ROYAL A D , ~ , ~ " ~' ' : " .......

"
R. & M. No. 3083
(17,707)
A.R.C. Technical Report

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

A E R O N A U T I C A L R E S E A R C H COUNCIL
R E P O R T S AND MEMORANDA

Experiments on the Use of Suction through

Perforated Strips for Maintaining Laminar
FloW:Transition and Drag Measurements
By

N. GREGORY,M.A., and W. S. WALKER,

of the Aerodynamics Division, N.P.L.

© Crown copyright 1958

LONDON" H E R MAJESTY'S S T A T I O N E R Y O F F I C E
1958
el~ICE 10s 6d NET
Experiments on the Use of Suction through Perforated
Strips for Maintaining Laminar Flow" Transition
and Drag Measurements
By
N. GREGORY, M.A., and W. S. WALKER,
of the Aerodynamics Division, N.P.L.

COMMUNICATED BY THE D I R E C T O R - G E N E R A L OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH (AIR),

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Reports and Memoranda _No. 3 o83

June, I955

Summary. Wind-tunnel tests are described in which suction is applied at perforated strips, as an alternative to
porous strips or s]ots, in order to maintain a laminar boundary layer. A test was first carried out on a single row of
perforations on a cambered plate, as a preliminary to the main tests which were performed on strips of multiple rows
of perforations drilled through the surface of a low-drag-type aerofoil 13 per cent thick and of 5-ft chord.
Up to a wind speed of 180 ft/sec it has been ascertained that suction m a y be safely applied to extend laminar flow
provided the ratio of hole diameter to boundary-layer displacement thickness is less than 2, the ratio of hole pitch to
diameter is" less than 3 and there are at least three rows of holes in the strip. With less than three rows, the criteria
are much more restrictive. I t is possible to extend laminar flow by suction through perforations whose diameters and
pitches exceed these values slightly, but only with the risk that excessive suction quantities will produce wedges of
turbulent boundary layer originating at the holes.
A uniform distribution of suction through the holes was necessary. This was successfully obtained by two methods,
the use of cells and throttle holes, and with tapered holes. In particular, tests were carried out on some panels
supplied b y Handley Page, Ltd., in which the cells and tapered holes had been constructed by commercial methods, and
the suction distribution proved satisfactory.
The resistance of some of the cellular arrangements was measured. It was found that when the suction quantities
were the minimum required to maintain laminar flow, the additional losses in total head of the sucked air due to
the resistance of the throttle holes could be made small compared with the loss in total head of the sucked boundary
layer.

1. Introduction.--Several carefully controlled research experiments have now shown that

the boundary layer on an aerofoil may be maintained laminar over the whole chord, up to high
values of the chord Reynolds number, by means of boundary-layer suction. The ideal aero-
dynamic solution is the use of suction distributed over the entire wetted surface, which is porous.
This converts the velocity profile to the asymptotic suction form, which is stable against in-
finitesimal two-dimensional disturbances up to larger boundary-layer Reynolds numbers than
the unsucked velocity profiles, and also thins the boundary layer so that its Reynolds number
may be kept within the stable range. A smooth porous surface, however, is difficult to construct,
and has the practical disadvantage that its small pore size may clog too quickly with dust or rain.

*Published with permission of the Director, National Physical Laboratory,

!
A
 However, experiment has shown that it is sufficient to remove a porkion of the boundary layer
at discrete intervals along the chord of the aerofoil. The effect in this case is mostly one of
thinning the layer and keeping its Reynolds number below the somewhat smaller critical value
which applies just in front of tile suction points, where the profile shape has partially reverted
from the asymptotic suction profile towards the unsucked profile shapes. Aerofoils have been
constructed with numbers of very fine slits in the surface for suction, but Burrows and
Schwartzberg 1, for example, have found that the boundary layer becomes increasingly sensitive
at the higher Reynolds numbers to the precise state of the slot-entry contour. This difficulty
has partly been avoided b y Lachmann 2,3, who has developed a large-chord aerofoil of realistic
stressed-skin construction with narrow porous strips in lieu of slots. There remain, however,
the breaks in skin continuity at the edges of t h e porous strips, and the wind-tunnel tests at
the National Physical Laboratory 2 showed that very careful assembly was required. In addition,
the porous strips suffer from the same practical drawbacks of tile wholly porous surface.
The present investigation examines the idea that a finely porous strip could be replaced by a
number of rows of regular closely spaced perforations whose diameter, though small, is much
greater than the previously accepted upper limit for the pores of a uniformly porous surface.
The advantages of such a scheme are that the holes are less likely to be clogged with rain and
dust than a porous surface, and no breaks in the skin are necessary, as the holes can be drilled
through a continuous surface.
It must be emphasised that the purpose of the tests is to replace porous strips by strips of
multiple perforations. With suction applied at discrete intervals over the surface, the mean
inflow rates over the strip areas are inevitably much greater than the inflow rates over a wholly
porous surface. A parallel investigation at the Royal Aircraft Establishmenff aims at the
replacement of a wholly porous surface by an array of perforations distributed over the entire
wetted surface.
The present paper describes the tests of a variety of perforation sizes and arrangements which
have been drilled in strips on a laminar-flow surface. From an analysis of the results, tentative
design criteria are suggested. A more detailed investigation of the flow into perforations has
been started by Hooper and Soley 4,~, and this is being followed up b y an experiment at the N.P.L.
in which it is hoped to observe the streamlines of the flow into a series of large-scale perforations
with the aid of smoke-visualization techniques. Assuming that the unsuccessful perforation
patterns fail because of the instability of the secondary flow induced by the discontinuous
spanwise distributions of suction, these experiments should suggest a less empirical basis for
perforation design to confirm or supersede the approximate design criteria presented here.

2. Suction Parameters.--In order to make the most of the measurements of the suction flow,
it is necessary to express the flow in more than one non-dimensional form. The three parameters
used in the present report are as follows '
0 0 Vo
VlO' UOC ( ~ CO), U~1 '
when 0 = volume flow rate into the strip per unit span
Uo = free-stream velocity
U1 ---- local velocity outside the boundary layer
c = aerofoil chord
0 = momentum thickness of boundary layer just ahead of strip
Vo = mean velocity.of flow through perforation
4#,0
~$d 2 '

2
 where d = hole diameter
~ = number of rows of holes to the strip
p, = pitch of holes in spanwise direction ;
also, Pc = pitch of holes in chordwise direction.

The fundamental parameter O/UIO relates the suction quantity directly to the boundary layer
.and m a y be used as a measure of the proportion of the boundary layer sucked. This is illustrated
m Figs. 6 and 7. The parameter is not always easily written down as it requires a knowledge of
0, the momentum thickness of the layer, to be obtained either by experimental traverse or b y
calculation. The parameter is not a practical one for use on a multi-strip aerofoil, as variation
in the suction quantity at one strip will alter the value of 0 and hence of the parameter Q/UIo
at all subsequent strips.

The suction quanidty coefficient Co relates the suction flow at a strip to the wing area, and is
the most convenient and frequently used parameter. If the attempt is made to maintain laminar
flow over the whole surface, the suction economy of different wings (at the same chord Reynolds
number) may b e compared in terms of the total suction quantity-coefficient summed over all
the strips. But the values of COper strip should not be compared between models with different
strip spacings. It must also be remembered that once asymptotic conditions have been estab-
lished, and the flow is the same at all strips, laminar flow can be extended, in theory, to a n y
chord Reynolds numbers merely by adding to the chord and to the number of strips. Manipula-
tions of this kind will alter the value of COrequired per strip.

The remaining parameter vo/U1 expresses the ratio of the velocity through the holes to t h e
local streamwise velocity at the edge of the boundary layer. It is in part a measure of the effec-
tiveness of the discontinuous distribution of suction in producing the secondary flow whose
ultimate breakdown, when suction is excessive, leads to wedges of turbulent boundary layer.
The parameter is therefore of value as a variable when the suction-quantity coefficient has a
constant value and changes are made in the hole diameter, pitch or pitch/diameter ratio, and
in the number of rows of perforations per strip. Alternatively, if the hole pattern is fixed, the
ratio may be used as a measure of the suction quantity.

:3. Preliminary Exlberiments with Isolated Holes and Single Rows o[ Holes.--hlitial experiments
were carried out in a small return-flow-type wind tunnel whose working-section was approxi-
mately 1 ft square. An aluminium plate of 40-in. chord, with a sharp leading edge obtained b y
chamfering the lower surface, was installed in the centre of the working-section. In order to
obtain (at the low Reynolds number of the test) a n y turbulent boundary layer on the plate at
all, and with a transition position which was not sensitive to the condition of the leading edge,
the plate was given 1½-in. camber at the one-third chord position and set at about zero incidence
(Fig. 1). At 83 ft/sec wind speed, transition was observed by means of the china-clay technique
and was found to occur 28 in. from the leading edge and to be due to an incipient laminar separa-
tion, as the boundary-layer velocity profile measured just in front of transition had a value of
H of 3.07 (Fig. 1). The perforations were drilled 6 in. forward of the transition position.

An isolated hole 1/32-in. diameter was drilled first, and successively enlarged to 1/16-in.
1/10-in. and 1/8-in. diameter. Without suction it was found that the 1/16-in. and 1/32-in. holes
did not affect transition, whilst the larger holes left a very faint trace of streaks in the china clay
with transition spreading forward locally b y about 1~ in. The pattern in t h e c h i n a d a y is similar
to t h a t encountered in the flow round small excrescences6. Application of a small amount of
suction produced signs of twin streaks in the china clay, with the normal transition position.
More suction produced firmer streaks, which broke down to a wedge of turbulent flow, whose
apex moved up to the hole with increasing suction.
3
 Chamfering the edges of the holes had little effect on the critical suction quantities. It ensured,
however, that no spurious wedges occurred because of ragged edges, so all holes were imper-
ceptibly chamfered. The flow rate just causing a wedge of turbulence was found to be i n d e p e n d e n t
of hole size and was 0.00058 ft3/sec under the conditions of the experiments. Thus the velocity
ratio vo/U~ varied between 1.4 for the 1/32-in. diameter hole and 0.1 for the 1/8-in. diameter hole.
Single rows of holes of several different diameters and spacings were next investigated.
The results are summarised graphically in Fig. 2 which shows the effect of suction on transition
position. For the sake of clarity, the individual observations are not shown. Transition without
suction was 5 per cent chord further forward than on the clean unperforated plate, but a very
small amount of suction sufficed to restore transition to its original position. Faint signs of
streaks were observed in the china clay, and with increasing suction, either the streaks broke
down to wedges of turbulent flow or the boundary layer was stabilised and transition moved
much further back.
In the cases where wedges of turbulent flow occurred, no obvious correlation was discovered
between the critical values of either Co or vo/U1 for the various hole sizes and spacings tested.
The tentative conclusions are that with a single row of perforations under the conditions of
the tests the hole diameter must not exceed 0.0625 in. or d/d* must not exceed 1.5 in order to
avoid excess suction causing Wedges of turbulent flow; in addition, the pitch/diameter ratio
(p/d) must not exceed 1.33. Provided these requirements are satisfied, the tests showed that
the hole diameter used has no appreciable effect on the relation between suction quantity and
transition position. Additional and less restrictive criteria are given later (Section 6) as the
result of tests with several rows of perforations. These tests, which are described below, were
carried out on a model in a larger wing tunnel, which allowed an appreciable variation of the
Reynolds number to be made.

4. Sc@e of the Main Tests.--The remaining tests were concerned with porous strips consisting
of several rows of perforations, for which, as had been expected, the design requirements proved
to be less stringent than those for single rows of perforations.
The experiments were performed in the N.P.L. 13 ft × 9 ft Wind Tunnel on an aerofoil which
was conveniently available, and which enabled the perforation patterns under test to be changed
without undue difficulty. A description of the structural and aerodynamic features of the
model is given below (Section 5), together with an account of the methods which were adopted
to ensure uniform flow into the several rows of perforations. The securing of uniform flow was
found to be an essential preliminary to the testing of the various patterns. The patterns were
tested at different wind speeds at the one strip positions (Section 6) and from these results, two
successful patterns were selected for further study. This consisted of tests of an arrangement of
three perforated strips which simulated a portion of a laminar-flow wing on which full-chord
laminar flow would be obtained by means of a succession of strips as on the Handley-Page wing
with porous strips ~. In these tests (Section 7), the main emphasis was o n t h e relations between
transition position, wake drag, pump drag and suction quantity.
In conjunction with these latter tests, three three-strip panels supplied by Dr. G. V. Lachmann,
Director of Research at Messrs. Handley Page, Ltd., were also tested. These panels had been
manufactured by aircraft engineering methods in a form more suitable for full-scale application
than the panels constructed at N.P.L. for research purposes. These panels and the results are
described in Section 8.

5. The A erofoil and Perforations.--The aerofoil model had a 5-ft chord and had been previously
tested by Cumming, Gregory and Walker 7 when it was fitted with an auxiliary slot through
which the turbulent boundary layer had been sucked and a laminar layer re-established. The
portion of the aerofoil containing the slot was removed and the gap bridged by a number of
wooden ribs onto which were screwed the !4 S.W.G. sldn panels on which the present tests were
4~
conducted (Fig. 3). The ribs were cut away in four positions to allow for the perforation of the
panel and the fixing of the suction ducts. The single perforated strip was located at 0.25 chord.
For the three-strip tests it was thought desirable to separate the strips as much as possible,
within the limitations of the panel, so the strips were centered at the 20, 32.5 and 42.5 per cent
chord positions.
The aerofoil section was originally calculated as a design exercise. It is not a very practical
section owing to the small radius of curvature at the nose. This results in a pronounced peak
in the velocity distribution on the aerofoil at the limits of its CL range, and consequently, large
movements in transition position occur for small changes in incidence. Although use was made
of this feature, it proved rather a mixed blessing. For it was necessary to test the aerofoil at an
incidence where the transition position was sensitive to small changes in the state of the boundary
layer at the strips, as it was b y the movement of transition position that the effect of suction
was judged. This meant working at an incidence at the top of the CL range where the movement
of transition position with change of incidence was large, and it also meant that the transition
position was sensitive to changes in wind speed.
The experimental observations of transition position taken before the panels were perforated
are plotted in Fig. 3. With perforations, the aerofoil was tested at 120 ft/sec or 130 ft/sec at
2}-deg incidence. Under these conditions, the boundary layer at the strip position was in a
sensitive state b y reason of the premature velocity peak at the nose, but at the higher wind speed
of 180 It/sec, the transition-position indicated by the china-clay technique had moved Iorward
so that it was very close behind the first perforated strip and suction was in m a n y cases unable
to effect any improvement. This suggests that spots of turbulence were intermittently occurring
ahead of the strip. In these circumstances, it was found in the course of the tests that reducing
the incidence to 2 deg at 180 ft/sec wind speed removed the velocity peak at the nose and enabled
the stabilising effect of suction to be restored. In addition to the deterioration with increasing
wind speed of the performance of perforation patterns tested at 2}-deg incidence for the reasons
outlined above, there were also patterns that failed with increasing wind speed because the
parameter d/O'*- became too large. It was sometimes difficult to distinguish between these two
effects.
The perforation patterns investigated throughout were of the type in which adjacent holes
formed equilateral triangles. The spacings and hole diameters used are listed in Table 1, and the
pattern is illustrated in Fig. 4 which also sketches one of the ducts, which were stuck underneath
the perforated skin with Bostik sealing compound. The air sucked into each duct was removed
via twin lengths of 7/8-in. bore rubber hose. Outside the wing, the pipes reunited, and the flow
from each strip was measured by means of the pressure drop across an 0.5-in. orifice in a 1-in.
diameter pipe. These pipes led via control valves to the main suction plant.
The first attempts to stabilize laminar flow with suction through several rows of holes failed
completely. This was because there was so little resistance to the flow that it was not evenly
distributed. An attempt to overcome the lack of uniformity was made b y backing the holes
with rolled Monel-metal cloth, which was dry-mounted to the underside of the perforated skin.
This provided appreciable resistance and considerable increases in the extent of laminar flow
were obtained. However, it was noticed that when a strip failed to work owing to excessive
suction, the first wedges always appeared from the same holes. This was due to large ' pinhole '
variations in porosity of the metal cloth, giving a poor distribution of flow.
The alternative scheme originally suggested by Head 8'3 and more suited to full-scale application
was therefore tried. It proved completely successful. In this scheme (the cellular type of con-
struction illustrated in Fig. 5), the flow through a number of perforations is admitted to a cell
with one outlet into the spanwise suction duct. The number of perforations per cell varied
from 1 to 14 according to the perforation diameters and spacings, but in each case the area of
the outlet ' t h r o t t l e ' hole was designed so that the velocity of the air through this hole was
sufficient for the resulting pressure drop to ensure uniform distribution of the flow through the
5
cells along the whole area of the strip~. No further effort was made to secure uniform suction
distribution amongst the several perforations in each cell nor were any measurements of the
detailed flow distribution made. The details of the cells are given in Table 1 which shows that
the ratio of area of perforations to area of throttle holes varied between 6 : 1 and 9 : 1. The uni-
formity of areas of suction 1 in. × 0.3 in. was checked, with the wind off, by holding a vane-type
flowmeter against the perforations. In use, the overall uniformity was demonstrated by the
fact that when laminar flow broke down owing to excessive suction, only a small increase in
suction was required to spread the region of failure over the whole spanwise extent of the strip.
A hexagonal cell and half-cell arrangement was tried first (see Table 1), but it was found that
sealing one or two rows of perforations externally with tape upset the spanwise uniformity of
suction along the remaining rows and led to regular wedges of turbulent flow along the span.
This difficulty did not occur with the later cell patterns of rhomboid form.

6. Experiments with the .Single Strip of Multiple Rows of Perforatio~¢s.--In order to be able
to present the suction quantities in the parametric form Q/U10, a few traverses of the boundary-
layer velocity profile in front of the strip position were first made. Fig. 6 shows a typical profile
whilst Fig. 7 gives the relation between Q/UlO (for a profile with H = 2.4) and the velocity
at the edge of the sucked layer. This shows at a glance how much of the boundary layer is
sucked away with a given value of Q/UIO. The boundary-layer displacement thickness also
was obtained from the measured profiles, and the values at other speeds estimated by interpola-
tion. Table 2 shows the variation of 0* with wind speed and the ratios of the three hole diameters
to ~* at all the speeds of test.
The experimental observations made on the five hole patterns listed in Table 1 are presented
in graphical form in Figs. 8 a to 12b, where the transition position as a percentage chord behind
the perforations is plotted against the suction-quantKy parameters for the various test wind
speeds.

The effect of suction is similar to that noted for the single row of holes. As suction is increased
from zero, the transition position at first moves rapidly back, becoming more definite, and then
reaches a limit beyond which no amount of suction applied at the strip will effect any improve-
m e n t . With large amoun{s of suction producing a thin layer, a regular pattern of streaks trailing
from the suction holes is marked in the china-clay diagram. Under certain conditions of hole
azes and spacings, however, wedges of turbulent boundary layer originate at the holes themselves
at some value o f the suction q u a n t i t y ; turbulence of this nature cannot be removed by any
increase in the amount of suction. At any wind speed, a perforation pattern can be described
as useless, possible, or safe, according to whether extraneous wedges of turbulent flow appear,
before the laminar boundary layer has been extended, after the laminar layer has been extended,
or do not appear at all up to the maximum flow rates used. It is considered that there is a real
distinction between these last two categories and that the arrangements which are safe and
have been tested with practically the whole boundary layer removed, would allow the suction
flow rate to be increased without limit.
The variation of the performance of the perforation patterns with wind speed, and hence
with the ratio of hole diameter to boundary-layer displacement thickness, is shown in Table 3.
In compiling this table from the experimental observations of Figs. 8a to 13b, it was realised
that the deterioration in performance of the strips at a wind speed of 180 ft/sec wa~ due to the
incipient transition which occurred ahead of the strips, referred to in Section 5. A few patterns
w e r e therefore tested at the reduced incidence of 2} deg at both 180 ft/sec and 210 ft/sec, and
these results, shown in Figs. 13a, 13b and Fig. 14, were used in compiling Table 3. It is note-
worthy that although suction is more effective in extending laminar flow at the lower incidence,
the critical values of suction quantity which just produce wedges of turbulent flow are not
greatly affected by the change.

The resistance of the throttle holes in relation to the ideal pump drag is considered in Sections 7 afld 8.
6
 i t appears from Figs. 8 to 14 and from Table 3, t h a t provided wedges of turbulent flow do
not occur, the rate of increase in extent of laminar flow with suction quantity is not greatly
affected by variations in the perforation geometry of the strip.
Of the arrangements tested, the safest is that with 0.031-in. diameter holes spaced at a p/d
of 2.67. The ratio d/d* is less than 2 for these holes up to 180 ft/sec. There also appears to be
no point in using more than 3 or 4 rows of this pattern. Increasing either the p/d ratio or the
hole diameter from the values just quoted results in a big reduction in the range of safe working
conditions. But the patterns with 0. 031-in. diameter holes at a p/d of 3.56 and with 0. 063-in.
diameter holes at a p/d of 2.67 are possible up to 180 ft/sec wind speed provided that a minimum
of 6 rows is used.
One of the possible arrangements was tested at an incidence of -- 8 deg. This was intended
to check the cellular arrangements for obtaining uniform suction in the presence of an appreciable
pressure gradient over the surface. Although the positions of transition, both with and without
suction, were much further back than at 2{- deg incidence, there was no change in the values of
the excess suction quantities at which wedges of turbulence occurred. This suggested that the
chordwise pressure gradients across the Width of the strips had no adverse effect, although the
t e s t was inconclusive as the boundary layer at the strip was sufficiently stable owing to the
favourable pressure gradient not to be upset by any automatic inflow and outflow through the
holes without any suction being applied.
The measurements at the R.A.E." were made over a sufficiently wide range of tunnel wind
speeds for some estimate of scale effect to be formed. For a single row of holes, it was suggested
that the critical value of C 0, or vo/Uo, at which wedges of turbulence first appear, was approxi-
mately inversely proportional to the wind speed. In the present tests it is not possible to derive
such a simple conclusion. For most of the patterns with multiple rows there is a limiting wind
speed below which no critical suction quantity exists at all. Above this wind speed, the critical
suction q u a n t i t y does exist, and falls with increase of wind speed until it becomes effectively
zero. The critical quantity, expressed either as Ce or vo/Uo, varies with the number of rows
Some comparison with the R.A.E. results is possible. Fig. 15 shows the variation between
the critical value of suction velocity and the pitch/diameter ratio for both single and multiple
rows of holes. Especial note should be taken of the rise in value of (vo/U1)~i~ as the pitch/diameter
ratio is reduced, and the fact that this region of high values of (vo/U~)~.~textends to larger values
of p/d with multiple rows than with a single row of perforations. This makes the use of. a safe
arrangement of holes a practical possibility. The use of high values of (vo/U) also helps to ensure
even distribution of the flow through the holes.
It is not possible to obtain any information by cross-plotting the results from Figs. 8a to 14b
with wind speed as a parameter, as the data is too sparse and irregular. At a wind speed of 120
ft/sec, the variation of the critical velocity ratio with all the other parameters is shown by Figs.
16a, 16b and 16c. These graphs demonstrate clearly the conclusions of the present section.
Within the range of the tunnel wind speeds at "which tests were made, there is no limitation to
the suction velocity w h i c h m a y safely be used provided p/d is less than 3, d/d* is less than 2
and not less than 3 rows are used.

7. Experime~¢ts with Three Perforated Str~ps.--The previous section describes tests in which
the laminar boundary layer was stabilized by suction through a single strip of multiple perfora-
tions. These tests were followed by tests in which the removable panel on the aerofoil was fitted
with three perforated strips and associated ducts (Fig. 3). The purpose of this was to discover
to what extent the perforated patterns which were not safe with oversuction could be used.
It was also hoped that there might be some alleviation of the sensitiveness of strips to oversuction
owing to the different boundary layers at the second and subsequent strips. In addition, in-
formation was sought as to the possible performance of a wing in which the flow was maintained
laminar b y suction through perforated strips and a comparison was made with the original
laminar-flow wing ~, which had suction through porous strips.
7
 At the same time, the opportunity was taken of testing three three-strip panels supplied b y
Messrs. Handley Page, Ltd. with the main emphasis on the suitability of the cells, which were
manufactured by aircraft engineering methods. These tests are described in Section 8.
The strips of perforations in the removable panel were centred at 20, 32.5 and 42.5 per cent
chord (Fig. 3). Each strip was 2-ft span, so that two different patterns could be fitted into the
4-ft span of the panel. The first pattern chosen for test was the safest pattern of the preceding
tests, an arrangement of 0. 031-in. diameter holes spaced at a p/d ratio of 2.67, and 4 rows of
holes were drilled for each strip. The second pattern consisted of 6 rows of 0. 063-in. diameter
holes at a p/d ratio of 2" 67, a pattern which was safe up to 120 ft/sec, and possible at the higher
speeds, remembering that the poor performance shown at 180 ft/sec (Figs. l l a and 1 lb) was in
part due to turbulence originating ahead of the strip at this speed.
The wake drag of the aerofoil surface in which the perforations were drilled was measured b y
means of a pitot comb mounted at the trailing edge. The pump-drag coefficient was evaluated
as the product of CQ and C~, where C~ is the ratio of the loss of total head of the sucked air to
the free-stream dynamic head. The static pressure measured just upstream of the orifice in the
calibration pipe was the same as that in a static-pressure tapping situated in the spanwise duct
beneath the perforations, so it is concluded that the duct losses are negligible. The pump drag
was calculated from the loss in total head up to the position of the static-pressure tapping in
the calibration pipe and therefore includes the losses due to suction through the throttle holes
as well as the boundary-layer losses.
The performance of the aerofoil at a wind speed of 130 ft/sec with suction applied to the
0.031-in. and 0.063-in. diameter holes is shown in Figs. 17 and 18 respectively, where the
transition position, the wake-drag coefficient and the pump-drag coefficient are plotted as
functions of the total suction-quantity coefficient. The effect of increasing suction on one strip
at a time, with fixed suction quantities on the earlier strips, is also shown. The pump drag is
plotted with the positive direction downwards, so that the total drag of the surface is represented
by the length of ordinate between the curves of pump and wake drag. Minimum drag is obtained
at the value of Co for which the two curves run parallel. At higher values of Co, the overall drag
is greater owing to the increasing resistance of the throttle holes to the flow. This can be seen
in Figs. 17 and 18 as the approximate value Of the ideal pmnp-drag coefficient due to the
boundkry-layer losses alone is shown. The value of this coefficient was derived using the
momentum thickness of the boundary layer at the strip position (obtained by traverse measure-
ments) and the variation of the mean loss of head in the laminar boundary layer in terms of
Q/UIO; which was obtained from Fig. 6 of Ref. 10. It happens that over the range of small
suction quantities used, the velocity in the boundary layer is approximately linear with distance
from the surface so that, to a first approximation, the relation between pump-drag and suction-
quantity coefficients is also linear and a single curve results from the superposition of the effects
of suction at the three strips.
The variation of wake-drag coefficient with suction at 150 ft/sec and 180 ft/sec is shown in
Fig. 19 and it will be noticed that the curves are similar to those of the two preceding figures.
The effect of suction on the two panels is slightly different from that at lower speeds where
suction is safe. The 0.031-in. diameter holes work at 150 It/sec but are sensitive to over-suction,
whilst at 180 ft/sec it proved impossible to prevent intersecting wedges of turbulence from
appearing, although some laminar flow was evidently possible. The 0. 063-in. diameter holes
are satisfactory at 150 ft/sec, only the first strip being sensitive to oversuction, whilst only a few
wedges of turbulent flow were present at 180 ft/sec for all rates of suction and it was possible to
make some observations. In part, the difficulty experienced at 180 ft/sec is probably associated
with spots of turbulent flow occurring ahead of the first strip as in the earlier tests on a single
strip, though the difficulty should be somewhat alleviated since the first strip is 5 per cent of the
chord closer to the leading edge than was the single strip. It is unfortunate that the panel was
not tested at any lower incidence, but the effect of decreasing incidence is shown in Section 8
for the Handley-Page three-strip panels. This section also discusses more fully the pump-drag
analysis and the effects of the diameter of the rear strip perforations.
8
 The comparison of the performance of the present aerofoil with that of the Handley-Page
porous-strip aerofoil is not easy to make in view of the somewhat different conditions. However,
a rough calculation based on Fig. 18 and on Fig. 13 of Ref. 2 shows that at the same wind speed,
the same increases in the extent of laminar flour givesimilar reductions in wake drag and total
effective drag, and that on the present aerofoil these changes require about 17 per cent less
suction quantity. A further comparison is given in Figs. 20a and 20b. A few traverses of the
boundary layer were made just upstream and downstream of the three strips at a wind speed
of 130 ft/sec. The traverses were done under conditions of minimum suction for both the 0. 031
and 0. 063-in. diameter hole patterns. Values of Ro, and Ro calculated from the traverses are
shown in Fig. 20a and can be compared with the corresponding set of values shown in Fig. 20b
for the porous-strip aerofoil at a closely similar wind speed (120 ft/sec). Despite the less favourable
pressure gradient on the perforated strip aerofoil, and the regular variations in suction due to
the perforation pattern, it is clear that the boundary layer on the perforated-strip aerofoil is
attaining as large values of R~, as on the porous-strip aerofoil.
The downstream traverses were sited 1/8 in. behind, and in line with a hole in the last row of
perforations. A check traverse which was aligned mid-way between adjacent rows gave prac-
tically the same profile. There was considerable scatter in the values of H, the boundary-layer
shape parameter, as this requires very accurate measurements of the profile. The mean value
decreased from about 2.35 upstream of the strips to 2.15 just downstream of the strips.

8. Experiments with the Handley-Page Perforated Pands.--The tests of the three panels of three
perforated strips which were designed by Dr. G. V. Lachmann of Messrs. Handley Page, Ltd.,
and constructed b y the firm, were essentially tests of the engineering methods used in construction
of the panel, particularly the methods of obtaining uniform suction. At the same time, variations
were made by Dr. Lachmann in the perforation patterns used, and interesting results were
obtained from these patterns.
Details of the perforation patterns tested are given in Table 4, whilst the methods of con-
struction are illustrated in Fig. 21. The first and third panels were of sandwich construction
(Figs. 21a and 21c) consisting of a thick skin out of which circular-arc recesses were milled,
and a thin skin which closed the cells and which was bonded to the thick skill with adhesive.
The perforations were drilled in one skin, and the throttle holes in the other. I n H.P. panel 1,
the thin skin was perforated, whilst in the H.P. panel 3, the thin skin received the throttle holes.
H.P. panel 2 was a Single skin, with ' tapered ' holes, each perforation possessing its own throttle
hole (Fig. 21b).
The tests of the first trial panel were in part spoilt as it was found that the sandwich was
not airtight, air leaking from the edges of the panel between the two skins into the cells. It is
thought that this leak was more serious than it appeared at the time as, judging by the behaviour
of transition compared with tests on the N.P.L. panel, the flow through the perforations may
have been as little as 1/3 of the total flow measured. In addition, transition was adversely
affected by surface waves due to steps of 0.026 in. at both front and rear edges of the panel
which were faired into t h e wooden aerofoil with Plasticine over a distance of 2 inches. The order
of the strip-perforation diameters was also inadvertently reversed so that the largest diameter
holes were in the first strip and the smallest sized holes were at the rear.
Tests with the small-hole pattern showed that safe laminar flow with full suction could be
obtained at 130 ft/sec at 2½-deg incidence and at 150 and 180 ft/sec when the incidence was
reduced to 2 deg. For no obvious reason, the first 4 inches span of the leading strip caused a
number of wedges of turbulent flow, and a particularly persistent wedge of turbulent flow
originating in one particular perforation could not be removed by suction. Although the hole
was partially blocked owing to its straddling a cell division (as did m a n y other holes), there was
no further obvious reason for the appearance of a wake at this hole, and no treatment of the
surface was able to effect a cure. The large-hole pattern was disappointing. The full extent of
9
laminar flow could only be obtained at the reduced incidence of 2 deg ae 130 ft/sec. Under these
conditions, the first strip alone was sensitive to oversnction ; at higher wind speeds wedges of
turbulent flow originated from this strip at all rates of suction. It is clear that the choice
of 0-063-in. diameter holes (d/S* ---- 3.1 at 130 ft./sec) coupled with an excessive spacing
(p/d = 4) was unsuitable.
The second panel, designated H.P. panel 2 in Table 4, was free from leaks, and fitted satis-
factorily on the aer0foil without a step; the perforation patterns, however, were still drilled
m the reverse order to that intended. These patterns varied from strip to strip and were based
on conclusions drawn from the R.A.E. tests. The patterns were mainly intended for distribution
over an entire surface rather than over a few rows in a strip and they were not expected to
work satisfactorily with excessive suction quantities. Compared with the criteria suggested by
the tests described earlier in this paper, the spanwise pitch/diameter ratios were very large,
especially on the front strip.
Without suction, numerous wedges of turbulent flow originated from the perforation of the
front strip in both sizes. With the small 0.047-in. diameter holes, extended laminar flow could
be obtained with suction up to 150 ft/sec at 2½ deg and at 180 ft,/sec at 2 deg. With the larger
holes (0.063-in. diameter), extended laminar flow was obtained up to 130 It/sec at 2½ deg and
up to 180 ft/sec at 2 deg. But in both cases the perforations were extremely sensitive to the
effects of excess suction. An increase of 50 per cent over the minimum quantity required, was
sufficient to produce wedges with 0. 063-in. diameter holes, whilst the 0. 047-in. diameter holes
produced wedges with double the minimum flow.
The third panel effectively repeated the larger-hole pattern on the first panel, but with the
hole diameters increasing from strip to strip in the downstream direction. There were slight
reductions in the pitch/diameter ratios which made the cell lengths exact multiples of the hole
spacings, which had not applied to the first H.P. panel: in particular, no spanwise spacing
exceeded a p/d value of 2.53. The duct system was tested, and the leaks were found to be
negligible on two of the strips and to account for about 7 per cent of the measured flow on the
third (strip 1). The panel was a good flush fit in the surface.
The test showed that at 2½--deg incidence, full suction (C0 about 100 × 10 -.0 per stlip) could
be applied without wedges of turbulence appearing at either 130 ft/sec or 150 ft/sec wind speed ;
but at 180 ft/sec numerous Wedges appeared h:om the first two strips, running into transition
at strip 3. At the reduced incidence of 2 deg, the panel would take full suction (C~,about 80 × 10 .0
per strip) at 180 ft/sec wind speed without any wedges of turbulence. The wind speed was
increased to 210 ft/sec and it was found that on occasion laminar flour was o b t a i n e d w i t h full
suction without wedges of turbulence, but sometimes wedges occurred. This onset of critical
conditions with excess suction may be ascribed to the hole diameter becoming too large for
the boundary layer as d/d"* at strip 1 exceeded 2, for the wedges all disappeared on reducing the
suction at the first strip to the minimum necessary.
The variation of transition position, wake-drag and pump-drag coefficients with suction are
shown in Fig. 22. The curves drawn on Fig. 22a for 130 ft/sec wind speed show how the transition
position moves rearwards as suction is applied at successive strips ; the individual points plotted
for the higher wind speeds refer, in general, to minimum and maximum suction on the three
strips. The poor performance at 180 ft/sec at 2~--deg incidence and the improvement brought
about by reducing the incidence are clearly seen. "The individual points of wake and pump-drag
coefficients are plotted in Fig. 22b and compared with the values obtained on the previously
tested N.P.L. panels. Good agreement is obtained for the wake drag, but the pump drag is seen
to be slightly greater on the H.P. panel. The variation of the loss of total head of the sucked
air with the suction quantity for the individual strips is shown in Fig. 23, which should be studied
in conjunction with the strip details given in Table 4. The H.P. strips have greater resistance
than the N.P.L. strips and would not be suitable for high suction flows, but at the optimum flow
CQ's of 20 to 40 × 10 -° per strip, the resistance losses are less than the boundary-layer losses
and may not be considered important. The greater resistance of the H.P. strips is due.to the small
10
area of throttle holes per foot span and is not thought to depend on the contraction ratio or area
of the perforations per foot span. The differences between the three curves is thought to be due
to the leaks and the correct performance is probably t h a t of strip 3. The lowest allowable strip
resistance depends on the design, and is clearly related to the external pressure gradients over
the area of the perforated strip.
It is concluded from the tests.of the H.P. panels that the differing methods adopted for securing
uniform flow into the perforations were all satisfactory. For despite the differing performance
of t h e various perforation patterns, there was no sign that the breakdown to turbulent flow
was due to non-uniformity of suction between adjacent holes. The exception to this statement
was a few inches span on strip 1 of the small holes on H.P. panel 1, but this may have been.due
to other causes, tn any case, it should be easy to ensure that the cell length is a multiple of the
hole spacing and thus avoid having holes straddling the cell divisions.
The pattern of holes drilled in H.P. panel 3 worked extremely well. By keeping the diameter
of holes at the first strip down to 0.031 in. (as was also tried on panel 1), the parameter d/O*
was below 2 up to almost 210 ft/sec wind speed and wedges due to excess suction were avoided.
The tests showed that the diameter of the holes in tile subsequent strips could be increased
successively to 0.047 and 0.063 in. without adverse effect. The boundary-layer measurements
undertaken on the N.P.L. panels suggested that with minimum suction, 0* in front of the
subsequent strips was only about 20 per cent greater than its value in front of the first strip.
It thus appears to be possible to allow a slight increase in the value of d/O* over the rear strips.
9. Conclusio~¢s.--Wind-tunnel experiments have shown that it is possible to construct a
laminar-flow aerofoil in which the boundary layer is stabilized by suction at discrete strips of
multiple rows of small perforations. This scheme possesses structural and practical advantages
over the schemes previously tested in which multiple slots or strips of porous material were used.
Despite the discontinuous nature of the inflow, suction is as effective as in the earlier s c h e m e s
provided the hole sizes and spacings conform to certain empirical criteria summarised below.
It is essential to ensure that the suction is evenly distributed through all the perforations.
Two methods have been successfully employed. The first is the ' cellular' method in which air
sucked through a small group of holes enters a cell, the only exit from which is a single throttle
hole into tile duct underneath. The hole sizes are arranged so that the flow through the exit
hole suffers an appreciable pressure drop compared with the external static-pressure variations
and thus ensures uniform flow from cell to cell. The second method uses tapered holes in which
the cross-section of the holes on the outside of the skin is again determined by aerodynamic
criteria, and the much smaller exit cross-sections on the duct side of the skin are arranged so
as to give the required pressure drop for uniformity. In this respect, t h e ' cellular ' and ' tapered '
perforation arrangements worked satisfactorily on three panels constructed by Handley Page,
Ltd., by aircraft engineering methods. The resistance of some of the cellular arrangements was
measured during the tests. It was found that when the suction quantities were the minimum
required to nlaintain laminar flow, the additional losses in total head of the sucked air due to
the resistance of the throttle holes could be made small compared with the loss in total head of
the sucked boundary layer.
Given a uniform suction distribution, a preliminary small-scale experiment showed that even
at the low test wind speed of 83 ft/sec, a single row of perforations was only satisfactory if d/d*
did not exceed 1.5 and p/d did not exceed 1.33, conditions which are impracticably restrictive.
More elaborate tests on an aerofoil model, which were carried up to a wind speed of 180 ft/sec
(Uo/v of 1.15 × 106) showed that with three or more rows of perforations, laminar flow could
be extended safely by means of suction at the strip provided d/d* was less than 2 and 2bidwas less
than 3. This result was obtained on the first strip of a series for values of R,, up to 2,400.
Extended laminar flow could be obtained with perforations whose diameters and pitches exceeded
these values slightly, but only with the danger that increases in the suction quantity might
lead to wedges of turbulent flow originating at the holes. The results of the tests of all the
different perforation patterns are summarised in Table 3 where the performance has been
classified as either safe, possible or useless.
11
 T h e v e l o c i t y w i t h w h i c h t h e air is s u c k e d t h r o u g h t h e holes is f o u n d to b e m u c h g r e a t e r for
t h e sti:ips of p e r f o r a t i o n s t h a n for t h e w i d e l y d i s t r i b u t e d a r r a y of p e r f o r a t i o n s t e s t e d at t h e
R . A . E . This is an a d v a n t a g e as it helps to k e e p t h e s u c t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n u n i f o r m .

Scale effect on s u c t i o n of t h e t y p e i n v e s t i g a t e d is so u n c e r t a i n t h a t it is d e s i r a b l e t h a t p e r f o r a -
t i o n p a t t e r n s i n t e n d e d for u s e at R e y n o l d s n u m b e r s g r e a t e r t h a n t h o s e r e a c h e d in t h e p r e s e n t
t e s t s s h o u l d b e t e s t e d u n d e r t h e r e q u i r e d c o n d i t i o n s . H o w e v e r , it is i n t e n d e d to follow u p t h e
p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h an e x p e r i m e n t in a l o w - s p e e d s m o k e - t u n n e l in o r d e r to o b t a i n a p i c t u r e
of t h e t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l p h y s i c a l flow i n t o t h e p e r f o r a t i o n s . This s h o u l d l e a d to a b e t t e r u n d e r -
s t a n d i n g of t h e r e a s o n s for t h e b r e a k d o w n of l a m i n a r flow to w e d g e s of t u r b u l e n c e w h i c h
c a n occur, a n d h e n c e t o a reliable b a s i s for p r e d i c t i n g a n y scale effect on t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e
perforation patterns.

S o m e difficulties in e x t e n d i n g l a m i n a r flow w h i c h w e r e e n c o u n t e r e d in t h e t e s t s w e r e a s c r i b e d
to t h e closeness of t h e incidence, 2½ deg, to t h a t of t h e t o p of t h e CL r a n g e of t h e aerofoil. This
u n d e r l i n e s t h e n e c e s s i t y in a n y p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of a v o i d i n g at all costs a n y p r e m a t u r e p e a k
in t h e v e l o c i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n a h e a d of t h e first p e r f o r a t e d strip.

REFERENCES

No. Author Title, etc.

1 D.L. Burrows and IV[.A. Schwartzberg.. Experimental investigation of an NACA 64A010 airfoil section with
41 suction slots on each surface for control of the laminar boundary
layer. N.A.C.A. Tech. Note 2644. April, 1952.
2 G. V. Lachmann, N. Gregory and W. S. Handley-Page laminar-flow wing with porous strips: Details of
Walker model and wind-tunnel tests at N.P.L.A.R.C. 14,794. May, 1952,
3 G. V. Lachmann Boundary-layer control. J.R.Ae.S. Vol. 59. No. 531. p. 163.
March, 1955.
4 M. S. Hooper and C. W. Soley Boundary-layer control--Area suction through separate round
holes--Tests on a large-scale model of a perforation pattern--
Pressure and velocity traverses between two fore and aft holes.
FaireyAviation Co. R. and E.S. 482. A.R.C. 16,861. April, 1954.
5 M.S. Hooper and C. W. Soley Boundary-layer control--Area suction through separate round
holes--Further tests on a large-scale model of a perforation
pattern. Fairey Aviation Co. R. and E.S. 488. A.R.C. 16,919.
June, 1954.
6 N. Gregory and W. S. Walker . . . . The effect on transition of' isolated surface excrescences in the
boundary layer. R. & M. 2779. October, 1950.
7 R . W . Cumming, N. Gregory and W. S. An investigation of the use of an auxiliary slot to re-establish laminar
Walker flow on low-drag aerofoils. R. & M. 2742. March, 1950.
8 IvI. R. Head . . . . . . . . The boundary layer with distributed suction. R. & M. 2783. April,
1951.
9 S . F . J . Butler . . . . . . . . Current tests on laminar boundary-layer control by suction through
perforations. R. & M. 3040. August, 1955.
10 J. H. Preston, N. Gregory and A. G. The theoretical estimation of power requirements for slot-suction
Rawcliffe aerofoils, with numerical results for two thick Grifflth-type
sections. R. & M. 2577. June, 1948.
12
 ° e ° o °

Q • •

'%. •
o

Lo •
• I o o

s~ s O~
co

e.D

d~ ~0
©-~

co
7 7 T0 7 i"
Q 0
("6 0

x x x x x x
P~ 09
0 0 0 0

p~
m~ ¢0 CO ¢Q
0 0 C~ C~ 0
0
0 0

. ,...~
T T T T i~
Q 0

x x x x x x
L~ a0
C'1 qO x
& &
O0
%5
~5
qO
©

q~
q %
~8
4:s
~0 qO ¢..0 L~

C-1 C',1
'8

C'O
O~
0 0 0 0
©
CS, ~5 ~5 Q ,-q

18,
 TABLE 2

Displacement Thickness of Boundary Layer at 25 per cent Chord at 2½-deg Incidence

and Ratio of Hole Diameters to Displacement Thickness

Hole diameter (d)

Wind speed Displacement 0-031 in. 0.063 in. 0.094 in.
(U o ft/sec) thickness = Ul~*/v
(d* in.) d16* d/6*

40 0.036 0.9 1-7 2-6 910

60 0.029 1-1 2-1 3.2 1120
90 0.024 1-3 2-6 3-9 1370
100 0-023 1-4 2.7 4-1 1450
120 0.021 1-5 3"0 4-5 1580
130 0.029 1-6 3.1 4-7 1650
150 0-019 1.7 3-3 5-0 1770
180 0.017 1-8 3"7 5.5 1940
210 0-016 2.0 4-0 6-0 2100
 TABLE 3

Variation of Perforated-Strip Performance with Wind Speed

Location of strip ' 25 per cent aerofoil chord ; aerofoil at 2½-deg incidence
Strip performance classified as follows :
(Uo).4 Maximum measured wind speed at which the perforation pattern is safe;
and no extraneous wedges of turbulent flow appear up to the maximum
suction quantity used
(U0)R Maximum measured wind speed at which the perforation pattern is
possible, and extended laminar flow is obtained with increasing suction
before wedges of turbulent flow occur
(Uo)c Minimum measured wind speed at which the perforation pattern is
useless, and wedges of turbulent flow occur without any extension of
laminar flow
Note :--Tests were made only at the ' s t a n d a r d ' speeds of 40, 60, 90 (in some cases), 120,
150, 180 and 210 ft/sec.

Hole Spanwise Number (C(o),~ d/~,:,, (Uo)l~ d/6* Uo)c d/3*

diameter (d) spacing of rows (ft/sec) (ft/sec) (ftfsec)
(in.) (p/d)

O. 031 2.67 10,8 180 1.8 Not tested 2-0

above 210
150 1 "7 180 1.8 210 2.0
3 150 1 "7 150 1.7 180 1.8
2 Less than 60 60 1.1 120 1.5

0.031 3"56 90 1" 3 Not tested 2.0

above 210
90 1" 3 180 1.8 210 2.,0
60 1" 1 150 1.7 180 1.8
Less
than 60 ( < 1.1) 120 1.5 150 1-7

0.031 5.33 Less Not tested

than 60 ( < 1.1) above 120 1.5
(on verge of failure

0.063 2.67 6 120 3.0 Not tested

above 180 3.7
5, 4, 3 40 1.7 Not tested
above 120 3.0
2 Less
than 40 ( < 1.7) 40 1.7 60 2.1

0- (/94 2.67 60 3- 2 150 5.0 180 5-5

Less
than 40 (<2.6) 90 3.9 120 4.5..
Less than 40 60 3.2 90 3.9

15
 TABLE 4

Details of the Perforations and Cell Arrangements of the Three-Strip Panels

Area of Diameter Area of Contraction

Strip Perforation Number p/d spacing perforations of t h r o t t l e throttle holes ratio in cells N u m b e r
Panel number diameter of rows per It span holes per ft span inlet area of holes
(in.) Spanwise Chordwise (sq It) (in.) I (sq ft) outlet~ per cell
X
N.P.L. All strips 0.031 2"67 2.31 3-07 X 10-3 0-035 i 4.8 × 10-4 6-4 8
3-strip
panel All strips 0.063 2"67 2-31 !9-2 × 10-a 0.074 !14.3 x 10-4 6"4 9
I
I
0.031 2-72 2"4 a n d 4-Of 6- 78 X 10-a 0.028 2-8 N 10-4 24.2 19.4
0.031 2- 72 2 . 4 a n d 4-0~ 6 . 7 8 X 10-3 0-028 2.8 × 10-~ 24- 2 19.4
H.P. 0-028 2" 68 2.68 a n d 4-46-~ 6-15 X 10-a 0.028 2.8 × 10-4 22 22
,)..a panel !
No. 1 0-063 4-0 1-6 a n d 2 . 8 * 6.15 × 10-a 0"028 2.8 × 10-4 22 6.6
0-047 2-34 2.56 a n d 3 . 3 " 7-85 X 10-a 0"028 2.8 × 10-4 28 15
0.031 2-72 2.4 a n d 4-Or 6-78 x 10-3 0-028 2.8 × 10-4 I 24-2 19-4
I
1 0.047 4.6 4- 97 2 . 6 6 X 10-3 0.020 4-85 × 10-4 O'D
2 0.047 3-09 7.35 3 . 2 2 × 10-3 0.020 5-9 × 10-~ 0"O
H.P. 3 0-047 2-36 10-25 2 - 6 x 10-a 0-020 I 4-7 × 10 - ~ D'D
panel I
No. 2 0-063 6"36 3.73 2- 57 × 10-3 0. 020 2-6 × 10-~ 9" 75
0"063 4.23 5-6 2-90 × 10-3 0. 020 3-0 × 10-~ 9-75
0"063 2"38 9-76 b 3.43 × 10.3 0.020 3-5 × 10-4 9-75
I
H.P. 0.031 ' 2-51 2.3 a n d 4- 33~ 7-31 × 10-3 0-028 i 2.8 × 10-4 26- 1 21
panel 0-047 2.35 2-99 [ 7-84 × 10-3 0.028 I 2-8 × 10 - 4 28"0 10
No. 3 0-063 2.53 2-21 19"71 x 10-a I 0.028 , 2-8 × 10-4[ 34" 7 7
, r r f ~
t Where the larger value applies to the spaces between sets of 3 rows (i.e., b e t w e e n iows of cells).
* Where the larger value applies to the spaces between sets of 2 rows (i.e., between rows of cells).
 0
p/a
Wedges p/d
I ~ 2 ' 67 , .~r-~ -2'G7
10 ~ l / -,--I "3~

////////////////i/////////////////j///////////////////////////////////I 20 .... 2O
I00 C a x 106 200 0 0.I 0.2 "u/O 0.=3 0,4-.
(1) 0'125 inch dlameter holes

15 in. }1~'2
0 ....
pla pie
/2'67 /2"67
///I////////////////////////////////////f
/////////////////////////////////////I////Z
~//;////~~" / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / W /
>'x
o
JE 20 7 ..... 2C
l ~ ~ Turbulent Transition E 25 25 ,--
Laminar i ~ "position "F o ioo ,CQxlOG 200 o o.t 0.2 wuO.5 0.4
15 in. without (ii) 0'095 inch diamelrer holes
l . holes.
o
~/////////
- :'
"/////////////,I///////
~ L //////////// ~ adge~p/d, p/cz
i< 22in "I ,o,~=2p~e~oNo
C = 4 0 i'n, I- , -t--~-5. ~5
2,57
4

/ i L___l__.i. 78 - -
10
Loeahion of row of holes/ /,,~l.55 -I "33
Position ofboundarylayer
I hraverse
20 20 J
C
1.2 .9
JJ

U I,I ~
E =I0 • 50
~00 C~ x I06 200 0 0.I 0.2 ~/u c~ 0.4
I'0
Local velocity disl-ribui~ion (iii) O.OG2~ inch diameter holes
0 O.
1.0
p/d p/d
/2.67 .2.67
_~ Uo= 8s ~/sec I0 ,/1-78 IC / / j1'78
/.L /
-ff / 6 * = 0.050 in.
~nn, x 0 = 0'016 in.
0.5 2o
2o0/->'711 ~ H = 6~78= 3.07 - - 20
~ I ICsx I0
iK) 5O
0 mo CQxlO G 200 o.i 0.2 ~'/U o.~ 0.4
0.I0 ~t, in. 0.20
(iv) 0.05125 inch diameter holes
FIG. 1. A r r a n g e m e n t of c a m b e r e d p l a t e in small tunnel, FIG. 2. Effect on transition of suction a t a single row
velocity distribution a n d b o u n d a r y - l a y e r profile on plate. of holes of various sizes and spacings (U o • 83 ft/sec ;
x= l:83ft; c =3.35ft).
 9,d

J ,~ 14 swg panel ~! GO inch chord

151n. II P'I ~ BI2 I~I~ ]
----,~o I~ ,d.sin.-d 2s.s~o.d
~
i
• 1 I l

Wooden ribs

' "~Rubber suck/on h ~ e

,° I I. I
k 2~ '

1.2
O
~o
1.1
oo
B3
~/oTO.2OI *TO.~:~ © ©
1"0 0.2 0.~- 0.6 ~/C 0.8 1.0 Spanwipe 0
3"5' direct-ion 0
3.0 © i I t .
0
0
Incidence,
2 '0 ~
0 0
0
I "0' I.O
0 0
0'2 " 0.,4- "08
0
FIG. 3. 13 per cent low-drag aerofoil section ; velocity distribution and transition position. 0 0
.~ rowB.

FIG. 4. Sketch of a duct and of perforation pattern.

 Io0

0.8 XJ
,f
lL
Uj
Strip of 6 rows of perforations

14 s.w.g, skin
panel. ~.
/
/ 0.6

/
0.4
/
I
/
/
,/ Laminar boundary-l_gcjer veloeigy_profile measured aE
/

/
, / / // 25% chord plohl:ed non-dlmensionallq
/ /-
Llo = 120 fl:/~ec
0.2 Incidence 2Y2°
/! . /~.~--/~ e = 0.0085 in.
8 ~= 0.0204 in.
H=2"4
/ %02 °i°4 I 0.06 y, inr~le5
0 2 4 6 u/@ B I0
Perspex sErip, filed ouk to
"form cells and glued bo FIG. 6.
skin panel
~D I-0
_Perspex sl:rip, drilled with
ghrol:glincj holes and glued
/
to cellular strip.

"OucJc, 91ued Lo skin panel. 0.8 J

J
0.6 /
0,4
Variation of the filamenL veloeiLy wiLh Lhe flux
enclosed between ~he filament and Lhe surface
FIC. 5. Sketch showing cellular construction used to ensure for Ehe boundaCy-I___aaye£rprofile of fig.6.
uniform suction. 0-2

0 0.5 bO I-5 2,0 2.5 3.0

O/U,e
FIC. 7,
 0 ([) U° = 180 f t / ~ j ~
(,) Uo= 160 fE)sec
5 rows
No. oF rows i0 ~_~ (4) __
IO' o I0
{IndicahP~ khe presence of x 8
\
\ a wedge or wedges o£ ~urbulence v 4 ± L
2C
2O n b 4or
4 or more rows
L \\ • l
////, I
40
4O
,.,o :,+s' 2.,0 9lu,e x 45
o.I 0.2 ~/U, 0.5 04
450 IOO 200 CQx I0s 500 4(
o; (.) Uo = 150
(t,) Uo=150ft/'sec Jx \ 2 rows
(~--~-2 rows
No. of rows
,01 • I0
2 x 8
73 v 4 o 2O'
E
°-
2( m S -5 @)
\ A 2 "\\
'x. 5
. 30
5C 818 ~I0 rows C \ 3 or m o r e rows
0 or rDore rows

~~'2
.g \\ ' ×
~o a.l
"~ 4 0 - -
0 ¸ 4O E~4]=2 %---8 ~e Q_
015 I'iO I.,s ?i o Q/U,O r 45~
E 46 o.r 0.2 ~o/O, o.3 0.4
O ) I00 200 C(~x106 500 40O .9
~J
Oti) Uo=120 fE?sec
& (i.) Uo='120 f ~ / s e c
2

~
rows
E
O \ 2 rows
JJ
,n
c 5~
#m
3 or more rows

4O
0i5 liO , I '15 1 2.,~ OlU, e
45 I00 2O0 500 400 o.2 %/Uj 0,~ o.4
CQx 106
BO. ~ 2 rows (w) Uo = 60 ft::/sec 2 roWS (Iv) Uo =60 fh/sec
/ 5 or more to(ks
+ r
.
9 3 or more rows
/
C"'. Q A ~

SC O"15 I ,.,o ,.is q/u~ e ~°o

,
o:J
I
0.2 ~/u, 0.5 0.4
) I00 200 Ce x I06 500 "400

FIG. 8a. Variation of transition with suction-quantity coefficient 'FIG. 8b. Variation of transition with suction-velocity ratio for
for 0.031-in. diameter holes spaced at 2-67 pitch/diameter ratio 0.031-in. diameter holes spaced at 2.67 pitch/diameter ratio
(Incidence 2½ deg). (Incidence 2{ deg).
 0 v
I
O) Uo = t8o fi:/sec
m
Wil;h 2 rows, (~=) Ll°=15Ofb/sec
0
,-=Yl wedges obEained
I I
(ll) UoTM 150 ~ / s e c
I wedges onl£1. j (,>U,o=,ooft/,,~ wiLh 2 rows.
I0 edges No. of rows
9 \ wedg,,
x 6 v~xlges
20

Y
~0 ,0
!
~0 1
t t e 9 rows
4O
II -#sO=-m
o.s ]io QIU~O ois liO q/u~e
4-5 0 I I00 Ce x I06 200 lSO I00 4~
C~xlO ~ 200 0 o.r b/U= o 04 %/U, 0.2

£ 15 o ~s
(m)' Uo= t20 ft/sec (uO 'Uo =120 fg/sec
2O
No. o~ rows r
r Wed£es o 9 Wedges

!
6
9_[6
2 5
D 2

o~ 40
c
o 45~)
0-5 I'0 Q/U,O lis o
I I .5 45
53 iO0 Ca X I0 ~ 2OO 500
"~ 0 o4 %/U, 0.2 o,~
bO &
o
n

c s 2 ~.dges Or)" Uo= go fl:/sec 2row~

0'~) UO=9Ofl:/sec
6 row5 l
9
Fro*
'i,° 'it_ Q/o,o 50
100 200 ~ X I06 BOO 400 0 o.I 0.2 vo/U~ 0.3 O-A-

I
(v) Uo= 60 Fi:/sac Cv)I Uo = ~o ~:/se~
2 rows

4o I
I
~--~/ 3 or more rows

r,o
9.s ,io li5 2.0
I ~.o Q/,U, O
5O
5,6,9 rows
I00 200 ~00 400 Ce x I06 600 800 0 o.I 0.2 0.3 04%/u=O.5 o.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Fro. 9a. Variation of transition with suction-quantity coefficient FIG. 9b. Variation of transition with suction-velocity ratio for
for 0.091-in, diameter holes spaced at 3.56 pitch/diameter ratio 0.031-in. diameter holes spaced at 3"56 pitch/diameter ratio
(Incidence ~el deg). (Incidence 2½ deg).
 0 I I
, (,) Uo= 180 fl:/sec 0') Uo= i50 £c/sec
~ / e 6 rows
IO I0 o 6 rows
r
20 2O

.j
20
0i5 ho o/u,e
~o I 30
0 I00 CQ X 106 200
,3 , /
20 40 e o
2 4
/2 ~'0 Uo=120 fl:/sec 0-5 I.o Q/U,O
4O I I
0 10.(9 CQ X I0 ~ 20
.E
o-s QIU, O 1.0
Z 50, I I 5 a 4 ~5
0 I00 C~x I0~ 200 o.I vo/U, 0.2
6 rows
O) Uo = 120ft/sec, 6 r o w s ol5 ~ ll.O ~ I.=5 %.o O/O~O
a~
0 I00 200 C e x 106 500 4OO
Eo oc
55
Nob.e: } indicates khe ~c ~o

.k•2rows
5 (Iv)Uo=590ft/seC4rows~
8_ ' / presence of a wedge
c or we,dges of burbulenh
b3 o 40 flow.
bO ,
E x =o
o.s Q/U,O o.s, ,# ,is o/u,e 2.o,,
5(; ~so
0 Ioo CQ x 106 200 0 I00 200 C a x I06 300 400
o~
..tl
3o
O
D-
2 (v) (Jo = ~fL/sec ¢

40~
"--.__._= x
X
E
J A )"Z i
6 rows
E I
I-- SG
• ~i 0 x i1 s 21~ 3io Q/U,0
0 0.1 0.2 /2oIU, 0.~. 0 IO0 200 300 400 CQX 106 600 800

(,,) U o = 60 f~/sec, 5 rOWS 3O i

wedges (v,) U'o= 4o~%)'s~
Fro. 10. Variation of transition with suction for 0-031-in.
2 rows
diameter holes spaced at 5.33 pitch/diameter ratio
(Incidence 2½ deg). 40
:~
_1t: 3. 4.5, 5 rows
so
0 I00 200 500
,o
4130 CQ x t0 6
I 600
1,2-o Q/iU, 0
800
x~

FIG. 1 l a. Variation of transition with suction-quantity

coefficient for 0-063-in. diameter holes spaced at 2.67
pitch/diameter ratio (Incidence 2½ deg).
 ~0
I I
(I') Llo= iBO 'FP-Isec (~L) U o - 150 fi:/sec
I
IO /wedges, (ll) Uo= 150 f~/sec
e G rows • 6ro~
/ 4,5,2 row.s

/
Wectges
20 2 , 4
O) Uo= 18o fF.Isec

50
o.i volU, 0.2

J
20

Bo
V
O
blo,of rows

Z~
4
5
2
J
o.~ %/U, 40
5o1~ i o.s i.o QIU, 0 0.5 I.O Q/U,8
4.5 I I I I
I00 Ce x I0s 200 I00 Cet x IO6 200

,5 I (,l,) Llo = r2o {t/sec

0 oI 0.2 %/Ut 0.5
2o~
' 2
I
~4
m
L~ 30
.8
b3

.o 40
-5
o | 45
0
0.5
I
too Cr~ x IOs
I,i0 Q/U,O
200
l.l.5
BOO 400
u 0 o.i 0.2 re/U, 0,5 d
o
15
co ~o 50~-~--~ 2 -- G
Ov) Uo=
.~_~co4O~ / 2 rows (v) Uo= /60' J ~" s i'
ft:/SeCs~
40
# Q/U,e ~ "
'~ x W 6 rOwS
.~ so 0 I00 206 C~ x IO6 B,OO 4o0
0 0.1 0.2 ~to/U ~ 0,5 0.4

50 30 I I i
(vt) Uo - 4 0 Ft/sec (v) Uo = 60 f e / s e c
Clear
rows I bransil:ior

"~ 5,4,5,6 rows

li° 'is 2io
4 row~

sio Q/U,e
I
i

5O 50
o.8 0 I00 200 5o0 400 Co x t06 600 800
0 0i 0.2 0.5 O4 Z:o/U 0.6

FIG. 11b. Variation of transition with suction-velocity FIG. 12a. Variation of transition with suction quantity
ratio for 0. 063-in. diameter holes spaced at 2- 67 pitch/ coefficient for 0-094-in. diameter holes spaced at 2.67
diameter ratio (Incidence 2½ deg). pitch/diameter ratio (Incidence 2½ deg).
 ,-+v f i
0 o I
Wedges (.) Uo= 150 fie/see
4.~,2 rows
(I) Uo" 210 f.L/sec
I0'~ aZ 2~4
0, 2
O) Uo = 160 f~/sec

20
~0">~0 4 , rows Wedges ¢
No..of rows 30

[3
A
4
3
2
_m
2 4C
+E
+o
~7 E
4O 10 I00 200 C•x I06 300

45 ~5
0 o-i %/U,- 0-2 o o.I Vo/U, 0'2 0 0

• 15
c+ 10
0 0
_J (u) Uo= 180 f ~ / s m
(I.) Uo= 120 Fk/sec.
o at 2Y4°
rows O- 2(
r" E
m 30
40 .£

r 40
0
1; + r-~.
j 4 rows
,J

#
3o
4 rows, wedges 8,I0 rows
aS. 45
0 o-I uo/U, o.2 4O
45
(,v) Uo = 90 fElsec 0 I00 200 CQ x 106 ~00
8n
t- / 4 rows O~~ ~ row~.~ , .
O 4O
53

m I0+ \
# 50

L.'q
o 04 %/U+ 0.2

ak 2Y2° 20 ' 4 o r more r o ~ s ~

I
o , e .~ •
~°1 2,~ r~ws I (v) 60 r~/s~c

.---- 4 rows (Ciar)'-

501 J -- .
/
0 O.I 0-2 0-5 0,4 0"5 0-6
vo/Ul I00 200 Cmx
I'~ 300
FIg. 12b. Variation of transition with suction-velocity ratio for F I G . 13a. ]Effect of reduction of incidence on performance of
0"094-in, diameter holes spaced at 2.67 pitch/diameter ratio spaced a t
O" 0 3 1 - i n . d i a m e t e r h o l e s 2.67 pitch/diameter ratio:
ilncidence 2½ deg).
 f u
3~ 4 rowe
No, of rows
I0
x ,o15
O) Uo =210 f-t/sec
aJ= 2 V4-°
D ~
20 !

50

40 oI ,y

,.£o 45
0.1 uo/U , 0.2 0.~
I0
iO~. =5

P'
5
20 ,20 ~ 3 20 t ~ 6 ' 9 --
o
9 rows
¢
(l!)'Uo = 180 f t / s e c
BO ~eI " I--
ai: 2V4 ° o
55 2C;
o.. rOW5 .c 40
Wedges FI 45
t¢
i5 CQ ~ I06 100 CQ x I06

4O (,)Uo = 210 ft./SeC (U) do = 180 fi3/~see (m) Uo = 180fg/sec

# a.t 2V4-° k~ 2 ' / 2 a t ~ V2°
45
b,I vo/U , 0.2 0.5

8CL 0
O ~ 5 •

0")
.
Uo= i80 fL/sac
~ ~ 2V2°
#
0
"n
C

,°I )r

5o
x \~ ,' 4 o r m o r e rows

rOWS
5C
io'I" I
40
40
o
40!--~ x
o' I t /
450 z,o/U~ 04 45( ~olU, O,I
45 Uo I U,
0.1 ~ro/U= 0.2 0.5

FIC. 13b. Effect of reduction of incidence on performance of FIG. 14. Effect of reduction of incidence on performance of
0-031-in. diameter holes spaced at 2.67 pitch/diameter ratio. 0.031-in. diameter holes spaced at 3.56 pitch/diameter ratio.
 0.4
All holes, 0.031 in. dla.
0,4 I ( d / 6 " = 1.54) ak J2o f~_/sec.
! / d 2,67
I 711 0.3
I /"

!
p/d. raY.io
crib 2.67 x
0"3 I / / U,
I 0.051in. / 0.2 5.56 z~
vo/U, crit. // "~AE 0.052 in. at 6l -Ft/sec 5"5B o
/- - Pld 5.56
o.~'
// RAg 0.052in. 0.1 I S~rnbol marks max~rnum
o p/d 3.~ value of suchion veloclhEl
bes1~ed, and crihical value
0.1
9reaber hflam F.his.
I "~;.ga. 4 6 8
113"~ 0.125 in: No. of rows
r I
t s pIcL io is
0"4 v I
} \ 6 o r m o r e rows ,o/d = "2.6? a~- Uo= 120 f~./se:
,Single row o{: holes
N PL Uo = 85 ~k/Se~ R~¢ =0.97 x 106 (on cambered plaEe)
RAY Uo=150~/sec Ra~sl.85x10 s
Uo = 81 ~/sec R=~o'9gxlO6 • to
0'3
.

-UI o'0"
o
\ ~,
10,9,8
6

4
•
x

v
0'2
2 o

tO
Ob 0.1

0-4- 21 ~O 41 5 d/8*
• 9 rows 0.06 0'00 0.10
0,02
x 6 0.o4 d, inches
0,3
o 2
%/U~criL 0.4
5 rows and above.
RAE single row 0.052 in. 003,,°[ /f All holes,
p/o; = 2.67 aJ: 120 £~-/sec
0.2 \ 1
%/, /, /
~ ,.,;-'--- "dia.at 122Pc/sec--
0.5
h°l s-F'/ I • 0.094 in. dia. 4.66
d/S*

0 . 0 6 5 in. dia. 3.56

0.1 ~o crit x O.051 in. dia. 1.54
UI 0.2
2 rows
' ~5.
o I 5 p/d Jo Js
o.I

Mu.~l~ipte rows (on a~rofoil)

0.ON in. di&" a~
U o = 1 2 O f t / s e c R~c~0-96xI06 2 4 6 8 i0
,4/6"~* = i.54 No. of rows

FIG. 15. Variation of critical velocity ratio with FIG. 16. Variation of critical velocity ratio with pitch/diameter
pitch/diameter ratio for single and multiple rows ratio, hole diameter, and number of rows at 120 ft/sec.
of holes.
 0-4o
0,40
I Transitionwd:h
Tr&nf~Uon Suction on 6Lrip I
Transition with suctionon:- posltion ) 50
Transition
__~ Strip ' regbn b e f o ~ t' ~c/c 0.00590
~\ Such.ionon strops Iand 2 )osition
~¢/c
- --e-.--+
--
holes drilled
m 5tripsIand 2
'1121 " I
0.60

/.Strips I x.
~'-+----x-------+~ __x_9___~l,2and3 0.70 0.70
0.0055
Suction on l
l Suction on ---"------------o
Ist. strip onl 9 I strip I
l
l

\"
l
t
0"00~C I
I
•
\ Value of C~ on shripsforward
of the rearmost sucked strip t
I~ X" I0"6 0.0050
Co \ 5uctlon on strips I and 2
\'- =~.=.+. SucLien on strips I ~2. ',/
CD

Suction on strips v..~CQ'sO,

~m~nd 5 IBex ,0"6,
57x l0"° o'.oo2s -6 .
~z~ ~" ~ Suction on striD5 wtth CQ=IBxl0 onsLnp I
~O CQ'SXI@lO
~60' "~--~='~+% --[ .... +
cQ×to ot m . ~ . ~ d 2:3 --"I"--.~ I
B7 x I0-s Wake dras::j boL onl~ S rows ol=holes T ~"~'~'--
coefficienlr. per s~rip. I I l '~~
0.002, ± .2
ExLra suction causes . .~ ..,'. 1 /

0.0020
~ ~ loo CQ x i06
+.~J.. Pump drag I Overall drag 0 • I 6
elf,blent I I tO0 200 T C• x I0 ,) 30t
x'~zt-,.,.x~._~ I Pump drag I I
Uo-,so ~LIse= ~ F ' ~~- ~ coeffl'cienlr.
. I | I
I " " ~ - %- / ow~, dr~ /
Rc= 4.15 x I06 I -~ ~Lcoefficienk ~4
0.0005 - - - -~deal pump dracj -I
• \I Icoefficien~,due I
Uo= 150 fh/sec ~J l ho boundarg-l%lerl Approx~ma~ ideal pump ~ -"
0,0005 - - drag coe¢f,'cient due 5o f ] "4[.

Variation of t~nsikion p.osihion and drag

coefficient with sucUon ,quantlt 9 coe£fi'6enL X
0.065 in. diameter holes I
FIG. 17. Variation of transition position and drag coefficient
6rowsperstripbpicedal:p/d-=2'67 1
with suction-quantity coefficient (0.031-in. diameter holes; O.OOIO
4 rows per strip spaced at p / d = 2.67).
FIG. 18.
 250^

0.0045
2O0

!5o fZ/sec laO ~t/sec

R6~
2~ °
o 0.06"25 in.dla, hol~
x 0.0512B in.dia, holes \
\ 150C
O,0040 \
\ a 0"0625 in. die.. holes

\ 5uc;-ion on st:rip I \ Odd wedges of

0.0625 in. holes \. V-urbu]ent; flow
,/ ~, presenE #.hrounhoul: 10013

0.0055 b..
|
I
',\, ! Re
5uckion on sb-ip I
I
| .I
CD |
I 500
I
I I
I
b~ I
GO I
0'0050 I I
I
I Such'on on
I ehrips and 2
0 04 o.2 ~/e o,3 o.4
5u ck~on~onk.. " \ FIG. 20a. Variation of R~, and Ro along surface with minimum
\
\ suction quantities.
\
dla. holes. \~ dr&. holes \ 2B00
0,0025 ' , \\V~ \
\
/

/x
.x \
\
\ 2000
/r / ! . A /1
\
5uekion o n / Suck/on on ~'~'43~
sl;rips I,?and str;ps 1,2and 5
0.0625 in dia. holes
Re*
0.0020 0
Co x 10b
I00 ' 0

FIG. 19. Variation of wake-drag coefficient with suction-

C• x 106
100 1000
I
,Handleg Page_porous slsrip aerdoil
Chord 8 f t
quantity coefficient at 2½-deg incidence at 150 and Incidence 0°
180 ft/sec wind speed. W['ndspeed 120 fl-/sec
I
0 0.2 04 :c/P. 0.6 0.8 0.9
FIG. 20b. Variation of R~, along surface of Handley-Page
porous-strip aerofoil.
 perfiorahed skin

0'047 or 0'065 in. dla holes drilled park_-wag

from the auk.side and compl?.ized with 0.020 in.
di~. k.hrol~le holes.

FIG. 2lb. Details of perforated strip on

0.55 in. 0.55 ~'n1 H.P. panel 2.

12SW9 perI:oraked oul:erskin 265wg inner skin wlhh

wikh ceils machined on I:he inside. 0.028 in. dla. I:hro1-hle
holes.
, ! !-.">".~ II I I, _/ . . . . . . . . \

25 L g per foral=ed /
12 swg inner skin wikh /'
. dla
0'028 ~n ' . . . . . . "

++ ++ ++ + +++ ++ ++ ++ - + + - + + ~ ' I~/2 in. dia

I' r / ~ o.275in.
++++++ +
+ +++++++++ "+
++++++++4-4
'+ I + I 4-I 4-
r41 0.275in.
5I'
+ + + +-t--I- + + + +
+ + + -F + + + + + -~ . wide cells

FIG. 21a. Constructional details of perforated FIG. 21c. Constructional details of perforated
strip on H.P. panel. 1 strip on H.P. panel 3.

0.20
H P Panel 3 Tes~. ~ond tions
x 130 lb./sin: 1
o 150ft/sec ~,at 2Y~inc.
0'50
rr~znsition
position
O-AO
\ \
~180 fl:/sec~
180ftlsec J o
v IBOft/sec_ ak.'2 inc.
-

IBOft/sec
0.50 _ SucI:~d to
, / lndiv/duaJ ~oin~$
__~-S~rlps I and 2 ~ n o t p1oUzed
0'60 #jS~.rips 1,2am/3J ~

~ I 8 0 fk/sec ah 2 ~
0.70
0 100 200 CQ x I06 ~00

FIG. 22a. Variation of transition position with suction on H.P. panel 3.

29
C
 H.R Pa.nel 5 Test condil:ions l
x t~0 ~/se~'l
o IsOPclsec ~. aZ 2~inc. - -
0.0040: a 180fk./secJ
~ - ~180ft/sec~ v 180fl:/ser~_cl~ 20 inc.
k ~ - aY, 2'/2# ~ m N P L p&nel ab 150fl;/se.c
C~
NPL panel /"150
. . . f~/sec
. \ I I

0.00~0
\V ° "7.. ' I

0.0020
o

0 ~'47X,~ I I
IO0 200 C xlO 6 300 ~ ".
"~'.j ~ . ~ = ~ Approxfrnalce ~deal"
I ~ -'~'.-~.~
~ ~ ~ ~ pump drag q:~ef'f.
/7 . . . . L_
0.0010 ".
holes %,
"h~\ NPL 0.065
N holes
HP 3&nel 5 ~ " N
N
X\
0.0020
x
F ~ . 22b. Variation of wake-drag and pump-drag
coefficients with suction on H.P. panel 3.

5 s~.rip p.a.nel " '" /H.P, panel 5

i0.031
~ ."-dla'r-'-h~le5 ~
lS~-ip I + " __~ ~ •]
.B-- Strip 2 o - -- / / / . o ~I~
s~r p ~ v / "--/--s~r,p [ ,,'~
i , t l-.---Stri p 2 / I
O.OBS'ln. dia hotes ' - - tr 5 /

Srip2 ,/ / / // I
6
' H_.~.pane-'
P 5 / / / .,i/ _ NPL
/ ~ paneh
- /,
OH Scr,p i x /
/ / //f sb'ips with
S~rip2 e ~ /~ ¢ I i O-O51in.dietholes
se~ip 5 ,, ,~ / ~/' /- /
_-- For full de~ails,see / / / / /
Co
4 // / ,~/ / NPL panel:-
// / / i ~ p ~ ,,,~Lh
// / /~" / 0.065 in.dia holes

__-.~-~..~.'r"-zk-~--°-&"~---- loss oF head

!
Approxi~m~te loss of head
in bounda.rl.J layer

0 100 Ca xlO 6 (per strip) 200

FIc. 23. Variation with suction of the losses in the pumping

system for various perforation arrangements.

P R I N T E D I N GREAT BRITAIN
J4389 Wt.52/8943 I<7 2/58 D&Co. 341263
30
 R. & M. No. 3083

Publications of the
Aeronautical Research Council

ANNUAL TECHNICAL R E P O R T S OF T H E AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

(BOUND VOLUMES)
1939 Vol. I. Aerodynamics General, Performance, Airscrews, Engines. 5os. (52s.)
Vol. II. Stability and Control, Flutter and Vibration, Instruments, Structures, Seaplanes, etc.
63 s. (65s.)
I94oAero and Hydrodbmamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews, Engines, Flutter, Icing, Stability and Control,
Structures, and a miscellaneous section. 5os. (52s.)
1941 Acre and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews, Engines, Flutter, Stability and Control, Structures.
63 s. (65s.)
I942 Vet. I. Acre and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews, Engines. 75 s. (77s.)
Vo]. II. Noise, Parachutes, Stability and Control, Structures, Vibration, Wind Tunnels. 47s. 6d.
(49 s. 6d.)
1943 Vol. I. Aerodynamics, Aerofoils, Airscrews. 8os. (82s.)
Vol. II. Engines, Flutter, Materials, Paractmtes, Performance, Stability and Control, Structures.
9os. (92s. 9d.)
1944 Vol. I. Acre and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils, Aircraft, Airscrews, Controls. 84 s. (86s. 6d.)
Vol. II. Flutter and Vibration, Materials, Miscellaneous, Navigation, Parachutes, Performance,
Plates and Panels, Stability, Structures, Test Equipment, Wind Tunnels. 84s. (86s. 6d.)
1945 Vol. I. Acre and Hydrodynamics, Aerofoils. I3OS. (I32S. 9d.)
Vol. II. Aircraft, Airscrews, Controls. I3OS. (I32S. 9d.)
Vo].III. Flutter and Vibration, Instruments, Miscellaneous, Parachutes, Plates mad Panels,
Propulsion. I3OS (I32S. 6d.)
Vol. IV. Stability, Structures, Wind tunnels, Wind Tunnel Technique. I3OS. (I32S. 6d.)
ANNUAL REPORTS OF~THE AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH C O U N C I L - -
1937 2s. (2s. 2d.) 1938 is. 6d. (IS. 8d.) 1939-48 3s; (3s. 5d.)
INDEX T O ALL REPORTS AND MEMORANDA PUBLISHED IN T H E ANNVAL TECHNICAL
REPORTS, AND SEPARATELY--
April, 195o . . . . . R. & M. No. 2600. 2s. 6d. (2s. Iod.)
AUTHOR INDEX T O A L L REPORTS AND MEMORANDA OF T H E AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL--
I9O9-January, 1954 - - - R. & M. No. 2570. i5 s. (i5 s. 8d.)
INDEXES TO T H E TECHNICAL REPORTS OF T H E AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL---
December I, 1 9 3 6 - June 3o, 1939. R. & M.
No. 185o. IS. 3d. (IS. 5d.)
July I, 1 9 3 9 - June 3o, 1945. - R. & M.
No. 195o. IS. (IS. 2d.)
July I, 1945 - - June 30, I946. - R. & M.
No. 2050. IS. (IS. 2d.)
July I, 1946 - - December 31, 1946. R. & M.
No. 215o. IS. 3d. (IS. 5d.)
January I, 1947 - - June 30, 1947. - R. & M. No. 225o. IS. 3d. (IS. 5d.)
PUBLISHED REPORTS AND MEMORANDA OF T H E AERONAUTICAL RESEARCH C O U N C I L - -
Between Nos. 2251-2349. - - R. & M. No. 2350. IS. 9 d. (IS. IId.)
Between Nos. 2351-2449. - - R. & l~. No. 2450. 2s. (2s. 2d.)
Between Nos. 2451-2549. -, - R. & M. No. 2550. 2s. 6d. (2s. Iod.)
Between Nos. 2551-2649. - - R. & M. No. 2650. 2s. 6d. (2s. IOd.)
Between Nos. 2651-2749. - - R. & M. No. 5750. 2s. 6d. (2s. Iod.)
Prices in brackets include postage

HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE

York House, Kingsway, London W.C.2; 423 Oxford Street, London W.l ;
13a Castle Street, Edinburgh 2; 39 King Street, Manchester 2; 2 Edmund Street, Birmingham 3; 109 St. Mary Street,
Cardiff; Tower Lane, Bristol 1 ; 80 Chiehester Street, Belfast, or through any boolcseller

S.O. Code No. 23-3083

R. & M. No. 3083