆Cl Incremental pitching moment coefficient due to
characteristics. During rotary balance tests, the model is aileron deflection
rotated at both positive and negative rates in order to ∆Cm Incremental pitching moment coefficient due to
capture the potentially significantly non-linear nature of elevator deflection
the data, especially at non-zero sideslip angles. Data ∆Cn Incremental yawing moment coefficient due to
were acquired at angles of attack from 0° to +90°, and at rudder deflection
angles of sideslip from –45° to +45°. Ω Spin rate, rad/sec

For all tests, static and dynamic, six-component force Control surface sign conventions are as follows:
and moment data were acquired using an internal strain-
gauge balance. Aileron: Positive Trailing Edge Down
Stabilizer: Positive Trailing Edge Down
To minimize Reynolds Number effects, grit strips were Elevator: Positive Trailing Edge Down
used to fix transition at 10% chord on the upper and Rudder: Positive Trailing Edge Left
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Because of the proprietary nature of the basic results,
absolute numerical values cannot be presented in most
cases. Hence numerical values are absent on the
vertical axes of the data charts; however the data are
presented in conventional form, with values typical to
those of conventional transport aircraft, and are intended
to be used to provide general trend information for
applicability to many transport-category aircraft.
SIMULATION EXTRAPOLATIONS
‘Nominal Simulation Extrapolation’ (NSE) lines are
shown on some of the data plots, and are intended to
reflect traditional simulation implementation practices for
transport-category aircraft, in which aerodynamic
characteristics are held constant for angles of attack and
sideslip beyond the range of a typical wind-tunnel
database. The NSE lines shown in this paper are based
on holding aerodynamic values constant for angles of
attack and sideslip in excess of 30° and ±30°,
respectively. This database boundary closely
approximates that used for an aerodynamic simulation
database of a commercial transport aircraft configuration
similar to this research configuration.
LONGITUDINAL AERODYNAMICS AND STABILITY
The basic static longitudinal aerodynamic and stability
characteristics are shown in figures 3a-b, as a function
of stabilizer deflection, with all other controls at zero
deflection. Although the initial stall break occurs just
above α = 10°, increases in lift are seen up to α = 35°,
along with substantial drag increments (not shown). The
pitching moment remains generally stable up to stall
angle of attack for nominal stabilizer deflections.
Changes and variations in pitch stability to neutral or
even slightly unstable are seen across the angle of
attack range when the stabilizer is beyond its local stall
angle of attack.
Normal stabilizer travel for this configuration is
approximately +4° to –12°, providing an angle-of-attack
trim range of about –2° to +23° (for a center-of-gravity
location at 0.25 c ) while allowing full elevator use for
control. However, an additional 4° of stabilizer travel to
+8° continued to provide a linear increase in nose-down
moment, which could be beneficial in compensating for a
failed or jammed elevator system. A doubling of normal
stabilizer travel in that direction is admittedly large,
however, it can be assumed that proportional gains may
be realized with more modest increases in stabilizer
travel range.
The behavior of the longitudinal characteristics with
sideslip is shown in figures 3c-d. Out to β = 45°, the
characteristics are fairly well behaved, with no sharp
discontinuities, although reduced stability (pitch-up) at
high-α and high-β is noted.
For some aircraft simulation databases, the
aerodynamics of the full aircraft configuration are
modeled as the sum of several components, such as
wing/body and a stabilizer increment, as opposed to
direct incorporation of full-configuration data. In such
instances it becomes critical to accurately model the
pitch stability variations of each component. Minor over-
predictions of stability due to extrapolations can add up
to a significant over-prediction of the complete aircraft’s
stability.
This ‘build-up’ method is illustrated by example in figure
3e, which shows pitching moment for the wing/body
alone, for an increment due to the stabilizer (calculated
as the difference between wing/body and full-aircraft
configurations), and for the full-aircraft configuration.
The NSE for the full configuration is the sum total of the
NSE’s for the wing/body and stabilizer. As the figure
shows, the over-prediction in pitch stability (for 22° < α <
30°) for the stabilizer increment extrapolation results in a
similar over-prediction for the full configuration. While in
this example the over-prediction of stability is small, it
should be recognized that superimposition of multiple
extrapolations can produce large errors in predicted
stability, as seen for α > 50°. Furthermore, in situations
where the stabilizer (or other surface) increment is
independently derived through analytical or other means,
extrapolations of their estimated value over large angle
of attack ranges can result in substantial over- or under-
predictions of an aircraft’s stability. The implications of
this will be further discussed in the longitudinal control
power section.
LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL AERODYNAMICS AND
STABILITY
The basic directional aerodynamic and stability
characteristics are shown in figures 4a-b. Directional
stability degrades above α = 15°, due to increasing
shielding of the vertical tail by the fuselage, and
diminishes to negligible levels by α = 30° for sideslip up
to 20° (Figure 4a). Above α = 55°, the generally highly
separated flowfield results in extremely non-linear and
erratic behavior. The significantly higher stability at β =
30° is assumed to be due to the vertical tail moving out
of the fuselage wake. Stability is fairly linear at low-
α/low-β, and diminishes at high sideslip (Figure 4b). At
high sideslip, the stability characteristics appear to
collapse into three general areas: pre-stall (α < 10°), stall
(10° < α < 20°), and post-stall (α > 20°). A directional
instability is seen at sideslips of 15°-25° at α = 40° and
60°.
Lateral stability (Figures 4c-d) sharply diminishes above
α = 12°, coinciding with wing stall, and is essentially
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018
neutral at angles of attack of 20°-30° for small sideslip
(Figure 4c). At higher angles of attack and sideslip,
stability levels return. At low angles of attack, the
flattening and reversal of the curves at high sideslip
indicate that while still remaining stable overall, local
instabilities may be present at such conditions (Figure
4d).
However, because wind tunnel databases typically hold
constant values beyond approximately 30° in angle of
attack or sideslip, these substantial stability variations
(and subsequent post-stall roll/yaw responses) may not
be appropriately modeled in current transport simulators.
LONGITUDINAL CONTROL POWER
Pitch control power with zero stabilizer is shown in
figures 5a-b. The total range of travel (50°) is typical for
this configuration. Elevator power is relatively linear up
to about ±20° of deflection at low angles of attack.
Incremental pitching moment, with nominal simulation
extrapolation, is shown in figure 5c, and indicates a
progressive degradation in control power from wing stall
up to α = 90°.
Current simulations generally adequately model
transport aircraft aerodynamic characteristics for angles
of attack up to stall. However, as indicated in Figure 5c,
simulation extrapolation assumes a constant level of
control power beyond these angles of attack, resulting in
a potentially significant over-prediction of available pitch
control power in this flight regime. Coupled with the
potential for over-prediction of high-alpha pitch stability
discussed earlier, existing transport aircraft simulators
can present post-stall penetration/departure
characteristics that are substantially more benign than
those that would actually be experienced in flight, with
greater control authority and a far stronger tendency for
recovery predicted by simulation. Because stall
recovery procedures and altitude loss predictions are
based on such simulations it becomes extremely
important that longitudinal stability and control power
characteristics be accurately reflected in the
aerodynamic databases.
LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL CONTROL POWER
Rudder control power is presented in figures 6a-b. The
nominal deflection range of the rudder for this
configuration is approximately ± 30°; only a small
additional benefit in control power is seen with additional
deflection up to 45° (Figure 6a). Yaw control begins to
diminish above α = 15°, and is virtually negligible above
α = 55°. As with the longitudinal characteristics,
however, simulation extrapolation at high angles of
attack, being held constant above α = 30°, may not
adequately account for the full level of degradation and
can therefore substantially over-predict available control
power during flight at stall and post-stall conditions.
For low angle of attack, control power is retained up to
very high levels of sideslip in the direction where rudder
deflection would command the sideslip (i.e., positive
sideslip/positive rudder or negative sideslip/negative
rudder) (Figure 6b). However, when rudder deflection is
used to oppose the sideslip (i.e., negative
sideslip/positive rudder or positive sideslip/negative
rudder), the control power can be reduced significantly at
higher sideslips due to stalling of the vertical tail surface
at large rudder deflections. Whereas the aircraft’s basic
directional stability would provide recovery from a
transient disturbance, this loss of yaw control power in
sideslip could become a significant factor in situations
where an external influence (e.g., engine-out) requires
the aircraft to fly in a stabilized sideslip, with the resultant
diminished control power reducing maneuvering
capability. As seen with respect to angle of attack,
simulation extrapolations also tend to over-predict
available control power at extreme sideslip angles.
Roll control power due to a single deflected (right)
aileron is shown in figures 7a-b. Because of the small
magnitude of rolling moment, the vertical axis is
magnified to twice that shown in figures 4c-d. A sharp
degradation in aileron power is evident above α = 10°,
coinciding with wing stall (Figure 7a). Between stall and
α = 40°, aileron power remains essentially constant, and
then diminishes at higher angles of attack. Again,
simulator extrapolation tends to over-predict available
control power at high angles of attack. In sideslip
(Figure 7b), roll control power from the leeward wing
diminishes as sideslip increases. Because control
power is fairly constant with beta at high sideslips, the
flat-line simulation extrapolations do not cause a large
adverse impact on control power predictions.
LATERAL/DIRECTIONAL DAMPING
CHARACTERISTICS
Roll and yaw damping characteristics from forced-
oscillation tests are presented in figures 8a-b, along with
nominal simulation extrapolations for comparison.
Damping characteristics for transport category aircraft
are generally derived by the manufacturer through
analytical or empirical means, as opposed to
experimental ground tests, and are validated with flight
data at low angles of attack. They are typically modeled
as near-constant values throughout the angle of attack
range.
The NSE’s in Figures 8a-b reflect that approach,
showing some variation at low alpha, but are then held
constant starting at angle of attack just above stall. The
non-linearities and degradation in stability (particularly in
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

the roll axis) below and through stall angle of attack are fidelity aerodynamic databases for flight in extreme
not generally well-modeled in simulation. conditions.

The diminished roll damping and highly non-linear yaw Current simulation database extrapolations to such
damping at stall and post-stall angles of attack can result extreme conditions generally do not model the
in larger bank angle and sideslip excursions during substantial nonlinearities, instabilities, and control
maneuvering at those flight conditions than would be authority degradations that are present at those
predicted in a simulation using the current database conditions, and, as a result, can predict flight
modeling methods. These differences between wind- characteristics that are much more benign than would be
tunnel and existing-database damping characteristics, experienced in actual flight. In addition, because the
along with the previously-mentioned differences in static extrapolations tend to hold constant values throughout
lateral stability characteristics, can result in stall and stall high alpha/beta conditions, the resulting response does
recovery dynamics that are substantially different from not realistically vary through the post-stall regime.
predictions.
Because it is assumed that aerodynamic characteristics
ROTARY CHARACTERISTICS at such conditions, where the degree of flow separation
is high, are relatively insensitive to minor (or even
A representative plot of the rotary balance data is moderate) configuration differences, it is expected that
presented in figure 9. In this example, the body-axis the data trends from these and future tests can have
yawing moment coefficient (Cn) is plotted against non- applicability to a wide range of transport aircraft.
 
dimensional spin rate  Ωb  .
 2V∞  REFERENCES
For clarity, only a subset of the angles of attack tested is
shown in the figure. 1. Russell, P.D.; Pardee, J.J.; et al: "Joint Safety
Analysis Team – Loss of Control: Results and
Examination of the figure gives an indication of the Analysis Final Report". Sponsored and published by
predicted damping (or propelling) characteristics of the Commercial Aviation Safety Team, December 2000.
configuration for the conditions of the test. Quadrants II
2. "Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid". Sponsored
and IV represent damped conditions in that the yawing
and published through a collaborative effort of the
moment is acting in a direction opposite to the rotation
commercial aviation industry, August 1998.
rate (e.g. negative yawing moment with a positive
rotation rate, and vice versa). Conversely, quadrants I
and III represent propelling conditions in that the yawing
moment and rotation rate have the same sign. Although
not shown here, data for the rolling moment and pitching
moment coefficients would be analyzed in a similar
manner. At very high angles of attack (i.e., approaching
90 degrees), yawing moment is the primary driver for a
spin and thus an indication of a propelling condition may
indicate that a spin mode is possible. Figure 9 indicates
that the basic configuration remains damped in yaw over
the entire angle of attack range tested.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

While the aerodynamic stability and control

characteristics of transport-category aircraft are well
known and predictable in the normal operating flight
regime, the body of knowledge of the characteristics
outside of that conventional range, at large angles of
attack and sideslip, is somewhat limited.

Because of the difficulties and high risks involved in

acquiring actual flight data at such conditions, detailed Figure 1. Typical angle of attack/sideslip envelope for
ground test data from wind-tunnel testing are required to commercial transport aircraft
model the aerodynamics in those regimes. The results
of such tests, as described in this paper, are designed to
provide a starting point for developing detailed, high-
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

Figure 2b. Static Force Test Set-up, LaRC 14x22

5.5% Model 3.5% Model

NASA Langley NASA Langley
Test Facility
14x22 Tunnel Vertical Spin Tunnel
•Static •Static
Test Techniques
•Forced Oscillation •Rotary Balance
S, ft2 5.902 2.390
b, ft 6.849 4.358
c , ft 0.915 0.582 Figure 2c. Forced Oscillation Test Set-up, LaRC 14x22
Length L, ft 8.539 5.434

Figure 2a. Model Geometry

Figure 2d. Rotary Balance Test Set-up, LaRC VST

 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

Figure 3a. Basic longitudinal characteristics and Figure 3d. Basic longitudinal characteristics in sideslip;
stabilizer effect; all other controls zero -- Lift all controls zero -- Pitch

Figure 3b. Basic longitudinal characteristics and Figure 3e. Example of ‘build-up’ method for modeling
stabilizer effect; all other controls zero -- Pitch pitch stability characteristics

Figure 3c. Basic longitudinal characteristics in sideslip; Figure 4a. Basic directional characteristics;
all controls zero -- Lift all controls zero
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

Figure 4b. Basic directional characteristics; Figure 5a. Elevator effect; all other controls zero – Lift
all controls zero

Figure 4c. Basic lateral characteristics; all controls zero Figure 5b. Elevator effect; all other controls zero – Pitch

Figure 5c. Incremental elevator control power;

Figure 4d. Basic lateral characteristics; all controls zero all other controls zero
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

Figure 6a. Incremental rudder control power; Figure 7b. Incremental aileron control power, sideslip
all other controls zero; β = 0° effect at α = 0°; all other controls zero
(vertical scale magnified 2x from figures 4c-d)

Figure 6b. Incremental rudder control power, sideslip Figure 8a. Roll damping characteristics; all controls zero
effect at α = 0°; all other controls zero

Figure 7a. Incremental aileron control power; all other Figure 8b. Yaw damping characteristics; all controls zero
controls zero; β = 0°
(vertical scale magnified 2x from figures 4c-d)
 Downloaded from SAE International by Univ of California Berkeley, Monday, August 06, 2018

Figure 9. Rotary yaw damping characteristics, β = 0°;

all controls zero